No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/07/28 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY JULY 28, 1999 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman McNiel _ Vice Chairman Macias _ Corn. Mannedno __ Com. Stewart B Corn. Tolstoy __ II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items as 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 VICTORIA STREET - WOODSIDE HOMES - A request to vacate the southerly portion of Victoda Street west of Etiwanda Avenue fronting Tentative Tract 15915 APN: 207-101-04. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-16 - CENTE× HOMES - A review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14379, consisting of 35 single family lots on 13.48 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the northeast corner of Etiwanda and Wilson Avenues - APN: 225-451-01 through 35. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wa it to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. A~ such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each prejecL Please sign in after speaking. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 - BARRATT AMERICAN - The design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for previously recorded Tract 13316, consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very-Low Residential Distdct (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrari Court - APN: 1074-061-15 through 27, 1074-041-08 through 21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074-461-04 through 21, 1074-601-01 through 14, 1074-611-01 through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074-051-09 through 16. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. (Continued from July 14, 1999) D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14162 - FAN - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map, including design review, for the development of 17 single family lots on 4.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of 19th Street at the western Cil:y limit - APN: 202-021-37. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. E. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 99-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to re:quire wireless communication providers to install facilities that would not interfere with the City's 800 MHz public safety radio communications system. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-13 .- FOOTHILL PROPERTIES, LLC - A request for a time extension of a previously approved master plan for a retail shopping center consisting of design review for 116,394 square feet of leasable space on 11.75 acres of land under the Community Commercial designation of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 7), located between .';pruce and Elm Avenues on the south side of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-352-63 through 69. Related file: Tentative Parcel Map 15044. A Negative Declaration was adopted for this project in August of 1997. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Page 2 · G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15044 - FOOTHILL PROPERTIES, LLC - A request for a time extension for a previously approved Parcel Map for the subdivision of 11.75acres of land into 11 parcels in the Community Commercial designation of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 7), located between Spruce and Elm Avenues on the south side of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-352-63 through 69. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 97-13. A Negative Declaration was adopted for this project in August of 1997. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. H. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-27- FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - A design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved Tentative Tract Map 15540 consisting of 159 single family lots on 24.56 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and Development Code, located between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route, west of the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel - APN: 207-211-01, 18 through 21, 31, 32 and 34. Related files: Variance 99-06, Tentative Tract 15540, and Tree Removal Application 93-04. I. VARIANCE 99-06 - FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP- A request to reduce the minimum building separations from 15 to 10 feet, the minimum building-to-curb setbacks from 15 to 8 feet, and the required common open space area percentage from 35 percent to approximately 10 percent of the total project area for the proposed residential subdivision of 159 single family lots on 24.56 acresof land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and Development Code, located between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route, west of the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel - APN: 207-211-01, 18 through 21, 31, 32 and 34. Related files: Tentative Tract 15540, Development Review 99-27, and Tree Removal Application 93-04. VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to addrass the Commission. Items to be discussed hera are those which do not already appear on this agenda. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS J. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROGRESS - Oral report Page 3 VIII. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p. m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they sha~ be heard only with the consent of the Commission. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ADJOURN TO A WORKSHOP IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING IN THE RAINS ROOM TO HA VE A QUARTERL Y DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE.: PROJECTS. I, Gaff 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 July 22, 1999, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 5~1964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. ~ ~ Page 4 VICINITY MAP CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 28, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Maria E. Perez, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: VACATION OF A PORTION OF VICTORIA STREET - WOODSIDE HOMES - A REQUEST TO VACATE THE SOUTHERLY PORTION OF VICTORIA STREET WEST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE FRONTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15915 - APN 207-101-04 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: On January 27, 1999 the Planning Commission conditionally approved Tentative Tract 15915. A condition of approval of the tentative map required the developer to vacate the south half of Victoria Street fronting the proposed tract. The northerly 20' of the south half of the street will be designed as an extension of a pedestrian access through the Victoria CommUnity. The soulhefty 1Y will be incorporated into the Tract as a portion of the private equestrian trail. The utility companies have been notified of the vacation and have requested a 20' wide public utility easement be reserved across the 3Y wide arch.to be vacated. The northerly 20' will be reserved as a public utility easement. A lettered lot for pedestrian access over the public utilities easement shall be dedicated to the City on the final map. The north half of Victoria Street will be addressed at the time the vacant property north of Tract 15915 develops. ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT V-164 - WOODSIDE HOMES July 28, 1999 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Comrnission make the finding, through minute action, that the vacation conforms with the General Plan. This finding will be forwarded to the City Council for further processing and final approval. Respectfully submitted, Dan James Senior Civil Engineer DJ:MEP Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B"- Vacation Exhibit . , .-, :., -. , .... ili::_, , : ....... ;!'., ~,, \:. L -- ' ' .............. ,V1CTORIASTREE'F , , i "',.: . 'm '.. ! !.L_I '.~ i:-i , ,'-/-.', --*- ~-, I 0 !,'. ~ ; .'.'~:i: ~,: :'~:: ~ . ' ' ' '/.'.".'*'.":-'.';.'.' " > ',", ' :',, . .:', :' '.,,,,, ,, . / , . . .... : ',. ,'. , %' ,,. , ; ,, : : ~ : <I: ; " ... ':, ~ :1'--' · : ': : ...... . ,'. ,~ ,,:;: ,: : . ::, i ' .. . . ~ ~ ..... ] i::" ..: :,' . '. .".',.' .- . .'f ': : [ I . ,.. --T:BA~ ',E LINE ROAD"' ---:: ....... CITY OF rrEM: V-164 RANCH0 CUCA1VIONGA TrrLE: Vicinity Map INGINEERING DMSION EXHIBIT:"A" SOUTHERLy LINt: LOT 15 ~ ~ COLONY L,~DS M.B. 2/24 ~ TORIA , N8~59'391 STeEET ~o' f Z VlC > ~ ~ NO~LY UNE ~ 2 ~Y ~S ~T 2 -- /W ~ z B~ 'J'. ~DA B~ 'J', ~A B~ 'J* ~DA Q h CO~ ~DS l.B. 2/24 CO~ ~DS M.B. 2/24 CO~ '~DS M B 2/24 " ,~ CITY OF ~ ITEM: V-164 RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: Victoria Street ENGINEERING DIVISION Vacation EXHIBIT: "B' CITY OI: RANCFIO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 28, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-16 - CENTEX HOMES - A review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14379, consisting of 35 single family lots on 13.48 acres of land in the Low Residential district (24 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the northeast corner of Etiwanda and Wilson Avenues - APN: 225451 - 01 through 35. SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site is located on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Wilson Avenue. Tract 14139 is located to the north and Tract 12659 is located to the south (both of these tracts were developed by Centex Homes). Master Craft Homes is currently building homes on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue. The project site is currently vacant and was rough graded several years ago. ANALYSIS: A. Backqround: On September 28, 1988, the Planning Commission approved Tract 13527 for the subdivision of 88 acres into 252 single family lots. Prior to tract recordation and design review, Tract 13527 was broken down into smaller tracts of which the subject tract is a part. Tract 14379 has been recorded. B. General: Four home plans are proposed. Plan 1 is a single story and Plan~2 through 4 are two-story homes. They range in size from 2,276 to 3,491 square feet. The four floor plans have three elevations each, which are designed to reflect the architectural styles of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan; Ranch style - Elevation A, Monterey style-Elevation B, and San Juan style - Elevation C. The intersection of Wilson and Etiwanda Avenues is designated as a Neighborhood Entry per the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, which has special design criteria. C. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Stewart, Tolstoy, Henderson) on June 1, 1999 and the Design ReviewCommittee requested significant design revisions to the project. The revised project was subsequently reviewed by the Design Review Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Henderson) on June 15, 1999 and the Committee requested further design enhancement of the single story home plan. The project was again reviewed by the Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Fong) on July 20, 1999 at which time the Committee recommended approval. Please refer to the attached Design Review Action Agendas for further details. ITEH B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 99-16 - Centex Homes July 28, 1999 Page 2 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING: Due to the infill nature of the proposed project, the developer conducted a neighborhood meeting inviting existing homeowners in the area. The meeting was held on July19, 1999 in the Rains Room. Three individuals artended the meeting; a couple living in the existing Master Craft project to the 'west and an interested home buyer who lives outside the City. The couple living in the Master Craft project (southwest corner of North Overlook Drive and Etiwanda Avenue) expressed concern about the two story home on lot 11 blocking their view. Note that the City does not ha~,e a view preservation ordinance. Furthermore, the home on Lot t I is plotted approximately 14 feet lower than the couple's home. While the two story home will be visible from the north, it will not significantly block a view of the valley. The interested home buyer said that the one story home design appeared "blah" and requested more brick/stone work and use of french doors to exit to the rear yard. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The applicant prepared Part I of the Environmental Checklist. Staff completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and found that certain environmental conditions have changed since the original project approval. The project site is located in an area identified as potential habitat for endangered or threatened species. A habitat survey was required to determine quality of on site habitat, presence of threatened or endangered species, and potential impacts, particularly to the federally-listsd threatened California gnatcatcher (CAGN) and the endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR). The results of the survey indicate that the site does not contain habitat for these species nor is the site occupied by either of the two species. Since the species are not likely to occur on the site, further development of the site would not have a negative impact on the species. Based upon this information, the proposed development will not result in adverse effects to endangered or threatened species or their habitat_. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review 99-16 through adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:TG:Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Grading Plan Exhibit "D" - Landscape Plan Floor Plans Exhibit "E" - Floor Plans Exhibit "F" - Elevations Exhibit G" - Design Review Committee Action Exhibit "H" - Initial Study Resolution of Approval TRACT MAP NO. 14379 ~ 3 BEDROOM / DEN / 2 BATH 3 CAR C;ARAC,[ PLAN 1 - 2276 ,SQ. FT. Ba~.OOM / LC~T * '1/2 BATH 3CAR GARaGE PLAN 2 - 3041 SO. FT. 4 I].cJ:)ROOM / BONUS DEN / 3 BATH 3CAR. GA~GI~ PLAN 3 - 3419 SQ. FT. 4 B~DROOM ! TEN ROOM m,~ / ~ ~/~ .^~ PLAN 4 - 3504 SQ. FT. :,:!; ,,..,,!,, :.;,;/:' ~"o. PLAN 1A - 2276 SQ. FT. RANCH PLAN 1B - 2276 SQ. FT. MONTI REY ..... · ~ ~.. ~ / / ~ / ~,. ~o~ PLAN ~C - 2276 S~, FT. SAN JUAN o ,__ GHT ,.,,_ _: :: _':.'2::. , ........... ', , ,,.oo0 corm : I ..v e- ~ ~ LEFT : Im[ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ .. ...... PLAN 2A - 3041 SQ. FT. RANCH ~, ~. c~v m LEFT .... '~~~ :::.~:: ...... ~~~ ~'~ ~.' REAR ~ o. ] FRONT PLAN 2B - 3041 S~. FT. MONTEREY ~ CC~,~:~T~ 'S' TLE Y.OPt. t~CX , J!__ RIGHT , w 6' ~v ~ LEFT "~ REAR '~ c~ ,.~ ~J~ FRONT"' PLAN 2C - 3041 SQ. FT. SAN JUAN -'-- .,[ ~ ' t' ::: '::F: :: \ z. RIGHT ~1 C(,hCR.[T[ fiAT TIJE Z. FENCE I ~'~ ~ :;~ ;, " ~ . ... v s~co st~ c~ m~ LEFT ,., . , , ','.' ~.,.~._... ~., PLAN ]A - 3419 Sq. FT, RANCH ":*'L, z ....... ~ RIGHT ' . LEFT PLAN 3B - 3419 SQ. FT. MONTEREY ~ ~ ' ~' B RIGHT · CONOLrIE RAT rLE Z. Frd~'CE C. S~CO ~ ,,.~ ~ ~q ....... : v s~co s~ c~ -~ LEFT ::~ - : -~ ~: ~ -, ~ ?-~ .... PLAN 3C - 3419 Sq. FT. SAN JUAN ~ ~'~o°~,~,~''''' :,, }~,.: F. S~CCO COtU~N "~'~' ~1 '' ""'~"' ' 8B~ ~~' ~ ~' ~ ~ LEFT · _ .......;_..,'~ -.. 2:;~} _.,: ,... c REAR Y. ~ / c ~J FR PLAN 4A - 3504 SQ. FT. RANCH RIGHT "' .................. .-gE' " · " f?'~ ~ , . ..Z ..~ PLAN 4B - 3504 SQ. FT. MONTEREY " "' o.~ PLAN 4C - 3504 SO. SAN JUAN DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Brent Le Count June 1, 1999 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-03 - CENTEX HOMES - A review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14379, consisting of 35 single family lots on 13.48 acres of land in the Low Residential district (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Nodh Specific Plan, located on the northeast corner of Etiwanda and Wilson Avenues - APN: 225-451-01 through 35. Desiqn Parameters: The project site was initially approved as Tract 13527 which provided for the subdivision or 88 acres into 252 single family lots. Prior to Tract recordation and design review, Tract 13527 was broken down into smaller Tracts (e.g., Tracts 13527, 14379, 14380, 14381, and 14382). Tracts 14379 has been recorded. The proposed architecture is based upon homes approved and built within Tract 12659 (Etiwanda Estates) located on the west side or Etiwanda Avenue, south of the subject site. The home designs are similar to those recently approved for Mastercraft Homes (Tract 14380) on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, in terms of use of materials and basic massing. However, the side and rear elevations of the proposed homes do not have the same level of window treatment (enhanced trim, shutters, divided light), balconies, or decorative trim approved for the Mastercraft homes (see attached examples). Four home plans are proposed - Plan 1 is a single story and Plans 2 through 4 are two-stories, ranging in size from 2,276 square feet to 3,491 square feet. The four floor plans have three elevations each designed to reflect the architectural styles of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan; Elevation A - Ranch, Elevation B - Monterey, and Elevation C o San Juan. The intersection of Wilson and Etiwanda Avenues is designated as a Neighborhood Entry per the Etiwanda North Specific Plan which has special design criteria. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Coi~mittee discussion. Major Issues: There are no design issues associated with the current development application: 1. Upgrade side and rear elevations to include enhanced window treatment (decorative trim. shutters, divided light), balconies, decorative trim features, cornice details, used on front elevations. 2. Provide greater variation/distinction between Ranch, Monterey, and San Juan architectural styles for all home plans, especially on side and rear elevations. 3. The Neighborhood Entry treatment at the corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue should be designed to match as closely as possible the latest preferred design for the opposite side of Etiwanda Avenue to be developed by Master Craft Homes. This would mainly involve revising wall design to provide greater change of plane dimensions. See attached plan excerpts. The applicant is strongly encouraged to work with Master Craft Homes to develop a coordinated design for the Neighborhood Entry. Secondary Issues: Once all the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary issues: 1. Reorient homes on wedge shaped lots to be parallel to a property line to provide more useable side and rear yard area and variation in street scape. 2. Retaining walls shall not exceed a height of 3 feet within front yard areas visible from surrounding streets and 4 feet elsewhere. DRC COMMENTS DR 99-03- CENTEX June 1. 1999 Page 2 3. Wood fencing may be used to separate side and rear yard areas behind front return walls only where the fencing will not be visible from surrounding streets. Those at top of slope and any other area visible from surrounding streets shall be decorative masonry or wrought iron with pilasters. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and brought back for further review. Attachments Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Pare Stewart, Peter Tolstoy, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee (Stewart, Tolstoy, Henderson) reviewed the project and requested that the project be redesigned in light of staffs comments and the following additional comments and be brought back for further review. The applicant agreed to revise the project design accordingly: 1. Upgrading of side and rear elevations should include increased pop-outJchange of plane dimensions. 2. Provide a Plan 1 home on Lot 10 and Lot 24. 3. Return wall gates facing streets shall be wrought iron or other decorative material other than wood. 4. The applicant shall work with Master Craft Homes to develop a coordinated Neighborhood Entry design. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:50 p.m. Brent Le Count June 15, 1999 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-03 - CENTEX HOMES - A review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14379, consisting of 35 single family lots on 13.48 acres or land in the Low Residential district (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the northeast corner of Etiwanda and Wilson Avenues - APN: 225-451-01 through 35. PLANS AND COMMENTS FOR THE ABOVE PROJECT WILL BE PRESENTED AT THE MEETING, Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee reviewed revised plans based upon comments from the June 1, 1999 Design Review Committee meeting. The Committee accepted the two-story home designs (Plans 2 thru 4) but had the following Comments: 1. At least 20 percent of two-story homes shall have balconies on the rear elevation. These shall be located along Ihe south and west project perimeter where rear elevations of two- story homes are visible from Wilson and Etiwanda Avenues. 2. The single story home plan (Plan 1 ) is overly boxy and does not have enough variation between the three styles (Ranch. Monterey, San Juan). a, Provide clipped gables for the Monterey plan. b. Raise height of s~ucco wainscoting on the San Juan Io the mid point of the large window and fur out wainscoting. c. Add decorative wall feature to right of main window on front elevation 8_f Ranch plan. d. Use decorative trim cap for Ranch plan stone wainscoting, e. decorative porch railing/pilasters for front of Ranch plan. f. Add decorative buttress on left side of front elevation of San Juan plan. 3. Return walls between homes shall be stuccoed and colored to match Ihe homes. Color changes shall occur at interior corners where walls jog at properly lines. 4. Rear yard fencing visible from pubtic streets, whether interior or perimeter, shall be decorative masonry or wrought iron instead of wood. 5. The Committee may be open to allowing wood gates facing streets if it can be demonstrated that they will be visually attractive. Provide design sketches/photographs accordingly. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Brent LeCount July 20, 1999 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-16 - CENTEX HOMES: A review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14379, consisting of 35 single family lots on 13.48 acres of land in the Low Residential district (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the northeast corner of Etiwanda and Wilson Avenues - APN: 25-241-01 through 35. Backqround: The Committee has previously reviewed this project on June 1 and 15, 1999. Previously the Committee has accepted the proposed design of the two-story plans with added conditions which have been previously outlined. The focus of the review at this time is the single- story plan (Plan 2276) in response to cornments provided on June 15, 1999. Copies of the June 15, 1999 Design Review Committee Action, and a letter from the applicant are attached for reference. The applicant has provided a photograph of an existing home which contains similar roof line, building relief and shadow as the proposed Plan 2276. The photograph is not intended to portray any of the specific elevations proposed with this tract. Staff Comments: The staff comments provided for Committee consideration and discussion are based on the Design Review Committee Action on June 15, 1999. Variations to each of the three architectural styles - Ranch, Monterey, and San Juan - were suggested, The applicant will provide colored elevations responding to these comments at the meeting on July 20, 1999. Ranch 1. Add decorative wall feature to right of main window on front elevation of Ranch plan. The applicant has added stone veneer with a decorative niche to this wall in response to Committee comments, 2. Decorative porch railing/pilasters fcr front of Ranch plan, The applicant has added a stone pilaster and decorative wrought iron porch rail to the front of the elevation, 3. Use decorative trim cap for Ranch plan stone wainscoting. The applicant has proposed the use of a wood trim as a cap to the wainscoting as shown on the plans, Monterey 1. Provide clipped gables for the Monterey plan. The applicant has revised the plan as suggested. San Juan 1. Raise height of stucco wainscot on the San Juan plan to the mind point of the large window, and fur out wainscot. The wainscot detail has been modified based on Committee comments, 2. Add decorative buttress on the left side of the front elevation of the San Juan plan. The modifications to the San Juan plan has been modified to include the buttress element across the entire elevation. Finally, the Committee, discussed allowing wood gates facing the streets, if the design could rove to be visually attractive, The applicant will provide design sketches and/or photographs for Committee review and discussion. DRC COMMENTS DR 99-16 - CENTEX HOMES July 20, 1999 Page 2 Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee recommended approval subject to the following: 1. The wainscoting trim cap for Plan 1 Ranch style home shall be stuccoed over for durability. 2. At least 20 percent of homes shall have second story balconies. Balconies shall be located on homes along Wilson Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue. 3. Between home return walls shall be stuccoed on both sides with color matching the home on each lot. 4. Gates facing the street shall be decorative wrought iron instead of wood. City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Development Review 99-16 2. Related Files: Final Tract 14379 3. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-16 - CENTEX HOMES - A review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14379, consisting of 35 single family lots on 13.48 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the northeast corner of Etiwanda and Wilson Avenues - APN: 225-451-01 through 35. 4. Project Sponsor°s Name and Address: Armando Townsend Centex Homes 2280 Wardlow Circle, Suite 150 Corona, CA 91720 5. General Plan Designation: Low Residential 6. Zoning: Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre). Etiwanda North Specific Plan 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: North - Vacant South - Existing residential development East - Vacant West - Existing and under-construction single family homes (Mastercra~) 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-16 for 'IT 14379 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 (v') Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Sentices ( ) Population and Housing (v') Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Sentice Systems (V') Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (V') Aesthetics ( ) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation (v') Mandatory Findings of Significance 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. ( ) 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 IncoFp_orated." 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 Signed:mitigatiOn ~posed project. Brent Le Count, AICP Associate Planner June 24. 1999 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-16 for TT 14379 Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IIVlPACTS 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. 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) (~) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) (V) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Wou/d the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed o~cial regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) b) Induce substantial gro~h 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? ( ( ) ( ) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) (V) ( ) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) (V) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-16 forTT 14379 Page 4 c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) (V) ( ) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) 0 Erosion, cfianges in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) (V) ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) Comments: a) The subject tract is pa~ of a large, original "parent tract." Tract 13527. In completing the Environmental Checklist for the original subdivision in 1988, staff identified that the site may be subject to significant adverse impacts as a result of a location of the Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone for the Red Hill Fault which transverses the site from noaheast to southwest. The applicant had conducted a geologic investigation which located a fault trace along the east bounda~ of the project, in the area of proposed Bermuda Coud. ~th the fault trace being identified, a 50-foot building setback on either side of the fault was recorded on the final tract map (Tract 14379) to indicate locations where buildings could be safely constructed. With the setback included as pad of the subdivision, a Negative Declaration was issued for Tract 13527. The subject Development Review application is designed in conformance with the 50-foot building setbacks from the fault line. b) See "a" above. c) See "a" above. I 0 The site was rough graded by a previous home builder. The topography of the site will be fu~her altered to accommodate the proposed street improvements and residential buildings. Grading will be supeNised by a licensed soils engineer or registered geologist to ensure compliance with building code requirements. This impact is not considered to be significant. 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (V) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-16 for TT 14379 Page 5 b) Exposure of people or properly 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)? ( ) (V) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) 0 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? ( ) ( ) (V) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater othe~ise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) Comments: a) The absorption and runoff rates will be altered due to the hard scape proposed; however, drainage will be directed to facilities designed to handle the flows. The impact is not considered significant. 5. AIR QUALI~. Would the proposah a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( (V) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( (V) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) (V) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-16 for TT 14379 Page 6 Comments: a) The site has been rough graded and the short term effect of fine grading and construction activities on a 13-acre site is anticipated to be less than significant. Standard grading practice involves use of water for dust control during grading of the site. The South Coast Air Quality Management District's Air Quality Management Plan accounts for the existing land use designations in its programs. The proposed Development Review proposes construction of 35 single family homes consistent with the existing land use designation for the properly, Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. According to Table 6-2 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, dated November 1993, the threshold of single family homes that could cause a potential air quality impact is 166 homes. Furthermore, Table 6-3 of the same handbook establishes a construction threshold of 177 acres graded on a quarterly basis and 1,309,000 square feet of residential construction on a quarterly basis. The proposed 35 home project on 13.48 acres of land is well below these thresholds. Therefore, air quality impacts are not expected to be significant. 6. 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)? ( ) ( ) (V) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) (~/) Comments: a) The proposed development will result in the development of a total of 35 single family units which will generate additional passenger car and truck trips. The proposed density of development and its traffic impacts were factored into the design of the street system. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-16 for TT 14379 Page 7 .... '7:;:"' 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. ~uld 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.)? ( ) ( ) (~) ( ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) e) ~ld~ife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) Comments: a) The project site is located in an area identified as potential habitat for endangered or threatened species. The site has been rough graded and the vegetation cleared circa 1990; therefore, the potential for habitat is ve~ low. A habitat assessment was required to determine potential impacts, padicularly to the federally-listed threatened California Gnatcatcher (CAGN) and the endangered San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR). The habitat assessment was conducted by Natural Resource Consultants in June of 1999. The high level of site disturbance has added to the presence of non-native plants. No California Gnatcatchers, Kangaroo Rat or rat sign or any sensitive plant species were obse~ed. The species is not likely to occur on the site and furlher development of the site is not expected to have a negative impact on the species. No additional su~eys were recommended. c) See "a" above. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with adopted energy consedation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and ine~cient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-16 for TT 14379 Page 8 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 9. 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 creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fiammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) 10. NOISE. W/I/the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 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 following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-16 for TT 14379 Page 9 d) Maintenance of public facilities. including roads? ( ) ( ) ( e) Other governmental seaices? ( ) ( ) ( 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need 8r new .systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the follo~ving utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( } ( ) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ) ( ) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ) ( ) O Solid waste disposal? ( ) ) ( ) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposah a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) (v) c) Create light or glare? ( Comments: c) New light and glare impacts will be created with the residential development of the vacant site. The residential development and associated street lights will be checked to ensure compliance with City policies relative to avoiding the casting of excess light and glare onto adjacent pmpedies. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-16 for TT 14379 Page 10 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah a) Disturb paleontotogical resources? ( ) ( ) ( (~) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( (~) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (Y) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) 15. RECREATION. Would the proposah a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) 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 impo~ant examples of the major periods of California histo~ or prehisto~? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) -Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-16 forTT 14379 Page 11 b) Sho~ term: Does the project have the potential to achieve sho~-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A shod-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? ("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.) ( ) ( ) (¢) ( ) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) Comments: c) Adoption of the proposed project will not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The proposed project will pay development impact fees established by the City, the rates of which have been designed to mitigate the potential impacts to fire protection se~ices, police protection se~ices, parks or other recreational facilities, and other governmental se~ices to a level of non-significance. To the e~ent, the project may impact upon utility resources provided by private utility companies, potential impacts upon such resources will be mitigated~y the payment of rates and charges to these companies. 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 o~ces, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (V) General Plan EIR (Cedified April 6, 1981 ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-16 for 'IT 14379 Page 12 (v')Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115. certified January 4, 1989) (v') Etiwanda Nodh Specific Plan EIR (SCH #89012314, cedified April 1, 1992) 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.: Development Review 99-16 Public Review Period Closes: July 28, 1999 Project Name: Project Applicant: Centex Homes Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the northeast corner of Etiwanda and Wilson Avenues - APN: 225-451~01 through 35. Project Description: AreviewofthedetailedsiteplanandbuildingelevationsforTract14379, consisting of 35 single family lots on 13.48 acres of land in the Low Residential Distdct (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to detern~ine 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 signil~cant 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) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. July 28, 1999 Date of Determination Ad~eTL~y~ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-16 FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR TRACT 14379 CONSISTING OF 35 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, LOCATED EAST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE AND NORTH OF WILSON AVENUE IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 225-451- 01 THROUGH 35 A. Recitals. 1. Centex Homes has filed an application for Development Review 99-16 for Tract No. 14379, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On July 28, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part "A," of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on July 28, 1999, including written and oral staff.reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; b. That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code, the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; c. That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan; and d. That the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. Based upon the 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 fo,,ows: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99-16 - CENTEX HOMES July 28, 1999 Page 2 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 753.5(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 the substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the inforrnation 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-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planninq Division: 1) All applicable conditions of approval of Tentative Tract 13527, as stated in Planning Commission Resolutions 88-200 and 88-200A and as stated in Planning Commission Resolution 91-145 shall apply. 2) Avoid having combined retaining walls with fence walls above. Provide minimum 3-foot wide terrace between walls with landscaping. 3) Revise driveway profiles for Lots I and 3 to eliminate narrow strips of 15% grade to provide smoother profile. 4) Provide wrought iron fencing or a combination of decorative masonry with wrought iron fencing above at the end of the Bahama Coud cul- de-sac between return walls on Lots 24 and 25. 5) Provide a minimum useable rear yard depth of 15 feet for all homes. 6) The design of the landscaping and walls at the neighborhood entry at the corner of Wilson Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue shall match that across the street being installed by Mastercraft Homes as much as possible in terms of wall height, alignment, materials, and plant materials. 7) At least 20 percent of homes shall have second story balconies on the rear elevation. These shall be located along the south and west project perimeter where rE;at elevations of two-story homes are visible from Wilson and Etiwanda Avenues. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99-16 - CENTEX HOMES July 28, 1999 Page 3 8) Return walls between homes shall be stuccoed on both sides and colored to match the homes. Color changes shall occur at interior corners where walls jog at property lines. 9) Rear yard fencing visible from public streets, whether interior or perimeter, shall be decorative masonry or wrought iron instead of wood. 10) Gates facing the street shall be decorative wrought iron instead of wood. 11 ) Retaining walls shall not exceed a height of 3 feet within front yard areas visible from surrounding streets and 4 feet elsewhere. 12) Use stucco over trim for wainscoting cap for Plan I ranch style home. Enqineerinq Division: 1) All applicable conditions of approval of Tentative Tract 13527, as stated in Planning Commission Resolutions 88-200 and 88-200A and as stated in Planning Commission Resolution 91-145 shall apply. 2) The developer shall complete all frontage improvements, including the Wilson Avenue median and the Community Trail along the east project boundary. Since the public improvement plans are more than a year old, they will need to be rechecked for consistency with current City Standards and the Landscape Maintenance District plans shall be updated in line with present policies. 3) Provide gated maintenance vehicle access to Community Trail from Etiwanda Avenue as well as Wilson Avenue. 4) The lots backing onto the Community Trail along the east tract boundary are draining to a cross lot drainage facility located outside the perimeter block wall. Plans submitted for grading permit plan check shall provide details to show how lot runoff will get though said wall. Also. include a detail to show how sump overflows within the storm drain easement on Lot 33 will pass through the perimeter wall to Wilson Avenue. Fire Prevention: 1) All homes shall be protected with fire sprinklers to the satisfaction of the Fire Prevention/New Construction Unit. 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall cedify the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTI(::)N NO. DR 99-16 - CENTEX HOMES July 28, 1999 Page 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF JULY 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. -McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby cedify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of July 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: Development Review 99-16 SUBJECT: Residential Design REview APPLICANT: Centex Homes LOCATION: NEC Wilson Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue 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 Completion Dale 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. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner'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. Time Limits 1. Conditional Use Permit, Variance, or Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval No extensions are allowed. C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. sc .~4~ 1 Project No Completion Date 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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 approwll in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. The Covenants, Conditions. and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall not prohibit the keeping the equine / / animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors of homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&Rs. 8. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) 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 Januar7 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 9. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the.property owner. homeowners' association, or other rneans 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. 10. 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. 11. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each support post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two %-inch lag bolts, to withstand high winds. Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall extend at least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade. 12. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. 13. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-fi}ot setback between waits/fences and sidewalk. Pn0ject NO. Comptetlon Date 14. For residential development, return walls. corner side walls, and walls visible from the street shall be decorative masonry. 15. For residential development, recreation area/facility shall be provided as required by the Development Code. 16. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be reap river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. D. Building Design 1. All dwellings shall have the front. side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment, detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 2.Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowner's Association shall be submitted for City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 3. 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. E. Landscaping 1. 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. 2. All private slopes of 5 feet or more 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. 3. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 c;cgreater 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. 4. For single famity residential development, all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 5. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code and/or the Etiwanda Specific Plan. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. Project NO Completion Date 6. 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. 7. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required at the corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue per the neighborhood entry requirements of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. 8.All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 9. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. F. Environmental 1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 2. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the fault trace at the northeast corner of the site, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: G. General Requirements 1. Submit four complete sets of plans including the following: a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors. panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g. Planning Division Project Number (i.~;., 'FF #, CUP #, DR #, etc.) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. Project NO Completion Date 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. __/__ __ Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. / 4. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to the City prior to permit issuance. H. Site Development 1. 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 permit application. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to __/___ existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official. after tract/parcel map recordation and / prior to issuance of building permits. 4. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits. 5. 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 or holidays. I. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances cor~sidering use, area, and fire-resistiveness. 2. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. 3. Roofing materials shall be Class "A." J. Grading 1. 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. 2.A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. Project NO Completion Date 4. The ~nal grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of buiiding permits. __/__ __ 5. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for __/___ existing buildings where improvements being proposed wilt generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill The Grading Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California Registered Civil Engineer. / APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: K. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. The developer shaft commence, padicipate in, and consummate or cause to be Commenced, padicipated in, Or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (C FD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. 2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,000 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 hydrants Shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 3. Fire hydrants are required. A;t required public or on-site fire hydrants shaft be installed, flushed, and operahie 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for aU hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 7. Roadways within project shall Comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. 8. $132.00 Fire District fee(s), and a $1 per' "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District prior to Building and Safety permit issuance. *' A Fire District fee in the amount of $132.00 shall be paid at the time of Water Plan submittal. Project NO Completion Date "Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers. hood systems, alarms. etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 9. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 URC, UFC, / / UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. sc -~4,s9 7 City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: Development Review 98-10 This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above-lisled project. This program has been prepared in compliance with State law ~o ensure that adopted mitigation measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code). Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements: 1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project. 2. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. 3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program. Program Management - The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project planner, assigned by the City Planner, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department. Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1. A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant. 2. An MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significanl impact and its corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting documentation will be kept in the project file with the department having the original authority for processing the project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following address: City of Rancho Cucamonga - Lead Agency Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 c.. Mitigation Monitoring Program Development Review 98-10 Page 2 3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staffs is needed, as determined by the project planner or responsible City department, to monitor specific mitigation activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the project planner. 4. The project planner or responsible City depadment will approve, by signature and date, the completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of development. 5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP Reporting Form. 6. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions. An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City department and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel. 7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after written notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the authority t0 hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented. 8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department. The Department shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of guarantee) with the City. These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the :required period of time. 9. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of building permits. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: Development Review 98-10 SUBJECT: New Sin,~le Family Homes APPLICANT: Bartart American LOCATION: E/S Archibald Avenue. N/O Cartart 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 Completion Olle 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 Csty. 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. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter or 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, Time Limits 1. Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the dale of approval. No extensions are allowed. C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations. exterior materials and colors. landscaping. sign program. and grading on fire in the Planning Division. the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations. 2. 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, Project NO. DR ~l~{_ I 0 Completion Date 3. 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. 4. Approval of this request shall not waive cempliance 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. 5. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be Focated 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. 6. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall not prohibit the keeping the equine animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors of homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&R's. 7. 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. 8. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. 9. 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 effod 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 projecrs perimeter. 10. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each support post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two '/z-inch lag bolts, to withstand high winds. Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall extend at least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade. 11. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. 12. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. 13. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. 14. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. D. Building Design 1. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rt;ar elevations upgraded with architectural treatment, detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. sc .4119n9~ 2 2. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowner's Association shall be submitted for City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. E. Landscaping 1. 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. 2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. 3. A minimum of 30% of trees in front yards shall be - 24- inch box or larger. 4. A~~privatesl~pes~f5feet~rm~reinvertica~heightand~f5:1~rgreaters~~pe~but~essthan2:1 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. 5. 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. 6. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 7. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 8. 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. 9. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock. specimen size trees. meandering sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required within and around the basin slopes and spillway. 10. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas. the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. Project NO, Dt~ ~g- [ O Completion Date 11. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth I characteristics of the selected tree speciE;s. 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. Environmental 1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault. in a standard format as determined by the City Planner. prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 2. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall 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, G. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal :Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential dev~Jopments 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: H, Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project file number (i.e., DR 98-10). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code. National Electric Code, Tit~e 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. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay devE;Iopment 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 Ran Checking Fees, and School Fees. SC - 4/19/g9 4 Project NO, DR 9S* 10 Completion Oate 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and __ __/ prior to issuance of building permits. 4. 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. I. New Structures 1. Roofing material shall be installed as for wind-resistant roof covering at wind velocity not less / than 90 mph. J. Grading 1. 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. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. A final 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. 5. In hillside areas, residential developments shall be graded and constructed consistent with the standards contained in the Hillside Development Regulations Section 17.24.070. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACTTHE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: K. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets. community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, 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 reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 2. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. L, Street Improvements 1. 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 ~imited 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 Almond Street and Almond Court. 3. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: SC, 4119/99 5 Archibald Ave. Carrari Court Almond Street / ,/ ,/ e ,/ ,/ Almond Coud v' 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. (e) Maintenance vehicle access to Community Trail. 4. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. 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 the issuance of grading permits. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from lhe City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping. marking, traffic signing. street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. 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 apad, 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. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f+ Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. 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. g. 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. / / 5. 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. 6. 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. M. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: Basin, Archibald Avenue, Carrari Street, Almond Street except Lot 30 and the interior Community Trail. 2. Public landscape areas are required to incorporate substantial areas (40%) of mortared cobble or other acceptable non-irrigated surfaces. 3.All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. 4. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautification Master Plan: Archibald Avenue. N. Drainage 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. 2. It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone A designation removed from the project area. The developers engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans, and hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from F EMA prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first. 3. A permit from the San Bemardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way. O. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 3. Water and sewer plans shall be design~;d 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. P. General Requirements and Approvals 1. 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. 2. Prior to flnalization 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. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Q, General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. 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 CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. 2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1250 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. For the purpose of final acceptance. an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the buildeddeveloper and witnessed by fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed. and operable prior to delivery of any comb,jstible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials. etc.). Hydrants flushing shall hi; witnessed by fire department personnel. 4. 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. 5. 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. ProlectNo. DRcJ,~-tO Completion Date 6. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 7. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: a. All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. 8. 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. 9.$132.00 Fire District fee(s), and a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District prior to Building and Safety permit issuance." A Fire District fee in the amount of $13200 shall be paid at the time of Water Plan submittal. "Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 10. Project is located in a high fire hazard area and is subject to special wildland/urban interface hazard mitigation requirements. Such requirements may include requirements related to vegetation management plans, special construction enhancements, emergency access, water supply, automatic fire extinguishing systems, and other special requirements. A SEPARATE SET OF PLANS IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMI'FI'ED DIRECTLY TO THE FIRE PREVENTION NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT AT TIME OF PLAN SUBMITTAL TO BUILDING AND SAFETY. Contact the Fire Prevention New Construction Unit located in the Building and Safety Division. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: R. Security Hardware 1. A secondan/locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. 2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows 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 secondan/locking devices. S. Windows 1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondan/locking devices and should not be able to be lifted from frame or track in any manner. T. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. RiCEIVED: 7-28-99; 11;18; 76Q 918 0638 => R CUCAMONGA COM OEV; #2 United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Fx:ological Services Cadsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2730 Loker Avenue W~st Cm'tsbad, California 92008 Brent LcCount JUL P. 8 1999 planning Division City ofPamcho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91727 Re: Proposed Residential Development by Barratt American on Tentative Tracts 13316 and 15914, Ranthe Cucamonga, San Bernardthe County, California Dear Mr. LeCount: This letter responds to your July 20, 1999, facsimile request for comments on two reports involving a proposed residential development by Barran American on Tentative Tracts 13316 and 15914 in Rancho Cucamonga, San Bematdino County, California. One report was a habitat assessment for the fedemily endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas edttha qulno. "Quino'), while the other report described live-trapping surveys for the fedemily endangered San Bernardtrio kangaroo rat (DIpodomy~ merriamiparv~, "kangaroo rat") on the subject L,'acts. Because the proposed development may impact fcderally listed species and their habitat% wc are commenting pursuant to our responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended, and a Federal agency under section 15082 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. The protocol survey for the kangaroo mt on Tentative Tract 13316 appears adequate, based on the preliroinary July 18, 1999, report summarizing these surveys, and conversations with hialngists from Tiorra Madre Consultants, Inc. No kanSaroo rats were captured during the 5-night live-trapping survey. However, several acres Qfpotential habitat for kangaroo rats on the western portion of this site were grubbed prior to this survey and without the approval of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City). As a result, we recommend that Barratt American offs~ impacts to grubbed sage scrub by preserving sage scrub at an appropriate ratio (e.g., 3 to I). The habitat assessment for Quino appaars to I~ adcquat~ if this effort focused on detecting Plantago and Castilleja plants on the site. If the survey botanist w~s not specifically ~earching for these Quino host plants, then we recommend an appropriale habitat assessment be conduct~l next spring. The survey botanist should clarify the focus and rigor of these surveys with regards to Quino host plants. Recent sighrings have provided insi8hts into the distribution of the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica, "gnatcatche~") on the Etiwanda alluvial fan complex, and the importance of this area for the recovery of this subspecies in San Bernardtrio County. Although protocol surveys conducted during 1998 did not detect the 8natcatcher on the proposed project site, the habitat is suitable and contiguous with areas where gnatcatchers recently have been sighted. For example, a gnatcatcher was observed during the 1999 nesting season near the carthen levees along Etiwnnda Creek, which is approximately 5 miles from Tentative Tract 13316. In jUL-28-9~ I~'5D [[:25 ~ ~S GIRLSBAD, CA FAX :iO. 750 ~[;E L638 2 addition, a gnatcatcher pair wE obeyed in Febm~ 1~8 i~diatety across I Iighl~d Avenue from ~e pm~ University developmen~ wi~in h~ilat similar to ~at on T~tive Tnct 13316. Given ~at g~tcatche~ ~ pass through or rc~upy ~e proj~t ~a at ~y time ~d that pmt~ol su~eys are valid for only t ye~, ano~er prom~l s~ey for gnatcatchers should be co~uct~d ~forc any ~ ofsui~ble habi~ a~ di~ctly or indi~ctly imp~t~ by ~e project. Th~ pm~s~ proj~t hi~igh~ ~veml problems reg~g the imp~ of~ntinuing development along the Eli~nda fin. Fi~ ~e conelnu~ Io~ of h~ieats eo developmenl may hinder ongoing, regional mulli-s~i~ pl~ing eftore. Coas~l sage scrub has ~en ~tegorizcd as an endangered ecosystem (85-98 F~ent declino) by ~c National Biological ~i~, U.S. D~plcnt of In~rior (~dan~red Eco~ste~ of the United States: ~ Prelimin~ ~essment of ~ ~d ~Fa~tlon. Biologi~l Rc~a 28, Fcb~a~ 1995). ~c~ c~sys~ms sup~ sevc~l cnd~gc~d and ~atcncd s~cics, and humerus splits lhat are proposed ~ ~ covc~ in the San Bcm~dino VaH=y Multi- S~cics Habi~t Con~ation PI~ (MSHCP), including ~c ~cn~t tiger ~ctlc (Ciclndela wanque~rica virid~sima), co~[ western whi~il (C~mi~p~ tiFis multis~tat~). San Bcma~o ring-necked ~ (DlMophls~ctat~ m~), ~l fo~ boa (Lichan~a trlvlrgata r~a~ca), whigtailed ~ (Elan~ leuc~s), S~ Diego black-~il~jac~bbit (~ cal~ornicus bendfilth, ~d ~s ~ge[cs ~kct mou~ (Pero~ath~ Ion~membr~ brevin~). Hence. p~t~ting ~1 ngc ~mb is ~ obvio~ ~y ~ promote ~ co~cNafion of list~ s~ies that dc~nd on th~ ccosy~ms for ~eir Iong-tc~ su~ival. ~e cs~blis~cnt of a viable regional p~sc~c system is vi~l to the su~ival and ~ovc~ offfic fcdc~lly list~ and ~nsi~vc s~ics mcntion~ a~ve, ~d is a ccn~l goal offfie MSHCP ~at is now in ~e pl~ing stage. As a ~sult, · e pro~ction of ~maining ~a~l ~ge scrub will ~ a ~gh priority in ~e MSHCP, ~d continued unmitigated lo~es of hicks of ~gc scrub may affect ~c ~unty's abili~ to develop a viable prc~e system in ~c future. To ~is~ in ~ MSIICP cffo~ ~e Ci~, a ~l~to~ of the Mcmo~dum of Unde~nding ~O~ for ~e development of ~c MSHCP, should minimize and mitigate furor lo~cs offfiis c~sy~cm ~F. Althou~ ~ project site w~ clca~d of native vcgc~tion prior to 1972, coastal ~ge scrub has ~-g~wn over much of~e si~ ~d it ap~ to ~ ~vcring rapidly. ~e diversi~ ~d qualiW offfiia habK~t will I~ely ~ntinue ~o improve if it is le~ undcve[o~ ~caus~ it is ~nfiguous ~ one of ~e l~gcst ~malnln8 bloc~ of~ia habi~ ~. Se~nd, ~ co~a~on m~ur~s pro~s~ by ~ appli~nt ~ not sufficient to offset ~e impac~ to biological ~urccs a~oe[atcd wi~ ~e p~d proj~t, S~ifically, ~c mitigation p~scd by Barrett Amcric~ is inadequate to off~t impac~ ~ ~ge ~mb. and will con~ibu~c to apct I~ of~is cnd~ge~ ~c~tcm. Ba~ Amcric~ ~ p~gd ~ mifig~ for ~c~ to 0.3 ac~s of ju6~ictional s~am h~i~ (i.e., "~mn~f' ~gc ~b) at a 2:1 ratio (Lc., 2 a~ ofp~s~cd habi~t for each acre of~neatly lost habitat). In addition, ~ey ~vc ~mmi~cd to creating app~ximately 2.5 acres of sh~b ~d wctl~d ~bi~t on ~c sloFs ofa pro~sed detention b~in. tlowcvcr, no com~nsation for ~e loss of"recovering' ~gc ~mb ~ offered, even though a large ~aion (app~ximatcly 75 acres) of ~e pm~s~ proj~t site sup~ "large ~tches of buckcat, ~itc ~gc, and coa~l sagebrush" ~d "provide ~itabl~ habitat for the ~lifomia Gna~tcheC' ~ccm~r 18, 1999, Ic~cc f~m R. Mitchcl B~uchsmp, Pacifi~ ~uthw~ Biological Sc~i~s, {o B~nt I~Count, City of~ncho Cucamonga). Ba.aR Amedc~'s rationale.for not ~mpen~ting for recovering ~gc scrub was that ~c p~jcet was the ~bjcct of a negative declaration.in 1989 ~at did not ~ui~ such mitigation. If all p~jcc~ ~ct~g ~l ~g~ ~mb we~ to mitigate only for ~latively-undistut~d sage scab, ~d to do so at low nfios of~cd sage ~mb to ~ancntly lost ~gc scrub, ~ca the ~gional di~ibulion of this ~sys~m W~ will ~ntinue to ~ ~uc~ and JU1-28-9~ '~2D [1:30 ~Z{ FWS CA~,LSBAD, CA FA~ ,.'iO. 7CO 91S 0538 Brent LcCount 3 fragmented. Due to the imperiled status of coastal sage scrub throughout southern California, and its impertance for the survival and recovery of listed species and species that are proposed to be covered in the MSI ICP, we recommend that mitigation be required for any impacts to coastal sage scrub, even if it has been previously disturbed and is now recovering. As mentioned above, the diversity and quality of these areas would likely continue to improve if they were not permanently disturbed, as evidenced by the recovery of Tentative Tract 13316 following prior disturbance. An appropriate replacement rate for impacts to coastal sage scrub would be, minimally, 3 acres of preserved sage scrub for each acre lost or degraded, although somewhat lower ratios may be applicable for highly disturbed areas or monotypic patches of scrub. In addition, we recommend that impacts from this project to sage scrub be offset by the acquisition and protection of alluvial fan sage scrub on the Etiwanda fan. An endovnnent for the management of the acquired land in perpetuity should be established and, prior to any transfer and dedication of mitigation lands, the title and related documents must be reviewed for conflicting easements and prior dedications for the purposes of natural open space. Finally, multi-year delays between the approval of development projects and their implementation may constitute significant, changed circumstances under CEQA owing to changes in habitat conditions, use of the site by listed species, and species listing status. Hence, the us~ ofoutdated environmental reports to approve development pre]ects and mitigation requirements for impacts to biologieal resourcea taises questions regarding the adequaey of CEQA compliance. CEQA guidelines require that impacts to sensitive and listed species and their habitats be addressed in an environmental document and mitigated. !fmultiqear delays occur between the approval of development projects and their implementation, then site occupancy and species listing status may change substantially in the interim. As a result, unmitigated losses of habitals and sensitive or listed species may occur. As mentioned above, environmental clearance and mitigation requirements for the development of Tract i 3316 was based on the adoption of a negative declaration in 1989. Since that time, additional species have been listed under the Act, including the gnatcatcher and kangaroo rat, and the sage scrub on the site has recovered to the point where it now provides suitable habitat for thasc species. We recommend that the City review pending development applications to identify those that rely on biological information in CEQA documents that axe several yea~s old, or fail to address species that have been faderally listed since their application was received. The City can then notify the applicant and us of the potential need to reass~s the possible impacts to biological reseurees owing to their proposed projects. We appreclatc the opportunity to comment on this proposed project, and your conscientious consldcration of this issue. We look forward to further involvement in this project and rcglonal planning for species and habitat conservation in general. If you have any questions rugarding this letter, please contact P.J. White of this office at (760) 431-9440. Sincerely, ~~m A. Bartel~~ Assistant Field Supervisor 1-6-99-HC-294 co: Glenn Black, California Department of Fish and Game CI~Y OF RANCHO PI,ANN[NG COMMISSION July 28, 1999 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTEK COUNCIL CHAMBER, 10500 CMC CEN'IEK DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAI ,IFORNIA B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 - BARRATT AMERICAN Mate~ presenmdby: Diana Santini 5207London Ave · ~ Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737 Diana Santini 5207 London Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737 (909) 945-9840 June 9,1999 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Dear Commissioners: As a follow-up to my letter of June 3, 1999 addressed to Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer (ATTACHMENT A), ] am expressing specific concerns and requests to be considered prior to approval of the housing project identified as Tract 13316. My home is the first lot immediately south of the project on the corner of London and Carrari Avenue. It is my understanding that the drainage project consists of an underground pipe which will surface above Carrad and empty into a cement storm drain which will be in my immediate backyard and will be directed towards the existing natural drainaqe flow. When I purchased my home in 1993, I was informed by the City that I was not allowed to interrupt the natural drainage of water, therefore, not allowed to interrupt or permanently construct on my property. I am therefore requesting the following issues be taken into consideration: 1. On February 15, 1989, the City of Rancho Cucamonga passed, app;oved and adopted Resolution No. 89-066 which in part required construction of a Master Plan Storm Drain line through the site which will dewater the system into an existing open channel. It appears that the current Drainage Plan does not extend the storm drain line to the existing open channel but allows the water to be directed onto dry land which may impair the integrity & stability of existing slopes private property. (ATTACHEMENT B) 2. Verify that the drainage easement includes drainage construction. It may be limited to allowing for the natural drainage flow vs. directed drainage which will now be directed to empty into a channel and onto natural surface property. Planning Commission 6~9~99 Page 2 3. GeoSoils Engineering Inc., conducted a limited Geotechnical Evaluation of my property in 1992 (ATTACHMENT C). Issues of Concern include: ~" Drainage of adjacent, northly property appears to direct drainage toward the subject property and to the ephemeral drainage. If allowed to continue, this runoff Could degrade the integrity of the slope where it descends into the ephemeral drainage. Additional erosion of this nature could undermine the block wall on the north property boundary near the ephemeral drainage or undermine portions of the residence. ~. Accumulated surface drainage should be directed to an appropriate location for disposal by providing a graded swale with a minimum gradient of 2 percent or an appropriate surface Collection device with nonperforated pipe to an outlet at the street or other suitable location. Off-site runoff should not be allowed to pond on the site. Water should not be allowed to flow over any slopes. ~" Water should not be allowed to discharge adjacent to the residence. Drainage systems should not be altered without expert Consultation. > Slopes should not be altered without expert Consultation. Whenever the homeowner plans a topographic modification of the lot or slope, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be Contacted. > A stability analysis should be performed on the existing slopes to verify stability. > Since the approval of the resolution in 1989. I have Constructed a suspended wooden deck which overhangs the existing natural dr. ainage area and an in ground pool has been installed. I therefore request a Copy of the geographical evaluation of the property and proposed development & drainage system plan Conducted after 1992. If one has not been conducted after 1992, that such evaluation be performed and reviewed prior to approval for commencing construction. 4. If a drainage plan is approved, that it consist of a buded pipe emptying into the existing storm drain as per the City's approval in 1989. 5. If an open channel is considered, that it be located on the East portion of the property which will essentially extend the existing channel southerly of my property. This was identified as a viable Concept by Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer in 1990 which would extend the channel 250 feet south. (ATTACHMENT D). Planning Commission 6~9~99 Page 3 6. If an open channel is approved as currently planned, that a crossover bridge be provided to reach the East portion of my property without having to exit into the Community Trail as was decided on June 22, 1989 by the Design Review Committee meeting. (ATI'CHMENT E) 7. Request that no two-story homes be built immediately adjacent to my property in order to preserve privacy. 8. All debris left in the existing street in front of my property be cleared daily. Sincerely, Diana Santini Diana Santini 5207 London Ave. Alta Loma, CA 91737 (909) 945-9840 June 3, 1999 The City of Rancho Cucamonga Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Tract 13316 Dear Mr. James: I am writing regarding concerns over the housing project identified as Tract 13316 which apparently was approved 10 years ago. I recently artended a meeting at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center held by the developer of this project. I also met with Betty Miller. Associate Engineer, on June 2, 1999. Both of these sources have described the drainage system planned for this housing tract. It is my understanding that included in the planned drainage system will be a pipe that will be placed underground for the new homes being built. The pipe will then surface just above Carrad and empty into a 'dp wrap" which will be fenced. My home is the first lot immediately south of the project on the comer of Cartad and London Avenue. It has been described that the 'dp wrap" will be in my immediate back yard with the gutter and drainage water directed to empty onto my property. When I purchased my home in 1993, it was my understanding that the city had an easement on my property for Natural Drainage Row that prohibits any construction on the east portion of my lot. I am not aware of an existing construction easement the city may hold on my property. My objection is that the drainage will no longer be a natural drainage but a permanent interruption and deliberate direction of water flew into my property and permanent construction related to this redirection. This plan for a fenced 'rip wrap" in my backyard will be an unsightly eyesore and may violate the existing drainage easement rfghts. In addition, a Geotechnical Evaluation conducted on my property in 1992 made several observations and recommendations regarding water drainage. A portion of this report specifically states that '... off-site runoff shquld not be allowed to pond on the site and water should not be allowed to flow over any slopes. Measures should be taken to prevent the undercutting and erosion at the toe of the slopes that descent into the ephemeral drainage." My request is that the underground pipe be extended to reach and empty into the existing storm drain system. I plan to attend the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for June 9, 1999 to address my concerns. Should this topic not'be appropriate at that meeting, I request that a meeting with the appropriate individuals be scheduled to expeditiously address this issue. Cc: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Betty A. Miller. Associate Engineer -- crrY of I ANCHO CUCAbIONGA STAFF REPORT J. UATE: February 15, 1989 (~ ~J /3: City Council and Actin9 City Manager FROM: Russell H. Maguire, Ci~ Engineer BY: Gary H. Sheu, Assistant CIvil Engineer SUBJECT: ApproYal of a Resolution accepting an offer of dedication of a 3rainage easeeat offered to the CIty of Rancho Cucamon~a on Tract No. 9590 leca~d east of Archibald Avenue and south o~ Almond Avenue Staff rcco~ends that City C,unctl approve the attached resolution accepting the drainage eas~-ent as sho~n on the map of Tract I~o. 9590 and described on the attached resolution. O~ckare~=~/An~lysis The proDosed davelopmen~ e~ Tr:ct I3316 (Fr~s~--~n Han~e_s) is required to construct a Master Plan Stnrm Drain l~ne thrnugh the site which will dewater the s~stem Into an existing open channel. City previously had an offer of dedication for drainage purposes within this open c,annel as a part of development of Tract E~SgO. To facilitate the draining of the storm drain sySt..-n for Tract 12316, tt ts necessary to accept this offer of dedication. An exhibit is enclosed to show the proposed Tract 13316 and lccatton of thn offer of dedication. AttaChment ;~ncho Cucam0nga, CA 91730 RESOLUTION NO. 89-066 ,~:~' ' '; ~'~ <9 < """' · ~ .., A P2SOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO "/~ " CUC,~ONGA, CAJ~IFOPuNIA, ACCEPTI~IG A DRAINAGE EASEpLENT.7 ~5 DEDICATION ON TRACT NO. 9590 LOCATED EAST OF A~RCHIBA3~D ~-O A~NUE ~D SOUTH OF ~OND A~NUE -~ ~_. ~... .. The City Council of the City of Rancho cuc~onga does hereby resoive as follows: SECTION 1: The offer to dedicate to the City of Ranch6 Cuc~onga, County of San Sernardino, State of california, the property herein described for drainage purposes, is hereby accepted. Said property is described as follows: Those ~rtions of the easement as offered to dedicate to the City of Rancho Cuc~onga ~r Tract No. 9590 as recorded in Map Book 138, Page 47-48. Co~encing at the southeast corner of Tract No. 9590 as recorded in Map Book 138, Page 47-48, Official Records of said county, recorded January 6, I978; thence north 0 23'01' east, 6.18 feet to the tru~ ~int of beginning; thence north S1 11'19" west, '290.09 feet; thence north 56 37'07' west, 154.49 feet; thence north 18 50'18' west, 89.81 feet; thence north 10 39'37' west, 86.49 feet; thence north 38 14'47" west, 108.23 feet; thence north 20 15'23' west, 89.54 fee~; thence north 28 58'28' east,'46.26 feet to a point in the north line of said Tract; thence north 80 33'14" east, 480.00 .. fee~ to .~e northeast corner of said Tract; thence south 0 23'O1- .we~, 646.04 feet along the eae~ line of said Tract to the true point of beginning. ~ECTION 2: The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed for record in the office of the County Recorder of the county of San Bernardino, State of California. PASSED, APPRO~D, and ~OPTED this 15th d'ay of February, 1989. AYES: Alexander, Brown, Buyer, Stout, Wright NOES: None ~SENT: None "~ .., ...- I, BE~IRLy A. AUTHELET, CITy CLER/i of the City of Rancho Cucamonaa California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 15th day of February, 1989.' Executed thi8 16th day of February, 1989 at Rancho Cucamonga, California. ' Seve;i" 'Ad=hele=, cit~' Cler~ eoSoils, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering · Engineering Geology 24890/eftarson A:'enue · P.O. Box 490 · A, lurrieta. Culifornia 92564 · [714) 677-9651 · FAX' (714] 677-9301 September 3, 1992 W.O. 562-A-RC Better Homes and Gardens Realty 6642 Camellia Rancho Cucamonga, California 91701 Attention: Ms. Heidi Burns Subject: Limited Geotechnical Evaluation of 5207 London Avenue, Alta Lama Area of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California Reference: "Approved Standards," 1980, by Home Owners Warranty Corporation. Dear Ms. Burns: In accordance with your request and authorization, this report presents the findings of our limited geotechnical evaluation of the subject property. Inasmuch as this study was performed ~ithout the benefit of site-specific subsurface information, the conclusions and recommendations presented herein are limited and should be considered preliminary in nature. In addition, our observations were performed on the exterior of the residence only. BACKGROUND The subject site is currently under ownership of a financial institution. The following is our understanding from the client, Ms. Heidi Burns, the real estate representative for the owner. 1. The residence is an approximately 14-year-old home. 2. The home recently has been refurbished in preparation for sale. During this refurbishment, Ms. Burns noticed evidence of surface water run-off during recent rains from the adjacent, north~r.]y property. 3. The client has expressed concerns regarding drainage on the site and drainage from adjacent properties affecting the site: therefore, the client requested this evaluation of site conditions Lns Angeles Co. 16181785-2158 · Orange Co. (7141647-0277 · San Diego Co 1619] 438.3 155 Better Homes and Gardens Realty W.O. 562-A-RC 5207 London September 3, 1992 Rancho Cucamonga, California Page 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of our services has included the following: 1. Review and reconnaissance of general site conditions from a geotechnical viewpoint with an emphasis on site drainage conditions. 2. Geotechnical analysis of the data collected. 3. Preparation of this report. GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is a rectangular-shaped lot, consisting of about 1.17 acres. The property fronts on London Avenue in the Alta Loma area Of the city Of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. The site i~ bounded by adjacent residential property on the south, London Avenue on the north, and vacant property on the north and west. The west half of the lot has been developed for the residential structure, while the east half of the lot remains in an essentially natural condition. A slope, about 10 feet high, descends from the south property line to the adjacent property at a gradient of about 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). A natural, ephemeral drainage transects the subject lot and drains to the south. This ephemeral drainage is about 50 feet wide and 20 to 30 feet deep. Slopes descend into the ephemeral drainage at a gradient of about 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical). Block walls exist on the western portions of the north and south property boundaries. In the front yard, the walls are about 2 feet high and serves as a retaining wall between the site and adjacent properties. The remainder of each block wall is about 6 feet high and serves as divider between properties. A two-story, wood-frame residence with stucco and wood siding occupies the central portion of the lot. It appears that the residence is rounded on continuous perimeter footings wi'th concrete slab-on-grade floors. OBSERVATIONS OF DRAINAGE FEATURES Our observations of the drainage conditions indicate: 1. Gutters and downspouts are not present on the residence. Drainage devices have not been constructed on any of the slopes on the site or slopes adjacent to the site. GeoSoils, Inc. Better Homes and Gardens Realty W.O. 562-A-RC 5207 London September 3, 1992 Rancho Cucamonga, California Page 3 2. An ephemeral drainage, about 50 feet wide and 20 to 30 feet deep, transects the subject lot and drains toward the south. 3. Drainage on the front (west) portion of the site generally is toward the southwest corner of the lot, to the street. 4. Drainage on the south side of the house is generally toward the south. 5. Drainage on the north side of the house is generally to the south, toward the north wall of the house. 6. Drainage on the rear (east) portion of the site is generally directed from the rear of the residence to the east, toward the ephemeral drainage and from the rear of the property to the west, toward the ephemeral drainage. Natural drainage on the vacant property, located north of and adjacent to the site, is g~nerally to the southeast toward the subject site and the ephemeral drainage. This ephemeral drainage has caused a rill to be eroded in the slope as it drains into the ephemeral drainage on the subject property. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION~ The drainage features observed on the site at the time of our site reconnaissance indicate that the current drainage patterns generally direct water runoff away from the residence and toward the rear of the property or to the street. However, surface gradients on the north side of the residence directs drainage toward the residence. In addition, drainage of the adjacent, northly property appears to direct drainage toward the subject property and to the ephemeral drainage. If allowed to_ continue, this runoff could degrade the integrity of the slope where it descends into the ephemeral drainage. Additional erosion of this nature could undermine the block wall on the north property boundary near the ephemeral drainage or undermine portions of the residence. The following preliminary recommendations are presented: 1. Positive drainage should be established and maintained on the property. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing a gradient of at least 4 percent for a minimum distance of 5 feet away from the residence. Accumulated surface drainage should be directed to an appropriate location for disposal by GeoSoils, Inc. Better Homes and Gardens Realty W.O. 562-A-RC 5207 London September 3, 1992 Rancho Cucamonga, California Page 4 providing a graded swale with a minimum gradient of 2 percent or an appropriate surface collection device with nonperforated pipe to an outlet at the street or other suitable location. Off-site runoff should not be allowed to pond on the site. Water should not be allowed to flow over any slopes. 2. Eave gutters should be installed where appropriate and connected to downspouts. Downspout discharge should be directed to a nonperforated drain system that outlets to an appropriate location. Water should not be allowed to discharge adjacent to the residence. Drainage systems should not be altered without expert consultation. 3. A grade stabilization structure or drainage device should be installed at the north property line on the slope to carry concentrated water runoff from the adjacent, northerly property down the slope and into the ephemeral drainage and reduce erosion of the slope. 4. Drought-tolerant vegetation should be planted on the slope into the ephemeral drainage to reduce erosion of the slope. 5. Irrigation should be reduced to the minimum necessary to maintain plant vigor. 6. All drains should be kept cleaned and unclogged, including gutters and downspouts. Terrace drains or gunite ditches should be kept free of debris to allow proper drainage. During heavy rain periods, performance of the drainage systems should be inspected. Problems, such as gullying and ponding, if observed, should be corrected as soon as possible. 7. Any leakage from pools, waterlines, etc. or byRassing of drains should be repaired as soon as possible. 8. Animal burrows should be filled, because they may cause diversion of surface runoff, promote accelerated erosion, and even trigger shallow soil failures. 9. Any open bottom planters adjacent to settlement-sensitive structures should be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed-bottom planters could be utilized. An Outlet placed in the bottom of the planter could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. GeoSoils, Inc. Better Homes and Gardens Realty W.O. 562-A-RC 5207 London September 3, 1992 Rancho Cucamonga, California Page 5 10. Slopes should not be altered without expert consultation. Whenever the homeowner plans a topographic modification of the lot or slope, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be contacted. 11. If unusual cracking, settling, or earth slippage occurs on the property, the homeowner should consult a qualified soil engineer or an engineering geologist immediately. 12. A stability analysis should be performed on the existing slopes to verify stability. 13. Measures should be taken to prevent the undercutting and erosion at the toe of the slopes that descend into the ephemeral drainage. 14. Consideration should be given to consulting a qualified design civil engineer to review the above recommendations with respect to line and grade and surface drainage. This evaluation of surface conditions at the property should not be construed to be a evaluation of subsurface conditions. This evaluation has not assessed the potential for changes in surface or subsurface conditions in the future. If site conditions do not change in the future, the integrity of the lot would be expected to remain consistant with respect to past performance; however, GSI can make no statement as to the specific integrity/performance of the property in the future, due to changes in surface or subsurface conditions. The property is located in a seismically-active region, and intense ground shaking at the site should be anticipated in the future. This ground shaking could cause distress features at the subject site. If in the future any additional improvements are planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements could be provided based on a subsurface evaluation of site conditions. A proposal for this type of site evaluation could be provided upon request. GeoSoils, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing, or recommendations performed or provided by others. Inc. Better Homes and Gardens Realty W.O. 562-A-RC 5207 London September 3, 1992 Rancho Cucamonga, California Page 6 These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty is expressed or implied. We sincerely appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions or if you need any clarifications, please contact us at (714 ) 677-9651. Respectfully submitted, GEOSOILS, INC. ~herry'~. Eaton Senior Geologist John P. Frank in ~ Engineering Geologist, CEG 1340 Civil Engineer, RCE 49754 SLE/RCS/JPF/sh Distribution: (4) Addressee GeoSoils, Inc. -CITY OFRANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 16, 1990 T0: City Council and City Manager FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: tucinda E. Hackerr, Contract Engineer SUBJECT: Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security, acceptance of offer of dedication and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 for Tract 13316, located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Carrari Avenues, submitted by Friedman Homes RECO~IENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Tract 13316, accepting the subject agreement, security, offer of dedication, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. I and 2, and authorizing the ~ayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement and to cause said map to record. ~p~ ANALYSIS/BACKGROUND Tract 13316, located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Carrari Avenues, in the Very Low Density Residential District, was approved by the Planning Commission on March 25, 1987, for the division of 84.5 acres into 123 lots. During the review process, various property owners to the south of the tract have voiced their concern regarding the proposed storm drain facility that extends southerly of the tract boundary approximately 107 feet.' This facility ~s an emergency spillway channel and is part of the debris-basin system. Staff has met extensively with these property owners over the past few years to listen to their concerns and desires. First, they wanted to underground the system in a pipe and fill in the canyon to enlarge their backyards. This is not possible due to the fact that this is part of a debris basin system ahd must be an open channel with a service road to maintain the outlet' structure. Their second desire was to terminate the channel at the southerly boundary of Tract 13316. This also cannot be done because the c~annel has to pass under the Community Trail and then be directed towards the existing natural drainage channel. Their third choice is to extend the channel southerly of their properties. This is a viable concept and the channel could be extended approximately 250 feet south, but it is not needed for development and there is little or no benefit for the abutting properties. Friedman Homes have met all the requirements of their tract and state law requires that administrative action be taken to approve the map. If the channel is to be extended, it will have to be conditioned upon future developments in the area. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REFORT TRACT 13315 - FRIEDMAN tlOMES ~AY 16, 1990 PAGE 2 ~ The Developer, Friedman Homes, is submitting an agreement and security to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in the following amounts: Street Storm Utility Improvements Drain Landscaping Undergrounding Faithful Performance Bond: $2,100,000 $1,300,000 $380,000 $435,000 LaDor and Material Bond: $1,050,000 $ 650,000 $190,000 $217,000 Copies of the agreement, security and offer of dedication are available in the City Clerk's Office. Letters of approval have been received from the high school and elementary school districts. C.C. & R.'s have been approved by the City Attorney. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer is on file in the City Clerk's office. Respectfully ~ubmitted, RIIM:L~H:9~A: sjm~' A~tachments CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT ,. DATE: May 29, 1990 T0: City Council and City Manager FROM: Russell H. Naguire, City Engineer BY: Joe Stofa, Jr., Associate Civil En9ineer SUBJECT: Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security, acceptance of oFFer oF dedication and 0rderin9 the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 for Tract 13316, located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Carrari Avenues, submitted by Friedman Homes (Continued From RECOg4ENDATION It is reco~uended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Tract 13316, accepting the subject agreement, security, offer of dedication, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2, and authorizing the .'.) Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement and to cause said map to record. ANALYSIS/DACKGROUND The above referenced project was continued from the City Council meeting of May 16, 1990. At that meeting, local residences expressed concern regarding the development, particularly the storm drain facilities. Due to the massiveness of the project, the Council requested additional time to visit the site and directed staff to provide more detail background analysis. The Planning Commission unanimously approved Tentative Tract' 13316 at the March 25, 1987 meeting. Two main issues were brought out by surrounding property owners. They are: 1) orientation of the honles backing onto Carrari Street and 2) requirements of local Equestrian trails and keeping of horses'. No records were found of the property owners voicing any concerns about the proposed storm drain Facilities. Although the tentative map shows the storm drain going to the east, the Conditions of Approval For the tract ;peciFically state that the debris basin and tile entire storm drain system shall be constructed to the satisfaction of tile City Engineer and that lots 9 and 10 which are located at the southerly extension of the main north/south street and adjacent to the southerly tract boundary shall contain a flood protection wall or other overflow protection device to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Tile conditions combined required tile storm drain facility as it is now designed. CITY COUNCIL STAFF R[i TR 13316 i~AY 29, 1990 PAGE 2 At the May 6, 1987 City Council meeting an appeal of Tentative Tract 13316 with regards to Planning Commission's decision of orientations of homes on Carrari Street along with the requirements of local equestrian trails and keeping of horses was heard. City Council modified the Planning Com~n~ssions' decision relative to Carrari Street to provide increased landscape area and placement of walls along the top of the slope. The City Council upheld the General Plan policies and Development Code standards regarding equestrian trails and keeping of horses. Once again, no conerns were raised with regards to drainage. Time Extension for Tentative Tract 13316 went before the Planning Commission on April 26, 1989. The Planni'ng Division received letters froin several homeowners along London Avenue expressing their concern of tile proposed drainage facilities. The time extension was approved to May 6, i990, but Planning Commission discussed the issue of storm drain spillway and requested that the Planning Department review the storm drain plans to be sure the channel was as aesthetically pleasing as possible as it crossed over the affected properties. At the june 22, 1989 Design Review meeting, the con~ittee stated that the final design of the spillway should be reviewed by the committee for aesthetics, after the technicial part of the design is tentatively approved. An access should be provided to the homeowner to get to the rear of the lot east of the spillway. Planning requested that Friedman Homes submit revised plans for additional comnittee review. The Design Review Committee on February 8, 1990 recommended at the request of Enaineerin9 that the foot bridge be deleted due to the fact that the foot bridge is only 40' away from the proposed Community Trail bridge with an access road on the east side of the bridge which is available to allow access to the easterly side of the homeowners property. In addition landscaping surrounding the spillway will require tile final approval of tile Design Review Committee prior to the final approval of tile improvement-plans by the City Engineer Respe~ . "' 'tted, RH~:jS:dlw Attachments Staff Report 5-16-90 The Law Office of Matthew Dee Rees Attorney at law 9587 Arrow Route, Ste. "D" (909) 945-2225 Telephone Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 945-2227 Fax July 28, 1999 The Planning Division City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 OBJECTION TO APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 BY BAREATT AMERICAN: TEACT 13316 Dear Planning Commission Members, My name is Matthew Rees, residing at 5217 London Avenue, Alta Loma, California, just south of the planned development, with my wife and child. It has come to my attention that today is a hearing upon the approval of the proposed development plan, which I have objected to more than once in the past few months. Though I am impressed by the scope of the development, and the design of the planned homes, it would appear that little or no thought has been given to the impact of this proposed development upon the lower easement land owners. Our property backs up against a dry creek bed which drains the development area during adverse weather conditions. My property is impressed with an "easement for natural drainage". The proposed development intends to drain about half the proposed plan area into my backyard, collecting all the storm waters from the entire hillside above my home, and dumping them into my back yard and the yard of Diane, immediately north of my property. This plan is unlawful, ill advised, a clear eye sore for the immediate property owners, a danger to children, and an unlawful taking of my property without compensation. I oppose this plan vociferously. I have suggested in the past that I would be amenable to a continuation of this 5-6 pipe down the hill to the lower drainage pond. The pipe needs to be buried. This is expensive and this is why it is opposed by the developer. I'm sorry, but we will have a buried pipeline or we will have a lawsuit. the City is about to accept the dedication of this drainage pipe, therefore the City is hereby placed on notice that I will take whatever action is necessary to prevent this abomination from appearing in my backyard. The Commission is hereby advised to have the City Attorney take a close look at this law before approving this plan. The proposal is a clear burden upon the lower easement holders. Do not buy into this proposal. When I met with the Planning Department (which occurred after a recent public hearing hosted by Barrett} I was told the city planned to decorate the end of this pipe, put in some debris catchers, clean the pipe out once in a while, and pour a little cement in my backyard, and put up a fence to keep the kids out. Well this all sounds fine and dandy except the City doesn't own my backyard, and the City will not be puring cement in my backyard and the City will not be putting up any fencing in my backyard. Remember this pipe is 5 to 6 feet in diameter. Kids will be walking up this pipe unless it is fenced off, and the city does not own any property. This is a ~natural drainage" easement. It should remain a natural drainage easement. When the developer lays miles of impervious roads and gutters, and collects all the water off this system of streets, and destroys all the natural drainage, and shunts everything into an impervious pipelene and aims it at my backyard, threatening to erode my property and destroy my patio and backyard, I get a little angry. Fix the problem, do not let this get any worse. I have attached a little case law as an attorney is apt to do in the event somebody would like to actually read what the law has to say about my right and the rights of my family. Do not concentrate the entire drainage of this mountain into my backyard. Concentrating the entire drainage of the mountain in time and space, and discharging it into my backyard is not ~natural drainage". Believe me, I have done the research, this cannot be happening, but it just might tonight, nevertheless, unless some thoughtfull action is taken immediately. I thank you for your time, and should anyone wish to discuss this matter I am easy to get ahold of. CtthewI ~.~.~---, Attorney a ~w and D Ob~cal Resident P.S.: If it makes any difference "environmentally", there are also desert tortoises in my backyard. One has walked into my backyard, been fed lettuce for lunch, and directed back into the desert for dinner. And we have pictures to prove it. Legal Authorities: (Drainage Easements) 1. Albers vs. County of Los Angeles (1965) 62 Cal.2d 250 2. Inns vs. San Juan U.S.D. (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 174 3. Frustruck vsl City of Fairfax (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 345 4. Burrows vs. State of California (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 29 5. Sheffet vs. County of Los Angeles (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d 720 6. Weaver vs. Bishop )1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1351 7. Yue vs. City of Auburn (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 751 ~ Yue v. City of Auburn (1992) 3 Cal. App.4th 751, 4 CaI.Rptr.2d 653 View This Case Only · Cases Citing This Case ] [No. C009412. Third Dist. Jan 31, 1992.] WILBERT J. YUE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF AUBURN, Defendant and Respondeat. Stnv~o,av An individual, on behalf of a corporation doing business as a restaurant and bar, filed a complaint against a city, alleging a taking by inverse condemnation, and seeking damages for loss in value to the real property and for loss in value to the corporation's business and leasehold interest in the property, based on several incidents of flooding. Plaintiffs alleged that the constntction of a subdivision increased impervious surfaces which in turn substantially increased storm water rimoff onto plaintiffs' property, and that the city had failed to require the developer of the subdivision to mitigate the storm water runoil; and had failed to upgrade its drainage facilities to accommodate the increased flow of water. The city demurred to an amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action. This general demurrer was sustained without leave to amend, due to plaintiffs' failure to plead that the citys flood control project failed to work as intended and that the failure was the restfit of some unreasonable conduct on the part of the city. The trial court entered judgment dismissing the complaint. (Superior Court of Placer County, No. 76821, Richard L. Gilbert, Judge.) The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment dismissing plaintiffs' complaint, and ordered the trial court to overrule the general demurrer to the complaint. The court held that plaintiffs' complaint was sufficient, since it alleged that plaintiffs had a private property interest in the damaged property, that damage to plaintiffs' property was caused by the project as designed and built, that it was a public project that caused the harm, and that the harm was substantially caused by the project. Inasmuch as the case involved surface waters inundating property that was not subject to historical flooding, the court held that plaintiffs need not have alleged that defendant's drainage system filled to ~mction as intended. The allegations allowed the reasonable inference that plaintiffs' property was not previously subject to flooding, and the complaint also expressly alleged that the repeated incidents of inundations suffered by plaintiffs dated fxom the time the upland subdivision was developed. (Opinion by Mader, J., with Blease, Acting P. J., and Sims, J., concurring.) [page 752} (1) Pleading §23--Demurrer to Complaint--Demurrer as Admission--Application of Rule on Appeal--Standard of Review.--On appeal t~om a judgment of dismissal following the sustaining of a general demurrer, the appellate court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, as well as those which reasonably arise by implication, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. Further, the appellate court gives the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. When a demurrer is sustained, the court determines whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action on any theory. Moreover, the allegations of the complaint must be liberally construed with a view to attaining substantial justice among the parties. A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiffs ability to prove those allegations. (2a-2d) Waters §98--Surface and Flood Waters--Actions and Remedies--Parties and Pleadings--lnverse Condemnation--Sufficiency of Complaint.--In an inverse condemnation action, in winch plaintiffs alleged that their restaurant and bar had been damaged by flooding and excessive water caused by the city's failure to require a subdivision developer to mitigate storm nmoffwater, and by the city's failure to upgrade its drainage facilities to accommodate the increased water flow, the trial court erred in sustaining defendant's general demurrer, where the complaint alleged that plaintiffs had a private property interest in the damaged property, that damage to plaintiffs' property was caused by the project as designed and built, that it was a public project that caused the harm, and that the harm was substantially caused by the project. inasmuch as the case involved surface waters inundating property that was not subject to historical flooding, plaintiffs need not have alleged that the city's drainage system failed to function as intended. Further, the allegations allowed the reasonable inference that plaintiffs' property was not subject to historical flooding, and the complaint also expressly alleged that the repeated incidents of inundations suffered by plaintiffs dated ~-om the time the subdMsion was developed. (3) Waters §89--Surface and Flood Waters--Protection Against Surface Waters--Inverse Liability of Public Agencies: Eminent Domain §131--Remedies of Owner--Inverse Condemnation--Inverse Liability of Public Agencies--Water Damage.--Inverse [page 753] liability of public agencies due to water damage is determined primarily by private law rules governing interference with surface waters, flood waters, and stream waters. First, one has no right to obstruct the flow onto ins or her land of what are technically known as surface waters. Second, one has the right to protect oneself against flood waters, and for that purpose to obstruct their flow onto his or her land, even though such obstruction causes the water to flow onto the land of another. Third, one may not obstruct or divert the flow of a natural watercourse. (4) Waters §98---Surface and Flood Waters--Actions and Remedies--Parties and Pleadings--Inverse Condemnation--Foreseeability and Substantial Cause.--A cause of action for inverse condenmation based on surface water damage must conform to general inverse condemnation principles and must be grounded in the Constitution, which states that private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation having first been made to the owner ( Cal. Const., art. I, § 14). An owner of private property may recover in an inverse condemnation action where actual physical damage is caused to his or her property by a public improvement as deliberately planned and built, whether or not the damage is foreseeable, and a governmental agency may be held strictly liable, with or without fault, if the public improvement constitutes a substantial cause of the damage even if only one of several concurrent causes. [Damage to private property caused by negligence of governmental agents as "taking," "damage," or "use" for public purposes, in constitutional sense, note, 2 A.L.R.2d 677. See also CaI.Jur.3d (Rev), Eminent Domain, § 307; 8 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) Constitutional Law, § 1057 et seq.] (5) Waters 898 Surface and Flood Waters--Actions and Remedies---Parties and Pleadings--Protection Against Surface Waters---Inverse Condemnation--Rule of Reasonableness.--An inverse condemnation cause of action based on damage by surface water is governed by a role of reasonableness peculiar to that genre. If the upper owner is reasonable and the lower owner is unreasonable, the upper owner wins. If the upper owner is unreasonable and the lower owner is reasonable, the lower owner wins. If both the upper and lower owners are reasonable, the lower owner wins. However, titis reasonableness doctrine simply presents a question of fact to be determined in each case upon a consideration of afl the relevant circumstances. A plaintiff need not plead the defendant's unreasonableness to state a cause of[page 754] action. Instead, the defendant must answer and raise the issue of the plaintiffs unreasonableness to prevail. Further, there is no incentive to try to plead and prove that the upper owner's diversion of surface water has been unreasonable, since the lower owner may prevail, regardless of the nature of the upper owner's conduct. (6) Waters §89--Surface and Flood Waters--Protection Against Surface Waters--Inverse Condemnation--Utility of Project Versus Harm to Landowner.--Reasonableness in the contex~ of surface water inverse condemnation cases has to do with balancing the utility of the public project against the gravity of the harm caused to the plaintiff.. The gathering of surface waters into a system of impervious storm drains which follow natural drainage routes may result in greatly increased volume, velocity, and concentration of water, and thus may constitute an unreasonable method ot disposing of such water when weighed against the seriousness of the resulting harm to lower landowners whose property is damaged as a resttit. (7) Waters §98 Surface and Flood Waters--Actions and Remedies--Parties and Pleadings---Surface Water and Flood Control Inverse Condemnation--Governing Policies.--The policies governing surface water and flood control inverse condemnation cases are different. In flood cases, the purpose &requiring allegations of both substantial causation and unreasonableness on the part of the government entity defendant is to prevent discouraging construction of flood protection facilities. However, no such concern is involved in surface water cases, since surface water damage typically follows alteration of natural drainage patterns by a party who has developed a piece of property for profit, instituting improvements which are later incorporated into a goveramental infrastructure. While this type of development is socially beneficial, there is no reason why the economic cost incident to the expulsion of surface waters should be borne by the adjoining landowners, rather than by those undertaking such projects for profit. (8) Waters §97---Surface and Flood Waters--Actions and Remedies--Inverse Condemnation--Duty to Upgrade Drainage Systems--Surface Waters Versus Flood ControL--In an action against a city for inverse condemnation, in which plaintiffs alleged that their property was damaged by flooding and excessive water caused by a poorly engineered drainage system, the trial court erred in sustaining defendant's general demurrer, even if defendant did not have a duty to upgrade existing systems to prevent damage caused by any and all future storms. Where the evidence discloses that flood control projects [page 7551 undertaken by the defendant decreased the amount of flooding that would otherwise naturally have occurred on the plaintiffs land, the defendant is not hable. However, plaintiffs were not alleging that defendant had a duty to build or upgrade a flood control system to prevent naturally occurring flood waters from flowing onto plaintiffs' land; rather, they were claiming that defendant approved a subdivision, which increased the flow of surface waters, and then built a culvert emptying into an inadequate drainage system, inevitably causing plaintiffs' land to be flooded. COUNSEL Daniel P. Patterson, Curran & Alschuler and Donald W. Curran for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Stumbos, Mason & Thomas and Douglas W. Brown for Defendant and Respondent. OPINION MARLER, J.-- This appeal is taken fxom an order and judgment of dismissal entered by the trial court after sustaining the general demurrer to plaintiffs' second amended complaint for inverse condemnation without leave to amend. We shall reverse. Facts and Procedural History On May 23, 1986, Richard Yue, on behalfofRHRH, Inc. (doing business as the Shanghai Restaurant and Bar) filed a claim against the city of Auburn alleging that his restaurant and bar, located in the old city portion of Auburn, was damaged on February 18, 1986, by flooding and excessive water "caused by [a] poorly engineered drainage system." This claim was rejected by the city on June 12, 1986. On December 3, 1986, plaintiffs filed a complaint in superior court alleging a taldng by inverse condemnation end a second cause of action for negligence. ARer a succession ot amendments and demurrers, plaintiffs abandoned their negligence cause of action because of their failure to meet the filing requirements of the Government Tort Claims Act ( Gov. Code, § 900 et seq.), and ultimately filed a second amended complaint based solely on inverse condemnation. This complaint sought money damages for loss in [page 756I value to plaintiffWilbert Yue's ownership interest in the real property and for loss in value of RHRl-rs business and leasehold interest in the property based on several separate incidents of flooding. The gravamen of the complaint is as follows: A development known as the Skyline Subdivision Project was built above plaintiffs' property. Defendant "planned, approved, designed, ... constructed, ... and otherwise substantially participated in activities for the public use or benefit including the exercise ofdorainion and control over drainage courses which included offsite storm drainage facilities both man-made and natural dedicated for public use as a condition for the development of the upstream Skyline Subdix~sion Project. ..." The subdivision is in the Brewery Lane drainage basin and plaintiffs' land is below, in the Old Town area. The construction of the subdivision substantially increased impervious surfaces which in turn substantially increased storm water nmoff. The maximum inflow tiom the Brewery basin culvert is 105 cubic feet per second (cfs) while the capacity of the preexisting drainage structure below is 75 cfs. Defendant failed to require the developer of the subdivision to mitigate the storm water runoff and defendant failed to upgrade its drainage facilities to accommodate the increased flow of water. Defendant's drainage facilities are inadequate to handle the increased storm water rimoff and plaintiffs' land has been inundated with water repeatedly as a consequence. On April 11, 1990, the city demurred to the second amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action. This general demurrer was sustained without leave to amend on May 23, 1990, due to plaintiffs' failure to plead that the city's "flood control project failed to work as intended and that the failure was the restfit of some unreasonable conduct on the part of the public agency." Thereafter, the judgment dismissing the complaint was entered, from which plaintiffs timely appealed. Discussion (1) The standard of review on an appeal from judgment of dismissal following sustaining of a general demurrer is guided by long settled rules. We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, as well as those which reasonably arise by implication, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 [2 16 Cal. Rptr. 718, 703 P.2d 58]; Douglas v. E. & J. Gallo Winery (1977) 69 Cal. App.3d 103, 114 [137 Cal. Rptr. 797]; Benson v. GriJJ (1954) 127 Cal. App.2d 382, 386-387 [274 P.2d 47].) "Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their [page 757] context." (Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318.) When a demurrer is sustained, we determine whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action on any theory. (Ibid; Beason, supra, 127 Cal. App.2d at pp. 386-387.) Moreover, "'the allegations of the complaint must be liberally construed with a view to attaining substantial justice among the patties.'" (Heckendorn v. City of SanMarino (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 481,486 [229 Cal. Rptr. 324, 723 P. 2d 64], quoting Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal. 2d 240, 244-245 [74 Cal. Rptr. 398, 449 P. 2d 462].) A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiffs ability to prove those allegations. (Perdue v. Crocker National Bank (1985) 38 Cal. 3d 913,922 [216 Cal. Rptr. 345, 702 P.2d 503].) H The dispute on appeal centers on the requirements for pleading an inverse condemnation cause of action based on water damage. That a dispute exists is understandable as there is considerable confusion in the law regarding the requirements for such a cause of action. 1 ( 1 ) (2a) Defendant contends that the trial court was correct in mllng that the second amended complaint is defective because it fails to plead the conjunction of substantial causation and unreasonableness as set forth in Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control - Dist. (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 550 [253 Cal. Rptr. 693, 764 P.2d 1070]. Defendant argues we should follow the trial court's lead and apply the specific holding of Belair that "when a public flood control improvement fails to function as intended and properties historically subject to flooding are damaged as a proximate result thereof; plaintiffs' recovery in inverse condemnation requires proof that the failure was attributable to some unreasonable conduct on the part of the defendant public entities." (Id. at p. 567, italics added.) Plaintiffs, on the other hand, maintain that they have adequately pleaded a cause of action in inverse condemnation under the requirements applicable to the facts of this case. For reasons which follow, we conclude that Belair does not apply to the case at bar and that plaintiffs have stated a cause of action in inverse condemnation. [page 758] There are causes of action for inverse condemnation due to water damage which differ according to the type of water involved. (Van Alstyne, Inverse Condemnation: Unintended Physical Damage (1969) 20 Hastings L.J. 431,448-465; 4 Witkin, Summary of Ca[. Law (3d ed. 1985) Real Property, §§ 797-806, pp. 975-983; Condemnation Practice in Ca[., supra, Inverse Condemnation, §§ 13.13-13.17, pp. 348-354; 5 Miller & Starr, Ca[. Real Estate Law 2d (1989) Adjoining Landowners, §§ 14.20-14.23, pp. 343-357; 2 Nichols on Eminent Domain (3d ed. 1990) Taking and Damage, § 6.08[3], pp. 6-50 - 6-51 .) The policy considerations and pleading requirements vary considerably with each type. Thus, the determination of whether there is a cause of action in inverse condemnation for water damage begins with the traditional analytical approach of finding what type of water caused the damage. This categorization process originated in ton cases and is followed in inverse condemnation lawsuits as well. (3) "[1Inverse liability of public agencies is determined in the main by the peculiarities of private law roles governing interference with" 'surface waters,' 'flood waters,' and 'stream waters?H" (Van Alstyne, op. cit. supra, 20 Hastings L.J. at pp. 448-449.) The legal rights and consequences following such categorization of water types have recently been summarized as follows: "'" 'First, one has no right to obstruct the flow onto his land of what are technically known as surface waters .... Second, one has the right to protect him~elfagainst~oodwaters ... and for that purpose to obstruct their flow onto his land, and this even though such obstruction causes the water to flow onto the land of another ....Third, one may not obstruct or divert the flow of a natural watercourse. [Citations.]' .....(Weaver v. Bishop (1988) 206 Cal. App.3d 1351, 1353-1354 [254 Cal. Rptr. 425] [private litigants], italics added.) In the present case, the complaint permits the inference, appropriate on general demurrer, that the water which inundated plaintiffs' property was surface water. The complaint describes increased "impervious surfaces," increased "storm water rtmott;" "storm waters," and a culvert, built upland from plaintiffs land to collect "rimoff" InKeys v. Romley (1967) 64 Cal. 2d 396 [50 Cal. Rptr. 273,412 P.2d 529], the Supreme Court described surface water as being "[w]ater diffused over the surface of land, or contained in depressions therein, and resulting from rain, snow, or which rises to the surface in springs .... It is... distinguishable from... water collected in an identifiable body, such as a river or lake. The extraordinary overflow of rivers and streams is known as 'flood water.' "(Id at p. 400, italics added.) The facts alleged in the complaint are very similar to those in other inverse condemnation cases involving property damage caused by the diversion or obstruction of surface waters. For example, in Shefret v. Co~mty of [page 759] Los Angeles (1970) 3 Cal. App. 3d 720 [84 CaLRptr. 11] the plaintiff recovered for damages caused by reduction in the natural absorption surface in a new development which created an increased and different pattern of surface flow from the upland tract and concentrated nmoffto plaintiffs property. Burrows v. State of California (1968) 260 Cal. App.2d 29 [66 Cal. Rptr. 868] was a case in which defendant's road resuffacing and widening project eliminated a drainage ditch, thus changing drainage patterns of surface water and causing flooding of plaintiffs land. Frustuck v. City of Fairfax (1963) 212 Cal. App.2d 345 [28 Cal. Rptr. 357] involved damage caused by an accelerated flow of surface water over newly developed land adjoining phintiffs property, collected in an enlarged culvert and sent through plaintiffs existing ditch. The court noted the basis of the city's liability was its failure to appreciate the probability that the drainage system from the new development to the Frustuck property, ~mctioning as deliberately conceived, and as altered and maintained by the diversion of waters from their normal channels, would restfit in some damage to private property. (Id. at p. 362.) The drainage system, which the city had accepted and approved, was a public improvement and it did not matter if the city had not been the one that actually physically diverted the water. (Ibid.) "The fact that the work is performed by a contractor, subdMder or a private owner of property does not necessarily exonerate a public agency, if such contractor, subdivider or owner follows the plans and specifications furnished or approved by the public agency." (Id. at pp. 362-363.) Finally, in Inns v. San Juan Uni~edSchoolDist. (1963) 222 Cal. App.2d 174 [34 Cal. Rptr. 903] a school altered its propert3fs natural surface drainage pattern through a wide, vegetation- covered swale to direct water through a 28-inch culvert onto plaintiffs property. Although the plaintiff had always been subject to a "servitude" for the water from the school's land, this court held the increase in volume and velocity of water released into the swale created inverse condemnation liability. (Id. at p. 177, citing LeBrun v. Richards (1930) 210 Cal. 308 [291 P. 825, 72 A.L. 1L 336].) (4) A cause of action for inverse condemnation based on surface water damage must conform to the general inverse condemnation principles set forth in Albers v. County oJ Los Angeles (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 250 [42 Cal. Rptr. 89, 398 P. 2d 129], and grounded in Califomia's Constitution.2(2) (Sheffet, supra, 3 Cal. App.3d at pp. 73 1-732.) In certain circumstances, an owner of private property may recover in an inverse condemnation action where [page 760] actual physical damage is caused to his property by a public improvement as deliberately planned and built, whether or not the damage is foreseeable. (Albers, supra, 62 Cal.2d at pp. 262, 263-264; contra Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control Dist., supra, 47 Cal. 3d at p. 567 [re Hood Waters]; Holtz v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 296, 306-307 [90 Cal. Rptr. 345, 475 P.2d 441].) In certain circumstances, a governmental agency may be held strictly liable, with or without fatfit, if the public improvement constitutes a substantial cause of the damage even ffonly one of several concurrent causes. (Souza v. Silver Development Co. (1985) 164 Cal. App.3d 165, 171 [210 Cal. Rptr. 146]; accord, Belair, supra, at pp. 559- 560.) (2b) The complaint alleges that plaintiffs are owners in fee of certain described real property in the Old Town portion of the City of Auburn, and are lessees of a restaurant sited on that property. Thus, the requirement that plaintiffs have a private property ownership interest in the damaged property is satisfied. The complaint further alleges that "as a direct and proximate restfit of [city's design and operation] of the improvements ... and exercise ofdominlon over man-made and natural watercourses ... for the management and control of storm waters, plaintiffs' ... real properties have since development of upstream properties repeatedly been subject to inundation and invasion by storm waters and suffered damage ... because of the unreasonable activities and conduct of[city]." This satisfies the requirement of alleging damage to plaintiffs' property caused by the project as designed and built. The complaint alleges that the city "dedicated for public use" the drainage facilities located above phintiffs' property, thus satisfying the necessity of alleging a public project caused the harm. Finally, the complaint alleges, albeit somewhat unclearly, that defendant constructed the Brewery basin culvert, with a capacity of 105 cfs, and sent water liom the surface moil[ of the subdivision through it into a preexisting 75 cfs drainage facility adjacent to plaintiffs' property, and that defendant's "failure to reco~tmize" the existing storm "drainage facilities [were] inadequate" to collect the increased storm water mnoff~om Skyline Subdivision "proximately and substantially caused" damage to plaintiffs' property. Thus, theAlbers requirement of pleading substantial causation is satisfied. (5) An inverse condemnation cause of action based on damage by ranice water is governed by a rule of reasonableness that is peculiar to that getIre. (Burrows v. State oJ California, supra, 260 Cal. 2d at pp. 32-33.) [page 761 ] Burrows, which first applied the reasonableness rule of private surface water law to an inverse condemnation case, succinctly summarized this rule as follows: "1. If the upper owner is reasonable and the lower owner [is] unreasonable, the upper owner wins; 2. [i]fthe upper owner is unreasonable and the lower owner [is] reasonable, the lower owner wins;... 3. [i]fboth the upper and lower owners are reasonable, the lower owner wins." (Burrows, supra, at pp. 32-33; accord Sheffet v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 3 Cal. App.3d at p. 728.) However, this reasonableness doctrine simply presents a question of fact to be determined in each case upon a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. (Keys v. Romley, supra, 64 Cal.2d at p. 410.) Plaintiffs need not plead defendant's unreasonableness to state a cause of action. (Burrows, supra, 260 Cal. App.2d at p. 33.) Instead, defendant must answer and raise the issue of plaintiffs' unreasonableness to prevail in this case. As the Burrows court w~ly notes, there is no incentive "to try to plead and prove that the upper owner's diversion of surface water has been unreasonable. He prevails, whatever the nature of the upper owner's conduct. Why should he undertake the burden of proving the upper owner's diversion to be unreasonable? (6)(See fn. 3.) The reasonable diverte~'s money spends just as nicely." (Ibid.)3(3) (2c) Inasmuch as the case involves surface waters inundating property that was not subject to historical flooding, defendant's reliance on Belair v. Riverside County Flood ControlDist., supra, 47 Cal. 3d 550 is misplaced and plaintiffs need not allege defendant's drainage system failed to function as intended. First, as the Belair case deals with flood water (id. at pp. 554-555), another body of law altogether, it is inapposite. Second, the Belair court's use of the phrase "failed to fimction as intended" was a means offleshing out the requirement for pleading substantial causation (id. at p. 560) based upon the particular factual underpinnings of the case. In Belair the subject water had escaped fi'om a dike constructed to protect a site that had been historically subject to flooding. (Id. at p. 556.) Therefore, to show that defendant's facility was a substantial cause ofinjmy to that site, it was necessary for the plalntiffin Belair to eliminate the other probable causes of damage, i.e., natural flooding. This in turn required focusing on the fimctional capability of the failed public project: if the dike had overflowed after [page 7621 it reached its design capacity, instead of when it was still below capacity, the cause of flooding might have been nature alone. (.rd. at pp. 558-560.) Although nature had a hand in the injury produced in Belatr, the dike there failed to protect plaintiff even when it was not operating at capacity, thus it failed to function as intended, presenting a substantial cause of the injury. (Id. at p. 560.) The facts of the case at bench present no similar obstacle. The allegations allow the reasonable inference that plaintiffs' property was not subject to historical flooding; the complaint also expressly alleges that the repeated incidents ofintmdation suffered by plaintiffs dates from the time the upland subdivision was developed. (7) Third, we note that the policies governing surface water and flood control inverse condemnation cases are different. In flood cases, as Belair states, the purpose of requiring allegations of both substantial causation and unreasonableness on the part of the government entity defendant is to prevent discouraging construction of flood protection facilities. (47 Cal. 3d at p. 558.) However, no such concern is involved in surface water cases. If anything, the opposite is tree: surface water damage typically follows alteration of natural drainage patterns by a party who has developed a piece of property for profit, in this case a land subdivider, instituting improvements which are later incorporated into a governmental infrastructure. (See, e.g., Frustuck v. City of Fairfax, supra, 212 Cal. App.2d at pp. 362-363.) The coitus have held that while this type of development "[is] socially beneficial, there [is] no reason why the economic cost incident to the expulsion of surface waters should be borne by the adjoining landowners, rather than by those undertaking such projects for profit." (Sheffet, supra, 3 Cal. App.3d at p. 73 1, citing Armstrong v. Francis Corp. (1956) 20 N.J. 320 [120 A. 2d 4, 59, A.L.R. 2d 413].) Finally, we note that Belair is inapposite because it deals with unintended damage resulting from breach of a dike and the flooding that occurred thereafter. (Belair, supra, 47 Cal. 3d at p. 554.) As Burrows noted, "in ... surface water cases we do not usually deal with -hintended, though foreseeable consequences of acts or omissions, but rather with intended results which may or may not be reasonable, depending on all of the circumstances." (Burrows v. State of California, supra, 260 Cal. App.2d at p. 34.) (2d) The trial court erred in applying Belair's pleading standards to a complaint alleging surface water invasions. Ipage 7631 (8) Plaintiffs allege that the cit3?s unreasonable "failure to recognize" the obvious problem in design, and its corresponding unreasonable "failure to upgrade" the existing drainage system, resulted in damage to their property. Defendant contends these allegations undermine plaintiffs' cause of action for inverse condemnation because defendant is under no duty to upgrade existing systems to prevent damage caused by any and all future storms. But defendant is relying on inapposit~C~o""o_d control cases)for authority. (E.g., Tri-.~Che~n. Inc.~v. Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. ( 1976} 60 Cal. App.3d 306 [132 Cal. Rptr. 1421; S, hae,,ffer v..State o[Cal~[brnia (1972)22 Cal. App.3d 1017 [6'~' _ Cal. Rptr. 861] (overruled on other grounds in County of San Diego v. Miller (1975) 13 Cal.3d 684, 693 [119 Cal. Rptr. 491, 532 P.2d 139]).) The cited cases did not involve a failure to plead a cause of action for inverse condemnation under any possible theory. Instead, they concerned the plaintiffs' tailure to prove the defendants' flood control projects caused flood waters to inundate plaintiffs' properties. (Tri-Chem, supra, 60 Cal. App.3d at pp. 310-312; Shaeffer, supra, 22 Cal. App.3d at pp. 1019-1021.) The defendants were not liable because the evidence disclosed the flood control projects decreased the amount of flooding that would otherwise have occurred naturally on the the plaintiffs' lands. (Tri- Chem, supra, at p. 310; Shaeffer, supra, at p. 1019.) Unlike the cited cases, phintiffs are not alleging defendant had a duty to build or upgrade a flood control system to prevent naturally occurring flood waters from flowing onto plaintiffs' land. (Tri-Chem, supra, 60 Cal. App.3d at pp. 308-312; ShaeJfer, supra, 22 Cal. App. 3 d at pp. 1019-102 I. ) Instead, they are contending defendant approved the development of a subdivision, which increased the flow of surface waters, then built a culvert to divert these surface waters even though defendant knew, or should have known, the new culvert would empty into an existing drainage system with a si~tmi~cantly smaller capacity, inevitably causing plaintiffs' land to be flooded. In other words, plaintiffs are aileging defendant had a duty to prevent harm to plaintiffs' land caused by conditions defendant approved or created. Since the cited cases do not hold that a defendant has no duty to upgrade an existing drainage system to accommodate an increase in and diversion of surface waters caused by the defendant, defendant's reliance on these cases is unavailing. [page 764[ Disposition The judgment dismissing plaintiffs' second amended complaint should be reversed and the trial court ordered to overrule the general demurrer to the second amended complaint. Plaintiffs should recover their costs on appeal. Blease, Acting P. J., and Sim~ J., concurred. [page 765] FOOTNOTE 1. A practitioner's manual warns that "[d]ecisions in water damage cases defy logical synthesis. The practitioner should recognize that each case is decided on its particular factual situation, with little reliance on precedent. The characterization of inverse condemnation decisional law as 'muddled and disorderly' [citation] is particularly descriptive of water cases." (Condemnation Practice in Cal. (Cont. Ed. Bar 1973) Inverse Condemnation, § 13.14, p. 350.) FOOTNOTE 2. Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation having first been made to ... the owner .... "( Cal. Const., art. I, former § 14.) FOOTNOTE 3. Reasonableness in the context of surface water inverse condemnation cases has to do with balancing the utility of the public project against the gravity of the harm caused to the plaintiff.. "[T]he gathering of surface waters into a system of impervious storm drains which follow natural drainage routes may restfit in greatly increased volume, velocity and concentration of water, and thus may constitute an unreasonable method of disposing for such water when weighed against the seriousness the resulting harm to lower landowners whose property is damaged as a result." (Van Alstyne, op. cit. supra, 20 Hastings L.J. at pp. 451-452, fn. omitted.) Endnotes 1 (Popup) FOOTNOTE 1. A practitioner's manual warns that "[d]ecisions in water damage cases defy logical synthesis. The practitioner should reco~nlze that each case is decided on its particular factual siftration, with lirtle reliance on precedent. The characterization of inverse condemnation decisional law as 'muddled and disorderly' [citation] is particularly descriptive of water cases." (Condemnation Practice in Cal. (Cont. Ed. Bar 1973) Inverse Condemnation, § 13.14, p. 350.) 2 (Popup) FOOTNOTE 2. Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation having first been made to ... the owner .... "( Cal. Const., art. I, former § 14.) 3 (Popup) FOOTNOTE 3. Reasonableness in the context of surface water inverse condemnation cases has to do with balancing the ut'dity of the public project against the gravity of the harm caused to the plaintiff.. "IT]he gathering of surface waters into a system of impervious storm drains which follow natural drainage routes may result in greatly increased volume, velocity and concentration of water, and thus may constitute an tinreasonable method of disposing for such water when weighed against the seriousness the resulting harm to lower landowners whose property is damaged as a result." (Van Alstyne, op. cit. supra, 20 Hastings L.J. at pp. 451-452, In. omitted.) RECEIVED To: The Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Drive JUt 2 11999 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91729 Dear Planning Cormmission, Ci~y0fRanCho Cuca~ 17, 1999 P~anning Division I am sending my concerns in writing for the proposed develop- ment at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). I find this necessary since the date for this public hearing has been changed three times now. (It was originally scheduled on July 14th, then Aug. llth and now July 28th.) Myself and many of my neighbors have tried to schedule around these constant changes in the hearing date. This last date is impossible for me to schedule around. I ask once more for a hearing date in Septem- ber, when more residents can attend. Although moving up the hearing date clearly benefits the developer, please consider the residents wishes as well. I would no reiterate several points made at the planning commission meeting on June 9th for your consideration. On this date, I presented you with a petition signed by 23 residents. The petition opposes the continuation of Hidden Farm Road across Archibald into the new BarratE Development and requests the new housing be one story only homes and/or fully comply with the Hillside Ordinance. Twelve out of sixteen homes on Hidden Farm are represented, with the remaining signatures from residents on the development peri- meter--including Almond St. and JadeiCe Ave. to the west, Archi- bald to the north and Carrari to the south. The reasons for opposing the continuation of Hidden Farm Road into the new tract are: 1. The difference in age between the tracts is approximately 20 years. When originally planned there would only have been a few years difference. 2. Most importantly, the danger to children in both tracts. Currently kids ride their bikes and roller skate on our street, if the road continues across Archibald, kids would be more likely to try to cross this 50 mph, downhill road. And as one resident said, "lowering the speed limit will not make it safe." 3. Hidden Farm road is a cul-de-sac, it doesn't go anywhere, so why connect it into the new tract? I suggest off setting the streets, as most already are in the area. So children would not be tempted to try to cross Archi- bald. Hillside ordinance issue The Planning cornmission workshop minutes from June 10, 1998 state: 1, "Previous approval included a condition limiting development tO One-StOry homes" This was intended to minimize visual impact and 2 story homes would have more impact. 2. Concerns were voiced about 2 story homes being built without stepping the pads and that allowing this project to proceed is allowing a dangerous precedent to be set for hillside develop- ment. 3. Our questions are: a. Do the proposed flat pads "fit the terrain" as the Hillside Ordinance stipulates? b. What is being done to retain "minimal visual impact"? c. At the design review meeting I saw planning commissioners taking great care to assure visual impacts from structures and yards were minimized. Since this new development does not have an association, how will this be maintained? Also of concern are the 3 exits proposed on Archibald, with only 1 exit on Hermosa that mentions impact on emergency access. This is a severe fire danger area! In the event of a wildfire people will want to get there pets and possessions and get out. How does the proposed mitigation of one through street connection from Archibald to Almond solve the emergency exit problem? Especially when Archibald narrows to one lane below Hillside! With 3 exits on Archibald and one on Hermosa, I think most will try to exit on Archibald. My last concern is with the grading done over June 7-9th. This grading was done "without city approval" according to asso- ciate planner, Brent Le Count. Shrub removal for fire prevention usually is done on the perimeter of the property. On June 8th, one fourth to one half of the area was cleared from north of Almond St. south to Carrari. Including the middle portion, not just the perimeter. My understanding is this type of grading is done after mitigation is complete. Ralph Crane of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department said normal fire clearance includes mowing, discing or hand cutting the area 100 feet in from the curb. Since the residents have complained, Bartart development has erected an ugly, barbed wire chain link fence around the entire property. We feel this is in retaliation for our com- plaints and to prevent the movement of wildlife through the neighborhoods, as it has done. I ask you, to please consider the residents in your decisions, and this developer's lack of consid- eration for the residents in ~is area. On the City of Rancho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the goals of the Planning Commission include; protecting the natural environment and the community identity. It also says the review committees value public participation and encourages it. There- fore, myself and the signers of this petition hope you will con- sider these points, Thank you for your time. S~ncerely, Cindy Shannon 9574 Hidden Farm Road Alia Loma, Ca. 91737 RECEIVED JUL 2 1 1999 Krishna K & Vidya K Kudva 9683 Cartart Court City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cuca=nonga, CA-91737 Planning Division July 19,1999 Planning Division City ofRancho Cucamonga P.OBox 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA-91729 Sub: Environmental Assessment and Development review 98-10 - Barratt American Dear Sirs, We received your Notice of Public Hearing and Environmental Notice dated July 15, 1999 on the above subject. We oppose the proposed construction of the I23 dwelling units on the 84 acres of land on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrari Court. As the area residents of nearly tv.'enty (20) years, we strongly feel that the proposed construction will have negative and damaging impact on the environment, and degrade the quality of life the area residents are currently enjoying. We are. therefore, voicing our strong objections to any further land development or construction of any nature in the proposed area. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to express our views on this issue. ~irishn'a~K~ Vidya Kudva MY NAME 1S DON BLUNK. IRESIDE AT974S CARRARL P. AkNCHO CUCAMONGA, TH~IS DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED TRACT iZii6, i HAVE LiVED TiiERE frOR 20 yEARS, IllAVE WATCHED AS THREE DIFFERF. NT ~ESIDENTIAL BUILDERS HAVE AI-izMPTED TO BUII.h ACROSS !mROMMYliOMF_., TIIE FIRST ONE WASNEVERRLAI.LyAI;ACTOp,. FREEDMAN HOMES WAS THE SECOND BUILDER TO ATTEMPKD TO BUILD IN THIS LOCATiON. Aiq-m~MUCliDISCUS~ION WITH THE CiTY AND ~iEgOMAN HOME~, THERE WAS A MEETING Of THE MinDS AND THE TRACT WAS APPROVED UNAN IMASLY BY THE PLANNING COMMt t]'.~ ON MARCH 2~tlk 1987, TWO OF THE PEOPLE PROM THAT PLANNING COMMISSION ARE ON THIS BOARD. MANY OF OUR NEIGIIBOf4S WERE INVOLVED IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THIS BUH,DI~t, AND MP, NY LETTF, R$ WRITFEN TO THE CITY ABOUT THIS AREA MOSTLY CONCERNING THE FACT THAT liOMSES WERE GOING TO BE ALLOWED IN THIS ARF.~ A LOT OF P~OPLE WEP, g VERY MUCli AGAINST IIAVff4G FARMS AlqAMALS IN THER NEIGHBORliOOB. THE TItACT WAS TO Bg OF Mr/ r.n lEOUSING, ONE AND TWO STORY HOMRN: BUT BECAUSE OF AN APPEAL IT WENT TO Tlig CfrV COUNCIL. AND WITH MUCli ADDITIONAl, WORK, IT WAS APPROVED BY TIlE COUNCIL,. P~OPLE ON ALL SIDES OF TIffS TRACT (13316) WERE SOMEWliAT RESIGNED TO THE FACT TI!AT THai DEVELOPMENT WAS GOING TO BE BUILT. eVERyONEONLONDONATTHATTiMgWASAWARgOFTHgpLANSFORTHEFLOOD CONTROL, AND MOST PEOPLE AT THAT TIME AGREED WITli THE FLNAL APPROVKD MAP, I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY OF THE ORIGINAL OWNERS STILL LIVING ON LONDON. i WOULD TtI~NK THAT A~YONE MOVING '170 THOSE LOT WOULD WANT TO FIND OllT |1~ ANY THING MIGliT gSFZCT TIIEM IN THE I?UTURE BEFORE 111EV WOULD INVL~T IN THERE liOM~S. I KNOW T]LAT THERE 'I!iLE REPORT WOULD SIIOW THE CURRENT ILASEMF24T. Tlig TRACT WAS FINALLY APPROVED IN JUNE 1990, BUT TIlls TRACT STOPPED WHEN FRgEDMA~ liOlt!L~ CEASED WORK ON THE PROJECT AND LET THE LAND GO BACK TO THE BANK_ IT SZI~MS IRONIC THAT AT THAT TIME THERE WERE NO LOUD CRIES FOR ENDANGERD BIRDS, RAT, BUd*ItaLy OR EVEN SAGE BRUSH. OR IF TIIKRE W AS, IT W AS NOT VERY LOUD. O~ ~OI//,D IT ~ I2'L,JT 2Y2,Z~R~' M~P.2tE NOT E~D~NGp2~:D PZANT~ OR ~l.~f~Z,~* AT 77Z~T 'fi~E ~?/C~ T/~~ T~fl*,' ZZL4?' I HAFE L1~7,3~ ll~.R~ T?IE BRUSII ACI¢O,~' TIIF 87RF_.ET IIAS I~:~;N CT. IT YFI~?I A DI,~L', IT llA8 BEEN C/f/* Y/HI/A D8 TRAC'TOR ~41j, DOWN ?U TIlt:' DIRT. tr IM,~ II~:N CUT ON All. ,%TDE,X NORT[I OF CARRARI 81'RF~T AT LF21,%7,.7) JO0 lr I~4N BEE,~ Ct fl' ON BOTll ,~IDF~ OF TIlE ~J[l TIIA T GO~' DOFf' TIIE Mll)l)lt OF TIlE PROPERTY 11~ ~ CRI&~' C~05~ PATI~.RN . I REALLY WOND~2R m AIff ENDANGP. P~Z) ANAIZdAI~ OR PL43ff COIIIJ) ,~7?IJ. t;tTR IN lfll,~' AR~{., ff~'J*[ ~ TIll.? (?IfiTING OR li" TIIf~RE FFOU~D BE A ~blNC.!'.' ~DR TIIP2d TO Ri~'%TZ4BLI~71 TIJ ,A~ISI,lt/F~ . IN TIlE g~lvT~.R MONTII~' MANY MO'/r,~(,'rC/.~RLDERS PRACtiCE 7II~Y~' tlOBBY IN TIII.$' I/I~:I,D. I I~{tq~ITII~3RD It) MGL'tl OFA LOUD FOIC~'TO 57OP TIlI~ PIMClICt:'TO IIL~P PROII..'C.T Tilt:' ENDANOI,2U.:L~ PI.4NTS AND ANI~L~I2~ J~T LIKE MANY OF OUR I~PaOIIBOP, X gtE.¢:t~R [~ILD Lf~E IN TIlE Ffi'2.D ...t K,VO}' OF COI'OT~..% OPO~UM. ~K{]zYK~ . RAT~ ~UARREI,.q , .~PIIY'P,~q. Al~l) i'},~' ~.~' O( :Ag~lONtlZ DF.~.R, ~F~/I1~ ~ ~ ILdD MORI'.' TI!JIV OUR SIL4J~' 01,' Rt!?TLl~Wlll~' TIll8 rt~lR ~rf21i. .,IX ?'lit:' lAST FE~' 1'~24R.~ . I glOUIi) MI.~%' TTIi' I~A T~A~ ~4 {fIT OF TIlE IIIU,. BUT 1 AM OFA RE24LL3'F. W~: IMFE BEEN AMAZKI) TlblT TlllSAIq~A IIA8 PI{FF BEEN DIT/F. LOPFJI IN All. TII~' 1 tlAI'l..'/IL~FAy.? KNO~' THAT ~FII~:N YOU MO~ ~' I.~FIT).~l AREA. ~'~ClALLI }FFFII FAC~41q'F Bb2LDABI2~. LAPiD TIIAT YOU S!IOt/LD Bh; RI,~tDY TO .~2;'.WJA~'TItlNG I.~ ,FF. firFtMI~F f~OZhlO i F~ IIdFE. g"A~711ED P~.'01~22' ON BO?II .qlDh: OFARCIIIBJLD,~Ob ~' A}F.4Y AND hEW PEOPLE I~OI/E IN. TII/..'~/.:AR.-t'' PEOPLE APE. ~[07' ~ ~FARE OF 7111~ [, IGI ~S 171A T IIA g 't:' aON~.' ON ~TTtl BUJIJ)KRX TO U~.T TIZE BEST Dt:'I~ZOI'ilI?NT I?IAT IIIE CTIT CAN IIjF~:.,rIND ....... ~IOH/ P/~.',~P, EATTIIAT,~iME DOOR AC~IN. HAR S'ORKk:l) I[~tRD TO FIND .gC),%¢EOt~T TO D~I'~LClF Illt" LAND. BUT Wfl?l N~:~F PfZIP!2' I~I TIlt:'l, NOS' IIAt 7"A NEg" FIGIfi'. IZllb' Tale THe: L/'.77/'21~/?L4TAP,/~' B ;I~NG DRITI~2N DEI. tt4Fl'.' AMIJ&[L.~ IN TIIK~t lN~TEdD OI: AIJOI~' fIORSf~ r!!E ~'AS~I IX AGAI,%r A tqb.~ ClMIJANUE. BUT TIII,.' CrlT J~IYIJo IR~YArG TO GE~'TiII. Y IIIR{L Y/E$1OUI. D T~7.L TII~'2?~tlU)~i~$,iiiATTIt-FAREIN FOR d R~M1, FIGIfi' II.' TII~:T P/ANT ?~) BUILD IN TIIIS Cfil; Tltt~I? ARI,~ P~;OI'I.I~ FFIIO FANT TO MAKI,,' ~ PRKS'~RF~' OUT OF TIll?., LAND. OF COEZRSE I I lAP~: .~.'~I NO Pl.4NS ?TI DO TtI~. MAFBb' ?II~.'}' TIIIIqlC TIIF. CITY BUY TIIF. I.4ND FROM TIIE DEVELOI' ,ER . 1~7~'JU~T SI'F~ND M{}R~ MONEY INSTF. dD OI,'IIAFIN(~ TIIF. IAND MAKE.~tO~rEY IN IVT'.'~Y 77d J~'AND F 'EI':,S' FUR 77ire' CJTT, INCJ. f/DI~T~ MORE 2~EYE~UI~ ~OR BIJXlN~2~ IN AR~d.. IF ~L" $rKR~; Tfi LET TItE L4ND C~O RiCK TO fi~ N.4T~fI~4L ~T.~T~. BRU~I IIAS GRO|¢'N l~tCT~ TIll,: 1. ?RE MAt~S~IAL ~'OI/LD ?~'~L 80.~t270N~' TO C'rfl' ;fTIE BRU~II AGAIN TO PRO~C~I'HlP; IIOAIEOI{TV ,I~R~' t~710 LIt 'E IV,EAR 771E PROI' ,ER}~ AGA/NST I+ILDI, ZI ,OES. llljH F/fIAT WOULD WE IIA~ ~.' G/I/N/z'D ... TIlE HATURAL IIK~ t,77... OF COURSIZ.. . I!lff ,%Y))/IE PEOPLI~' FITLL bTILL !lA ~7~.' TIlE AIJ. 77II,7 7'.t~/~Sfl T!L!T C:~7;5' DUAI!'ED IN !RE FTP. ZD. AtZ. 'HIE TU,~,IIEE. 1tt,7,.'/~;13,5' libIT CY)M~.' DO~' IlIE IIILL IN ObT{ WINDY TII~tI~. YI,,~' AND SO,~IE PEOPLIz' WILL ,%'IEL It4VE HII,;RE VIEW. rile PEOPI, E tVIIO ARE NOT DIRL:CTtI. Y E~ I,'b'CI'EI) IIY TfI1S 71~1C?1'. OUSDIDI,.' OV111E TIL4I,'I,TC, AbZ) A IJITLK MORE N0157,.'. tl,~l 71MI:' I~Y)R 11'11,.' COAfZvg,510N 70 ,S7~)1' I'LA )TNG ~)TII TIllS L4NO OR W/i' P/IIJ, 11l:' DOING TIllS AGAIN IN ANOTItI~ FEW FI,91RS /{71EN SOAlt..' D/'.T Y. LOPI,:R WA,NT$ Z'O TRY AND B~LD. WIIA'[' [{ILL BE ~[~; /blrlrLE CRY T!IF, N. AS YOU C~IN rEIJ, I AM FOR TIllS TRA( ~7. 1T CAN ONI, Y [l ,hT, P TO ENIIANCE MINE AND Tl!lf $URRONI)IHG PROP ,FJtT'r VAI, UF_S IIlE JNZ~&tI.S l~71J. ,%771,L BE HIAR~:....BU'P $/NCE IHIS'IS AIV API'RO VED TRACT MAP WIIA T IF ,~)ME DEI~:I, OPEI{ MIGIIT ONLY WAI~I' 7~') PUT 57REKlS' IN AND St~L TIlE LAND 1,19R .C. U57Y. h~/ IIOMES. 1 UNDP;R,.~7~I.~:D HIAT IlIERE ARE I)IFI:ElthT PROCEEDURP.~' FOR TIII,~ AND TII~SJ, E M1GIrf NOT BE NEkD I'UR A PUI~IJC M ~I~71NG. IT GIFE, IkIE SOMI,.TtlING TO TiI~VK AiR)Crl.~IblTi iFOUIjJ NOTZiE iIApioy P/ITII.. WORK W17tt TIll( ~;bI.~'CT"ED PI,.'OPLE Olv I. ONDO.~' ST. A,~l) HIEN PLEASE AI'PROP~ IIIE THANK YOU DON BLUNK 9745 CARRARI ST, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA, CITY 01~ RANCHO PLANNING COMMI~iSION July 28, 1999 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CMC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 10500 CWIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONCA CAI,IFORNIA B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 - BARRATT AMERICAN Material presented by: Diana Santini 5207 London Ave Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737 Diana Santini 5207 London Avenue Rancho Cucatnonga, CA 91737 (909) 945-9840 dune 9, 1999 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Dear Commissioners: As a follow-up to my letter of June 3, 1999 addressed to Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer (ATTACHMENT A), I am expressing specific concerns and requests to be considered pdor to approval of the housing project identified as Tract 13316. My home is the first lot immediately south of the project on the corner of London and Carrari Avenue. It is my understanding that the drainage project consists of an underground pipe which will surface above Carrari and empty into a cement storm drain which will be in my immediate backyard and will be directed towards the existing natural drainaqe flow. VVhen I purchased my home in 1993, I was informed by the City that I was not allowed to interrupt the natural drainage of water, therefore, not allowed to interrupt or permanently construct on my property. I am therefore requesting the following issues be taken into consideration: 1. On February 15, 1989, the City of Rancho Cucamonga passed, approved and adopted Resolution No. 89-066 which in part required construction of a Master Plan Storm Drain line through the site which will dewater the system into an existing open channel. It appears that the current Drainage Plan does not extend the storm drain line to the existing open channel but allows the water to be directed onto dry land which may impair the integrity & stability of existing slopes private property. (ATI'ACHEMENT B) 2. Verify that the drainage easement includes drainage construction. It may be limited to allowing for the natural drainage flow vs. directed drainage which will now be directed to empty into a channel and onto natural surface property. Planning Commission 6/9/99 Page 2 3. GeoSoils Engineering Inc., conducted a limited Geotechnical Evaluation of my property in 1992 (A'I'rACHMENT C). Issues of concern include: > Drainage of adjacent, northly property appears to direct drainage toward the subject property and to the ephemeral drainage. If allowed to continue, this runoff could degrade the integrity of the slope where it · descends into the ephemeral drainage. Additional erosion of this nature could undermine the block wall on the north property boundary near the ephemeral drainage or undermine portions of the residence. > AccUmulated surface drainage should be directed to an appropriate location for disposal by providing a graded swale with a minimum gradient of 2 percent or an appropriate surface collection device with nonperforated pipe to an outlet at the street or other suitable location. Off-site runoff should not be allowed to pond on the site. Water should not be allowed to flow over any slopes. > Water should not be allowed to discharge adjacent to the residence. Drainage systems should not be altered without expert consultation. > Slopes should not be altered without expert consultation. Whenever the homeowner plans a topographic modification of the lot or slope, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be contacted. > A stability analysis should be performed on the existing slopes to verify stability. :> Sinca the approval of the resolution in 1989, I have constructed a suspended wooden deck which overhangs the existing natural drainage area and an in ground pool has been installed. I therefore request a copy of the geographical evaluation of the property and proposed development & drainage system plan conducted after 1992, If one has not been conducted after 1992, that such evaluation be performed and reviewed prior to approval for commencing construction. 4, If a drainage plan is approved, that it consist of a buried pipe emptying into the existing storm drain as per the City's approval in 1989. 5. If an open channel is considered, that it be located on the East portion of the property which will essentially extend the existing channel southerly of my property. This was identified as a viable concept by Russell H. Maguira, City Engineer in 1990 which would extend the channel 250 feet south. (ATTACHMENT D). Planning Commission 6/9~99 Page 3 · . 6. If an open channel is approved as currently planned, that a crossover bridge be provided to reach the East portion of my property without having to exit into the Community Trail as was decided on June 22, 1989 by the Design Review Committee meeting. (ATTCHMENT E) 7. Request that no two-story homes be built immediately adjacent to my property in order to preserve privacy. 8. All debris left in the existing street in front of my property be cleared daily. Sincerely, Diana Santini Diana Santini 5207 London Ave. AIta Loma, CA 91737 (909) 945-9840 June 3, 1999 The City of Rancho Cucamonga Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Tract 13316 Dear Mr, James: I am writing regarding concerns over the housing project identified as Tract 13316 which apparently was approved 10 years ago. I recently attended a meeting at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center held by the developer of this project. I also met with Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, on June 2, 1999. Both of these sources have described the drainage system planned for this housing tract. It is my understanding that included in the planned drainage system will be a pipe that will be placed underground for the new homes being built. The pipe will then surface just above Carrari and empty into a "tp wrap" which will be fenced. My home is the first lot immediately south of the project on the comer of Carrari and London Avenue. It has been described that the "tip wrap" will be in my immediate back yard with the gutter and drainage water directed to empty onto my properly. When I purchased my home in 1993, it was my understanding that the city had an easement on my property for Natural Drainage Flow that prohibits any construction on the east portion of my lot. I am not aware of an existing construction easement the city may hold on my property. My objection is that the drainage will no longer be a natural drainage but a permanent interruption and deliberate direction of water flow into my property and permanent construction related to this redirection. This plan for a fenced "r/p wrap" in my backyard will be an unsightly eyesore and may violate the existing drainage easement rights. In addition, a Geotechnical Evaluation conducted on my property in 1992 made several observations and recommendations regarding water drainage. A portion of this report specifically states that "... off-site runoff should not be allowed to pond on the site and water should not be allowed to flow over any slopes. Measures should be taken to prevent the undercutting and erosion at the toe of the slopes that descent into the ephemeral drainage.. My request is that the underground 15ipe be extended to reach and empty into the existing storm drain system. I plan to attend the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for June 9, 1999 to address my concerns. Should this topic not be appropriate at that meeting, I request that a meeting with the appropriate individuals be scheduled to expeditiously address this issue. Cc: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Betty A. Miller, Associate Engineer -- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA , --r~, STAFF REPORT DATE: Fehru,~ry 15, 1989 ~ ~ TJ: City Council and Acting City Hanager FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Gary H. Sheu, Assistant Civil En~inee~ SUBJECT: Approval of a Resolution acce~ting an offer of dedication of a irainane eas~ent offend to the City of Ra~ho Cucamonga on Tract No. 9590 Icca~d east of Archibald Avenue and south o'~ Almond Avenue Staff r~con~ends that City Council approve the attached resolution accepLing the drainage ease~,ent as sho~n on the map of Tract No. 9590 and described on the attached resolution. O~ckorcund/Anatysis The p,-oposed development c~ Tract 13316 (Fric~--~n Homes) is required to construct a Master Plan Storm Drain llne thrnugh the site which will dovetot the system into an existing open channel. Ctb* previously had an offer of ded~cation for drainage purposes within this open channel as a part of development of Tract !)590. To facilitate the draining of the storm drain syst..*m. for Tract 13316, tt t~ necessary to accept this offer of dedication. An exhibit is enclosed to show the proposed Tract 13316 and location of the offer of dedication. Attachment i!. 0. BOx 807 ~ I . l",ancha Cucam0nga, CA 91730 RESOLUTION NO. 89-066 z,.9 < .--,. -~ .-, A P~ESOLUTIOI~ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ~CHO "~ b-', " " ~ c. CUC~ONGA, C~IFO~IA, ACCEPTIIlG A D~INAGE EASE~NT DEDICATION ON T~CT NO. 9590 LOCATED EAST OF ~CHIB~D ' " A~NUE ~D SOUTH OF ~OND A~NUE ~'.. The city Council of the City of Rancho Cuceonga does hereby resolve as follows: ,~. SECTION 1: The offer to dedicate to the= City of Ranch6 Cuc~onga, County of San Bernardino, Sta:e of California, .the property heroin described for drainage purposes, is hereby accepted. said proper=y is described as follows: Those ~rtions of the easement as offered to dedicate to the City of Rancho Cuc~onga ~r Tract No. 9590 as recorded in Map Book 138, Page 47-48. comencing at the southeast corner of Tract NO. 9590 as recorded in Map Book 138, Page 47-48, Official Records of said County, recorded January 6, I978; thence north 0 23'01" east, 6.18 feet to the tru~ ~int of beginning; thence north 51 11'19" west, 290.09 fee:; thence north 56 37'07" west, 154.49 feet; thence north 18 50'18" wes~, 89.81 feet; thence north 10 39'37" west, 86.49 feet; thence north 38 14'47" west, 108.23 feet; thence north 20 15'23" west, 89.54 feet; thence north 28 58'28" east, '46.26 fee: =o a point in the north line of said Tract; thence north 80 33'14" east, 480.00 -.,. fe~ to '~e northeast corner of said Trac:; thence south O 23'01" .we~, 646.04 feet along the east line of said Tract to the true point of beginning. ~ECTION 2: The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed for record in the office of the County Recorder of the County of San Bernardino, State of California. PASSED, APPRO~D, and ~OPTED this 15th ~ay of February, 1989. AYES: Alexander, Brown, Bu~et, stout, Wright NOES: None ~SENT: None ATTEST: C-'-:l' U; 'L:;=' ;2::2.~ .'.~ -.-: ';"2 ~: ~ ..~ t 'j... 2' -:j. I, BEVERLy A. AUTHELET, CITY CLERK, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 15th day of February, 1989.' Executed this 16th day of February, 1989 at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Bevejly/A.'Authelet, City Clerk GeoSoiis, Inc. .. Geotechnical Engineering · Engineering Geology 24890 Jefferson Avenue · P.O. Box 490 · Murrieta. Culifornia 92564 · (714) 677-9651 · FAX (714) 677-9301 September 3, 1992 W.O. 562-A-RC Better Homes and Gardens Realty 6642 Carnellia Rancho Cucamonga, California 91701 Attention: Ms. Heidi Burns Subject: Limited Geotechnical Evaluation of 5207 London Avenue, Alta Loma Area of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California Reference: "Approved Standards," 1980, by Home Owners Warranty Corporation. Dear Ms. Burns: In accordance with your request and authorization, this report presents the findings of our limited geotechnical evaluation of the subject property. Inasmuch as this study was performed without the benefit of site-specific subsurface information, the conclusions and recommendations presented herein are limited and should be considered preliminary in nature. In addition, our observations were performed on the exterior of the residence only. BACKGROUND The subject site is currently under ownership of a financial institution. The following is our understanding from the client, Ms. Heidi Burns, the real estate representative for the owner. 1. The residence is an approximately 14-year-old home. 2. The home recently has been refurbished in preparation for sale. During this refurbishment, Ms. Burns noticed evidence of surface water run-off during recent rains from the ad3acent, northerly property. 3. The client has expressed concerns regarding drainage on the site and drainage from adjacent properties affecting the site: therefore, the client requested this evaluation of site conditions Los Angeles Co. (8181785-2158 · Orange Co. [714) 647-0277 · San Diego Co. (619) 438-3155 Better Homes and Gardens Realty W.0. 562-A-RC 5207 London September 3, 1992 Rancho Cucamonga, California Page 2 SCOPE OF SERVICRR The scope Of our services has included the following: 1. Review and reconnaissance of general site conditions from a geotechnical viewpoint with an emphasis on site drainage conditions. 2. Geotechnical analysis of the data collected. 3. Preparation of this report. GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is a rectangular-shaped lot, consisting of about 1.17 acres. The property fronts on London Avenue in the Alta Loma area of the city of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. The site i~ bounded by adjacent residential property on the south, London Avenue on the north, and vacant property on the nor%h and west. The west half of the lot has been developed for the residential structure, while the east half of the lot remains in an essentially natural condition. A slope, about 10 feet high, descends from the south property line to the adjacent property at a gradient of about 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). A natural, ephemeral drainage transects the subject lot and drains to the south. This ephemeral drainage is about 50 feet wide and 20 to 30 feet deep. Slopes descend into the ephemeral drainage at a gradient of about 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical). Block walls exist on the western portions of the north and south property boundaries. In the front yard, the walls are about 2 feet high and serves as a retaining wall between the site and adjacent properties. The remainder of each block wall is about 6 feet high and serves as divider between properties. A two-story, wood-frame residence with stucco and wood siding occupies the central portion of the lot. It appears that the residence is founded on continuous perimeter footings with concrete slab-on-grade floors. OBSERVATIONS OF DRAINAGE FEATURES Our observations of the drainage conditions indicate: 1. Gutters and downspouts are not present on the residence. Drainage devices have not been constructed on any of the slopes on the site or slopes adjacent to the site. GeoSoils, Inc. Better Homes and Gardens Realty W.O. 562-A-RC 5207 London September 3, 1992 Rancho Cucamonga, California Page 3 2. An ephemeral drainage, about 50 feet wide and 20 to 30 feet deep, transects the subject lot and drains toward the south. 3. Drainage on the front (west) portion Of the site generally is toward the southwest corner of the lot, to the street. 4. Drainage on the south side of the house is generally toward the south. 5. Drainage on the north side of the house is generally to the south, toward the north wall of the house. 6. Drainage on the rear (east) portion of the site is generally directed from the rear of the residence to the east, toward the ephemeral drainage and from the rear of the property to the west, toward the ephemeral drainage. Natural drainage on the vacant property, located north of and adjacent to the site, is generally to the southeast toward the subject site and the ephemeral drainage. This ephemeral drainage has caused a rill to be eroded in the slope as it drains into the ephemeral drainage on the subject property. PRELIMINARy CONCLUSIONS aND RECOMMENDATION~ The drainage features observed on the site at the time of our site reconnaissance indicate that the current drainage patterns generally direct water runoff away from the residence and toward the rear of the property or to the street. However, surface gradients on the north side of the residence directs drainage toward the residence. In addition, drainage of the adjacent, northly property appears to direct drainage toward the subject property and to the ephemeral drainage. If allowed to continue, this runoff could degrade the integrity of the slope where it descends into the ephemeral drainage. Additional erosion of this nature could undermine the block wall on the north property boundary near the ephemeral drainage or undermine portions of the residence. The following preliminary recommendations are presented: 1. Positive drainage should be established and maintained on the property. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing a gradient of at least 4 percent for a minimum distance of 5 feet away from the residence. Accumulated surface drainage should be directed to an appropriate location for disposal by GeoSoiis, Inc. Better Homes and Gardens Realty W.O. 562-A-RC 5207 London September 3, 1992 Rancho Cucamonga, California Page 4 providing a graded swale with a minimum gradient of 2 percent or an appropriate surface collection device with nonperforated pipe to an outlet at the street or other suitable location. Off-site runoff should not be allowed to pond on the site. Water should not be allowed to flow over any slopes. 2. Eave gutters should be installed where appropriate and connected to downspouts. Downspout discharge should be directed to a nonperforated drain system that outlets to an appropriate location. Water should not be allowed to discharge adjacent to the residence. Drainage systems should not be altered without expert consultation. 3. A grade stabilization structure or drainage device should be installed at the north property line on the slope to carry concentrated water runoff from the adjacent, northerly property down the slope and into the ephemeral drainage and reduce erosion of the slope. 4. Drought-tolerant vegetation should be planted on the slope into the ephemeral drainage to reduce erosion of the slope. 5. Irrigation should be reduced to the minimum necessary to maintain plant vigor. 6. All drains should be kept cleaned and unclogged, including gutters and downspouts. Terrace drains or gunite ditches should be kept free of debris to allow proper drainage. During heavy rain periods, performance of the drainage systems should be inspected. Problems, such as gullying and ponding, if observed, should be corrected as soon as possible. 7. Any leakage from pools, waterlines, etc. or bypassing of drains should be repaired as soon as possible. 8. Animal burrows should be filled, because they may cause diversion of surface runoff, promote accelerated erosion, and even trigger shallow soil failures. 9. Any open bottom planters adjacent to settlement-sensitive structures should be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed-bottom planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. GeoSoiis, Inc. Better Homes and Gardens Realty W.O. 562-A-RC 5207 London September 3, 1992 Rancho Cucamonga, California Page 5 10. Slopes should not be altered without expert consultation. Whenever the homeowner plans a topographic modification of the lot or slope, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be contacted. 11. If unusual cracking, settling, or earth slippage occurs on the property, the homeowner should consult a qualified soil engineer or an engineering geologist immediately. 12. A stability analysis should be performed on the existing slopes to verify stability. 13. Measures should be taken to prevent the undercutting and erosion at the toe of the slopes that descend into the ephemeral drainage. 14. Consideration should be given to consulting a qualified design civil engineer to review the above recommendations with respect to line and grade and surface drainage. This evaluation of surface conditions at the property should not be construed to be a evaluation of subsurface conditions. This evaluation has not assessed the potential for changes in surface or subsurface conditions in the future. If site conditions do not change in the future, the integrity of the lot would be expected to remain consistant with respect to past performance; however, GSI can make no statement as to the specific integrity/performance of the property in the future, due to changes in surface or subsurface conditions. The property is located in a seismically-active region, and intense ground shaking at the site should be anticipated in the future. This ground shaking could cause distress features at the subject site. If in the future any additional improvements are planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements could be provided based on a subsurface evaluation of site conditions. A proposal for this type of site evaluation could be provided upon request. GeoSoils, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing, or recommendations performed or provided by others. GeoSoils, Inc. Better Homes and Gardens Realty W.O. 562-A-RC 5207 London September 3, 1992 Rancho Cucamonga, California Page 6 These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty is expressed or implied. We sincerely appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions or if you need any clarifications, please contact us at (714) 677-9651. Respectfully submitted, GEOSOILS, INC. I~jEngineering Geologist, CEG 1340 ~ Civil Engineer, RCE 49754 SLE/RCS/JPF/sh Distribution: (4) Addressee GeoSoiis, Inc. CITy OFRANCHOCUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT · - DATE: May 16, 1990 T0: City Council and City Manager 7ROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Lucinda E. Hackerr, Contract Engineer SUBJECT: Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security, acceptance of offer of dedication and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 for Tract 13315, located at the northeast corner of Archi'bald and Carrari Avenues, submitted by Friedman Homes RECO~4ENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Tract 13316, accepting the subject agreement, security, offer of dedication, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. I and 2, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement and to cause said map to record. ANALySIS/BACKGROUND Tract 13316, located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Carrari Avenues, in the Very Low Density Residential District, was approved by the Planning Commission on March 25, ~987, for the division of 84.5 acres into 123 lots. During the review process, various property owners to the south of the tract have voiced their concern regarding the proposed storm drain facility that extends southerly of the tract boundary approximately 107 feet. This facility i~ an emergency spillway channel and is part of the debris basin system. Staff has met extensively with these property owners over the past few years to listen to their concerns and desires. First, they wanted to underground the system in a pipe and fill in the canyon to enlarge their backyards. This is not possible due to the fact that this is part of a debris basin system ahd must be an open channel with a service road to maintain the outlet' structure. Their second desire was to terminate the channel at the southerly boundary of Tract 13316. This also cannot be done because the channel has to pass under the Community Trail and then be directed towards the existing natural drainage channel. Their third choice is to extend the channel southerly of their properties. This is a viable concept and the channel could be extended approximately 250 feet south, but it is not needed for development and there is little or no benefit for the abutting properties. Friedman Homes have met all tile requirements of their tract and state law requires that administrative action be taken to approve the map. If the channel is to be U" extended, it will have to be conditioned upon future developments in the area. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT \'. TRACT 13316 - FRIEDMAlt HOMES MAY 16, 1990 PAGE 2 ~ The Developer, Friedman Homes, is submitting an agreement and security to " guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in tile following amounts: Street Storm Utility Improvements Drain Landscaping Undergrounding Faithful Performance Bond: $2,100,000 $1,300,000 $380,000 $435,000 Labor and Material Bond: $1,050,000 $ 650,000 $190,000 $217,000 Copies of the agreement, security and offer of dedication are available in the City Clerk's Office. Letters of approval have been received from the high school and elementary scilool districts. C.C. & R.'s have been approved by the City Attorney. Tile Consent and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer is on file in the City Clerk's office. RespectfUi~ ~ubmitted, RHM !1_F H:9~A: sjm" Attachments CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT · - DATE: May 29, 1990 T0: City Council and City Manager FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer By: · Joe Stofa, Or., Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improve~nent Security, acceptance of offer of dedication and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Hos. 1 and 2 for Tract 13315, located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Carrari Avenues, submitted by Friedman Homes {Continued from 5-14-90) RECO~4ENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Tract 13316, accepting the subject agreement, security, offer of dedication, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. i and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. i and 2, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement and to cause said map to record. ANALYSIS/BACKGROUND The above referenced project was continued froln the City Council meeting of May 16, 1990. At that meeting, local residences expressed concern regarding tile development, particularly the storm drain facilities. Due to the massiveness of the project, the Council requested additional time to visit the site and directed staff to provide more detail background analysis. The Planning Commission unanimously approved Tentative Tract 13316 at the March 25, 1987 meeting'. Two main issues were brought out by surrounding property owners. They are: 1) orientation of the Ilomes backing onto Carrari Street and 2) requirements of local Equestrian trails and keeping of horses'. No records were found of the property owners voicing any concerns about the proposed storm drain facilities. Although the tentative map shows the storm drain going to the east, the Conditions of Approval for the tract specifically state that the debris basin and tile entire storm drain system shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and that lots 9 and 10 which are located at tile southerly extension of the main north/south street and adjacent to the southerly tract boundary sitall contain a flood protection wall or other overflow protection device to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Tile conditions combined required the storm drain facility as it is now designed. CITY COUNCIL STAFF R[~ ~T TR 13316 MAY 29, 1990 PAGE 2 At the May 6, 1987 City Council meeting an appeal of Tentative Tract 13316 with regards to Planning Commission's decision of orientations of homes on Carrari Street along with the requirements of local equestrian trails and keeping of horses was heard. City Council modified the Planning Com~nissions' decision relative to Carrari Street to provide increased landscape area and placement of walls along the top of the slope. The City Council upheld the General Plan policies and Development Code standards regarding equestrian trails and keeping of horses. Once again, no conerns were raised with regards to drainage. Time Extension for Tentative Tract 13316 went before the Planning Commission on April 26, 1989. The Planning Division received letters from several homeowners along London Avenue expressing their concern of the proposed drainage facilities. The time extension was approved to May 6, 1990, but Planning Commission discussed the issue of storm drain spillway and requested that the Planning Department review the storm drain plans to be sure tile channel was as aesthetically pleasing as possible as it crossed over the affected properties. At the June 22, 1989 Design Review meeting, the committee stated that the Final design of the spillway should be reviewed by the committee for aesthetics, after the technicial part of the design is tentatively approved. An access should be provided to the homeowner to get to tile rear of the lot east of the spillway. Planning requested that Friedman Homes submit revised plans for additional committee review. The Design Review Committee on February 8, 1990 recommended at the request of Engineering that the foot bridge be deleted due to the fact that the foot bridge is only 40' away from the proposed Community Trail bridge with an access road on the east side of the bridge which is available to allow access to the easterly side of the homeowners property. In addition landscaping surrounding the spillway will require tile final approval of the Design Review Committee prior to the final approval of the improvement plans by the City Engineer RHM:jS:dlw ...... Attachments Staff Report 5-16-90 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: July 28, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 - BARRATT AMERICAN - The design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for previously recorded Tract 13316, consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very-Low Residential Distdct (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrari Court - APN: 1074-061-15 through 27, 1074-041-08 through 21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074-461-04 through 21, 1074-601-01 through 14, 1074-611-01 through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074-051-09 through 16. BACKGROUND: At it's JulY14,1999 meeting, the Planning Commission continued consideration of the project to the July 28, 1999 meeting to allow the applicant time to provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the project will not adversely impact the environment. The site is indicated as potential habitat for threatened and endangered species; the California Gnatcatcher, the San Bemardino Kangaroo Rat, and the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly. The applicant has provided documentation that the site is not adequate habitat for any of these species, nor are any of the species present. The following is a chronology of events that have transpired thus far: March 25, 1987 Tentative Tract 13316 was approved by the Planning Commission. June 4, 1990 Final map was recorded to create legal lots on June 4, 1990. May 24, 1993 Planning Division notified the previous owner, Chino Valley Bank, that the subject property is within a habitat which may be affected by federelly listed endangered orthreatened species. The certified letter explained that "taking" of habitat by "grading, mowing, discing, trenching. and other construction activities" is subject to stringent regulation by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The applicant was encouraged to contact USFWS for further information. April 29, 1998 Application submitted by Barratt American for Development Review 98-10. May 26, 1998 Application deemed incomplete for processing. June 10, 1998 Due to significance of grading design issues, the Planning Commission conducted a Pre-Application Review 98-06. ITEM C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-10 July 28, 1999 Page 2 June 25, 1998 Consultation meeting with applicant and California Dept. of Fish and Game (USFVVS did not attend). August 27, 1998 Gnatcatcher Surveys submitted by Tierra Madre Consultants (June 8, 1998). October 20, 1998 Biological report submitted by Pacific Southwest Biological Services (Oct. 16, 1998). March 23, 1999 Application deemed complete for processing. May 13, 1999 Neighborhood meeting. June 9, 1999 Planning Commission continues item and directs staff to advertize as a public headng. Continuance was to allow staff and the applicant time to respond to issues raised regarding the adequacy of the biological studies relied upon for preparation of the Initial Study. The same week, prior to Commission meeting, the applicant clears vegetation from westerly half of site for weed abatement. June 22, 1999 Staff met with the applicant, the applicant's biologist, and biologists from the San Bemardino County Museum to discuss the matter. Staff also consulted with the USFVVS and the California Department of Fish and Game. Staff indicated that the site is potential San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR) and that a USFVVS protocol survey is necessary. Staff also determined that a habitat assessment is necessary to determine if the site is adequate Quino Checkerspot Butterfly habitat. July 14, 1999 The Planning Commission continues the item for a second time to allow time for biological surveys to be completed. July 19, 1999 Reports submitted by Tierra Madre Consultants regarding protocol trapping survey for the San Bemardino Kangaroo Rat and by Pacific Southwest Biological Services regarding a habitat assessment for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly. A copy of the June 9, 1999 Planning Commission Staff Report is attached for reference. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: Since the Tentative Tract Map was approved in 1987, substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken. Three species have been listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act, two of which are associated with the coastal sage scrub habitat present on the site. Following is a summary of the affected species. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-10 July 28, 1999 Page 3 A. SAN BERNARDINO KANGAROO RAT (endangered~ species, 1/27/98) -Latest correspondence from USFWS and County Museum biologist recommend protocol "trapping" surveys. Although surveys may be done year-round, this is the ideal time of the year. The applicant has conducted a protocol trapping survey and no San Bernardino Kangaroo Rats were captured, nor were any other species of Kangaroo Rat. B. CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER (threatened2 species, 3/30/93) - Protocol surveys were performed from March 17, 1998 through April 28, 1998. and no Gnatcatchers were found on the site. Tierra Madre Consultants concluded that only 5 acres of the site is coastal sage scrub habitat which is located within the ravines. The habitat is identified by the California Department of Fish and Game as "very threatened communities" which is important to the long term protection of the species, particularly of value to the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan effort. A recommended environmental mitigation measure requires approximately 2.5 acres of coastal sage scrub mitigation on site within the basin and any remaining mitigation to be accomplished off site within the Alluvial Fan Scrub Mitigation Bank located in Cajon Wash. C. QUI NO CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY (endangered species, 1/16/97) - Maps published by USFWS indicate that the alluvial fans along these foothills are potential habitat areas which require study. The applicant has provided a habitat assessment for the Butterfly and found that the site is so disturbed by past activities that neither the Butterfly nor adequate Butterfly habitat are present. The plants needed to support the Butterfly were not found in surveys of the site. Staff has forwarded a copy of the report to Fish and Wildlife for their comment. Pending acceptance by USFWS of the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat protocol trapping survey and the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly habitat assessment, it is staffs opinion that the applicant has adequately addressed all outstanding issues relative to potential environmental impacts associated with the project. It has been demonstrated that the site does not support adequate habitat for sensitive or endangered species and no such species were detected on site. Based on this information, the proposed development of the 84-acre site will not likely result in adverse effects to rare, sensitive, or endangered animal species. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order. OFF SITE DRAINAGE: A letter was received from Dianna Santini, homeowner at 5207 London Avenue expressing concern related to off site drainage improvements associated with the project. ~The term "endangered species" means any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range other than a species of the Class Insecta determined by the Secretary to constitute a pest whose protection under the provisions of this Act would present an overwhelming and overriding risk to man. (Endangered Species Act of 1973) 2The term "threatened species" means any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. (Endangered Species Act of 1973) PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-10 July 28, 1999 Page 4 Also, during the Planning Commission meeting on June 9, 1999, Matt Rees, homeowner at 5217 London Avenue expressed similar concern. Tentative Tract 13316 was approved in 1987 with conditions of approval which included constructing a debris basin, storm drain system. and overflow protection for lots 9 and 10 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. During the review process for the design of these drainage facilities, various property owners to the south voiced concerns regarding the portion of the facility which extends 107 feet south of the south tract boundary, within a City drainage easement dedicated with Tract 9590. Staff met with these property owners, discussed several options and concluded that while the outlet channel could be extended further south, there was little additional benefit and the developer had met all the requirements of the tentative map. With a time extension in 1989, the Planning Commission directed that the channel be made as aesthetically pleasing as possible. Design was concluded and the map recorded in 1990. In a 100-year storm the debris basin will direct about 280 cubic feet per second (cfs) into a storm drain which will outlet into an open channel between lots 9 and 10. Site flows will bring the total outflow to about 380 cfs. The channel has been designed with energy dissipaters and a stilling pond to reduce outlet velocities. The channel extends the entire width of Ms. Santini's property, the northernmost lot fronting London Avenue, thereby diverting all off site flows which currently reach her north property line. Even if the storm drain were extended or relocated, a channel is still needed to accommodate the emergency spillway for the debris basin. CORRESPONDENC~E: While not required by City Ordinance or State Law, the proper~y was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site notifying them of the July 28, 1999 meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review 98-10 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Furthermore, staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the General Plan Update Task Force to consider changing the Land Use Designation for the debris basin from Very-Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) to Open Space by minute action. City Planner BB:BL:Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Planning Commission Staff Report from June 9, 1999 Meeting Exhibit "B" - Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Habitat Assessment dated July 18, 1999 Exhibit "C" - Kangaroo Rat Protocol Survey date July 18, 1999 Exhibit "D" - Resolution of Approval CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: June 9, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 - BARPAI'I' AMERICAN - The design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for previously recorded Tract 13316, consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Amhibald Avenue, north of Carrad Court - APN: 1074-061-15 through 27, 1074-041-08 through 21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074-461-04 through 21, 1074-601-01 through 14, 1074-611-01 through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074-051-09 through 16. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Site Characteristics: The site slopes from the northwest to the southeast at a 10 to 15 percent grade. The elevation difference across the site is approximately 269 feet. There are two natural streams that cross the site from north to south. The stream channel has steep slopes varying from 25 to 30 percent. The two streams carry drainage from the north, through the site, to the south. This drainage is proposed to be controlled by constructing a retention basin at the northern end of the site with a storm drain which outlets south of the site. Vegetation on the site is in its natural state with a heavy cover of scrub brushes and grasses. There is a cluster of three mature eucalyptus trees and one mature oak tree (on Lot 44). ANALYSIS: A. Backqround: The subdivision was appmved pdor to adoption of the Hillside Development Ordinance and the map has been recorded. Since then, a Design Review application was approved. The grading scheme, while based upon a mass grading concept, had undulating and variable slopes to soften the appearance of the slopes as much as possible. Also, a condition of approval limited the developer to one-story homes. That Design Review has since expired. The applicant is now attempting to resurrect the previously approved grading design but with two-story homes. A Planning Commission workshop was held on June 10, 1998, regarding the current grading scheme to determine whether it is acceptable given the two-story proposal. The Commission provided the following direction (Exhibit "H"): PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-10 June 9,1999 Page 2 1. The site is surrounded to ~he south, east, and west by existing single family neighborhoods with mass graded, flat pads and two-story homes. The project has a significant history of resolving design issues prior to adoption of the Hillside Development Ordinance. Therefore, the grading scheme is acceptable so long as two-story homes are sensitively plotted to minimize visual impacts. 2. Home massing should flow with the terrain. Avoid two story high walls without one-story elements. 3. Provide quality, 360 degree architecture. 4. Establish view corridors between homes as much as possible. 5. The existing neighborhood to the south of the project, especially along Carrari Street, is believed to be the most affected by the project. Special attention should be paid to how the project impacts this neighborhood. B. General: Six home plans ara proposed ranging in size from 2,869 square feet to 3,600 square feet. Three of the home plans are single-story, three are two-story. Each home plan has four elevation styles: Early Californian, Bungalow, Craftsman, and California Ranch. VVhile the homes are not proposed to have split level foundations to accommodate the terrain, they are designed within the 30-foot high building envelope per the Hillside Development standards. It is proposed to have 20-foot by 20-foot horse corrals on several of the lots, each with access to a horse trail. California Sycamore trees are proposed for slope planting. C. Desi~n Review Committee: The Committee (Stewart, Henderson), reviewed the project on April 20, 1999, and recommend approval with conditions. See the attached Design Review Action Agenda for further details. D. Technical Review Committee: The Technical and Grading Review Committees have reviewed the project and recommend approval subject to conditions outlined in the attached Resolution of Approval. E. Tree Removal Permit: The site contains several Eucalyptus trees and an Oak tree. The applicant has submitted a Tree Removal Permit for Commission consideration for removal of the Eucalyptus trees. The Oak tree will be required to be preserved in place. Eucalyptus trees may be removed per the Tree Preservation Ordinance subject to replacement at a ratio of 1 to 1. F. Environmental Assessment: On March 27, 1987, the Planning Commission issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Tract 13316. Since that time, the California Gnatcatcher and the San Bemardino Kangaroo Rat have been added to the list of threatened and endangered species, respectively; therefore, the site is identified as potential habitat by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Also, the original Mitigated Negative Declaration is now over twelve years old. Staff has completed a new Initial Study for the project. Habitat assessment PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-10 June 9, 1999 Page 3 and protocol surveys were conducted by Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc., consulting biologists permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine potential habitat value and any potential impacts. The results of the surveys indicate that the site does not contain suitable habitat for the Gnatcatcher and no Gnatcatchers were detected on site. The surveys also indicate that the site is not suitable habitat forthe San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and no signs of the rat were present. Based on this information, the proposed development of the 84-acre site will not likely result in adverse effects to rare, sensitive, or endangered animal species. No other potential impacts were identified beyond those addressed with the original Mitigated Negative Declaration issued by the Commission in 1987. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING: The applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting at City Hall on May 13, 1999. Several homeowners in the vicinity were present. The primary issues included the drainage outlet south of the tract east of London Avenue, construction phasing, view preservation, inconvenience due to sewer line installation on Archibald Avenue, and dust control. The detention basin/storm drainage system for the tract was designed consistent with the conditions of approval for the Tentative Tract Map. According to the developer, construction will be divided into 15 phases beginning at the southeast comer of the site. The homes have been designed and plotted to maximize views to the degree possible. The City has not adopted a view preservation ordinance. A Standard Condition of Approval requires the developer to provide special street posting and dust control for construction. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public headng 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. Staff has received several letters from area residents opposing the project. The primary issues are increased traffic, why Hidden Farm Road on the east side of ~,rchibald Avenue is approved to be aligned with the existing intersection on the west side, drainage, ~mpacts upon sage scrub and other vegetation and wildlife, noise, cdme, view preservation, and preservation of a "quiet, peaceful, friendly" atmosphere. See attached copies of letters (Exhibit "J"). The Final Tract Map was recorded in 1990; hence, the street alignment and lots are already approved. The increase in traffic and storm water drainage does not exceed that anticipated by the General Plan and the street and storm drain system has been designed to accommodate the project. For public safety reasons, City policy requires that streets intersecting with residential major streets and collector streets, like Archibald Avenue, align to minimize conflicts between left turning traffic. Impacts to sage scrub and other vegetationNvildlife were addressed by the Initial Study Part II based upon detailed biological surveys of the site. The studies concluded that there are no sensitive animal species on-site and there is only a small area of actual Coastal Sage Scrub; the removal of which is being mitigated by purchasing off site habitat. The increase in noise due to the project is not in excess of that anticipated by the General Plan. No uses or activities are proposed beyond that permitted by the Development Code. The developer anticipates selling prices for the homes to start in the low $500,000's. Such high priced homes are not typically associated with increased crime. The homes are designed to preserve views to the degree possible. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has not adopted a view preservation ordinance. C? PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-10 June 9, 1999 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review 98-10 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Furthermore, staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the General Plan Update Task Force to consider changing the Land Use Designation for the debris basin from Very-Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) to Open Space by minute action. City Planner BB:BL:gs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Grading Plan Exhibit "D" - Phasing Plan Exhibit "E" - Walls and Fence Plan Exhibit "F" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "G" - Elevations Exhibit "H" - Minutes of Planning Commission Workshop Dated June 10, 1998 Exhibit "1" - Design Review Action Agenda - Apdl 20, 1999 Exhibit "J" - Letters from Homeowners Exhibit "K" - Initial Study Part II Resolution of Approval ~:' ............~ ..... TRACT NO 13316 '~ """'~ ' SCALE 1"=40' - t ® / 1T I.IMI1 OF WORK i~\ ~ SCALE 1'=40" CARLSBAD CA al200~ ' ...... CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN a ; """ ' FOR TRACT NO '13316 ' ":'"" ! - j/,_~s, ~ ~ DETAIL 'B' · . .,. ® ~RAINt~.E COANNEL ~ SECTION G - G ~ ~'~*?~ SECTION H - H SECTram a - " i~~;~~- DRAINAGE CHANNEL HORSE TRAIL BRIDGE $~CTI~ E - E ~ ~ ~,,~.. Plan 1 2, 869 sq. ft. night BARRATT AMERICAN, INC. Rancho Cucamot~ga Left Rear ~ E~,,c.,,fo,o,a.Plan 1 ~ I~1 ~ ~ 2, 869 sq. ft. Ri~t B~TT ~mC~, ~C. Rancho Cucamonga 2,869 sq. ft. R~t B~TT ~~C~, ~C. Rancho C.c3mong3 BARRATT AIVIF, RICAN, INC.Rancho Cucamonga ~'~ ~ . Roof Plan ,.,yc.,,for.,a.Plan 3 3, 14~ sq. ft. BARRATT AMERICAN, ~NC.Rancho Cucamoz~ga Left 3, 145 sq. ft. Right BARRATT A1VIF~RICAN, ~C.Rancho Cucamonga Rear <] ~> I B.og.,owPlan 3 ,~,~, 3, 145 sq. ft. BARRATT AIVIF, RICAN, INC.Rancho Cucamortga Roof Plan ~ ~ , c..~. Plan 4 .. 3,392 sq. ~. P,~t BARRATT ANIERICAN,'INC.Ranclio Cucamo~ga ~1 ~ ~ Ea,,~ ca,i~om,..Plan 4 3,392 sq. ft. Right BARRATT AM~.mCAN,'~C.Rancho CuCaraonga.~,. _, ~ ~~ r-:-':-: -' ~Roof Plan J~ ~ c,,,ro,,,,,,,,hPlan 4 · ~ ']~l 3, 392 sq. ft. Rig~t BARRATT AM~.mCAN, ENC.Rancho Cucamonga .-.,. . · ~ ~ ~ . ,,og,,o,Plan 4 . 3,392 sq. ft. Right BARRATT AlVW. RICAN, INC.Rancho Cucarnonga (~ Rear I <] !~ Roof Plum _.~T:~~-~~ ~ ~ar~o~ Plan 5 3, 435 sq. ft. ~t B~TT ~~C~, ~C. Rancho CHcamoHg8 ~,~ ,~~ Lea / //~ ~ Roof Plan .... 3,435 sq. ft. B~TT ~~C~,'~C. Rancho CuCamo~ga ~,.~,+~.~, ... ' I' 3,435 sq. ~, ~t B~~ ~mc~,'~c. Rancho Cucamonga ~,_ ,-~ Le~t I y~ ~ ~1~ "'~""'~'~" ~,~,,~o~,,~,Plan 6 3, 600 sq. ft. B~TT ~~C~, ~C. Rancho Cucamonga .-,,~ .~ 3, 600 sq. ft. ~t B~TT ~mC~, ~C. Rancho Cucamonga ~-~,-,.o.-o, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting June 10, 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, Larry McNiel ABSENT: Rich Macias, Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buffer, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Brent Le Count. Associate Planner NEW BUSINESS A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 98-06 - BARRATF - A request for Design Review for Tract 13316, a previously approved tract consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less that 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Cartad Street - APN: 210-071-14, 37, and 45. Brad Bullet, City Planner, explained the purpose and goals of the Pre-Application Review process. David Jacinto, representative from Barratt, indicated that this is a previously approved project which his group has inherited. He said the project will have fiat pads per the previous approval but Barratt is proposing two story homes designed to meet the building envelope requirements of the Hillside Ordinance. Bad Crandell, project architect, indicated that the pads are wide and flat and the homes would be built within the building envelope. He said there are 3 one-story and 3 two-story home plans proposed. He commented the proposal is diverse because there are six overall plan types, each with four elevations with color variation. He said substantial setbacks are proposed. Brent Le Count, Assodate Planner, indicated that the reason for holding the Pre-Application Review is that the previous approval included a condition limiting development to one-story homes with a caveat that any two-story home proposal would require an entirely new design consistent with the Hillside Ordinance. He said the_applicant is attempting to utilize the previously approved grading, a mass grading concept with flat pads, and add two-story homes. He observed applicant's justification is that the homes, whether one- or two-story, meet the building envelope requirements of the Hillside Ordinance even though they are proposed on fiat pads instead of being designed to fit the terrain. He indicated the Commission is being asked its opinion as to whether this is an appropriate direction to take. Commissioner McNiel asked what the existing grade of the site is. Mr. Jacinto indicated that the grade is approximately 12 percent. J Commissioner McNiel asked how much grading is proposed. ~- ' ' '- Nancy Fong. Senior Planner, indicated that the proposal involves significant grading and that the site is more like 16 percent natural average grade. Commissioner McNiel questioned what kind of precedent this type of development would set. Mr. Bullet indicated that surrounding home developments to the west and south have typical mass graded flat pads with flat land style homes, and to the east the Woods development also has flat graded pads with homes nestled in amongst Eucalyptus Trees. He pointed out that other large tracts have been built that don't technically meet the Hillside Ordinance so this would not be the first. He commented this project has a significant histon/of resolving design issues which happened before the Hillside Ordinance went into effect. He noted there is a recorded map and an approved conceptual grading plan. He said the design issue before the Commission was whether to allow two- story homes without stepping the pads. He believed the project's history is unique enough that it would not be precedent setting to look at various design options. Chairman Barker indicated that them are really two issues at hand; one is whether a fiat pad grading concept is acceptable and the other is whether two-story homes are appropriate. He raised the question of what the impact of two-story homes would be given the type of terrain involved. Mr. Jacinto said that the homes are designed to meet the building envelope. Mr. Buller indicated that the odginal requirement for one-story only homes was intended to minimize the visual impact of the project and obviously, two-story homes would have that much more of a visual impact. Commissioner McNiel remarked he is not sure what the proper mix of one-story and two-story homes would be, but that the site is surrounded by developments of similar style and the front elevations look good. He did not necessarily have a problem with the applicant's proposal but stated side and rear elevations should have as much quality of design as the front. Chairman Barker stressed the impodance of 360-degree architecture, with all elevations of the best possible quality. He felt that is especially true for this type of development where an up-slope neighbor has views of a down-slope neighbor's rear elevation. He expressed concern about the impact of two-story homes and said the applicant will have to demonstrate that views to the valley and views to the mountains will not be degraded by the project. He voiced concern about drainage issues. He felt the focus should be on the total environment created by the project rather than home-to-home details. If the project does not negatively impact existing surrounding propedies, he was not opposed to two-story development. He commended the project architect for the hidden garage design, and said he hopes to see more of such quality design. Mr. Jacinto asked the Commission to elaborate on how to demonstrate that the project will not have negative visual impacts. Chairman Barker said that the project should not just be looked at in terms of street scape but also in terms of flow from east to west and north to south, flow of terrain. He felt it will be difficult to add two-story homes to the projecEwithout increasing visual impacts and said the homes must be propedy plotted to avoid these impacts. Mr. Jacinto claimed that mixing one- and two-story home provides more visual variety because of the vadation in roof lines. PC Adjourned Minutes -2- June 10, 1998 · .'-- -- - Mr. Buller observed that the Hillside Ordinance requires homes to be designed to fit the terrain. He :-55:' felt the argument of providing vadety by mixing one- and two-story homes is really a fiat land design - :--.-" method and does not necessarily apply in this case. Commissioner Bethel did not support the two-story proposal. He voiced concerns about two-story homes without stepping the pads. He was not convinced that adding various tack-on elements such as shutters and different architectural styles, such as Mediterranean and Craftsman, can be developed using the same overall home massing from home to home. He felt the project should be designed in full conformance with the Hillside Ordinance. He feared that by allowing the project to proceed, the City is allowing a dangerous precedent for future hillside development. Commissioner McNiel thought the overall concept is well founded. Given the surrounding development, he did not feel the terraced grading concept with two-story homes will have a negative visual impact. He recommends focusing on preserving views between homes rather than over homes. He felt homes should not have repetitive roof lines. He reminded the group that the City does not have any legislation designed to protect views. Mr. Buller summarized the Commissioners comments. He stated the Commission appears reluctant to allow two-story homes without very careful attention to plotting and design to minimize visual impacts. He commented that staff can work with the applicant to plot homes based upon the - three-dimensional building envelope volume to maximize view corridor opportunities and minimize visual impacts. He said two-story high walls, without one-story elements such as side and rear elevations presented tonight, should have one-story elements so that the mass of homes flows with the terrain. Mr. Buller reminded the Commissioners that when the tract was originally processed, neighbors living along Carrari Street were very concerned about having two-story homes along the south project boundary and that the tracl to the south is the most vulnerable to potential visual impacts from the subject project. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes -3- June 10, 1998 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:30 p.m. Brent Le Count April 20, 1999 ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 - BARRATTAMERICAN - The design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for a previously recorded Tract Map (Tract 13316) consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of CarTad Court - APN: 1074-061-15 through 27, 1074-041-08 through 21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074-461-04 through 21, 1074-601-01 through 14, 1074-611-01 through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074- 051-09 through 16. Backqround: The subdivision was approved prior to adoption of the Hillside Development Ordinance. Since then. a Design Review application was approved. The grading scheme, while based upon a mass grading concept, had undulating and variable slopes to soften the appearance of the slopes as much as possible. Also, a condition of approval limited the developer to one-story only homes. That Design Review has since expired. The applicant is now attempting to resurrect the previously approved grading design but with two-story homes. A Planning Commission workshop was held on the current grading scheme to determine whether it is acceptable given the two-story proposal. The Commission provided the following direction: 1. The site is surrounded to the south, east, and west by existing single family neighborhoods with mass graded, flat pads and two-story homes. The project has a significant history of resolving design issues, pdor to adoption of the Hillside Development Ordinance. Therefore, the grading scheme is acceptable so long as two-story homes are sensitively plotted to minimize visual impacts. 2. Home massing should flow with the terrain. Avoid two-story high walls without one-story elements. 3. Provide quality, 360 degree architecture. 4. Establish view corridors between homes as much as possible. 5. The existing neighborhood to the south of the project, especially along Carrari Street, is believed to be the most vulnerable to the project. Special attention should be paid to how the project impacts this neighborhood. Site Characteristics: The site slopes from northwest to the southeast at a 10 to 15 percent grade. The elevation difference across the site is approximately 269 feet. There are two natural streams that cross the site from north to south. The stream channel has very steep slopes varying from 25 to 30 percent. The two streams carry drainage from the north, through the site to the south. This drainage is proposed to be controlled by constructing a retention basin at the northern end of the site with a storm drain which outlets south of the site. Vegetation on the site is in its natural state with a heavy cover of scrub brushes and grasses. There is a cluster of three mature eucalyptus trees and one mature Oak tree. Proposal: Six home plans are proposed ranging in size from 2,869 square feet to 3,600 square feet. Three of the home plans are single story, three are two-story. Each home plan has four elevation styles; Eady Californian. Bungalow, Craftsman, and California Ranch. While the homes are not proposed to have split level foundations to accommodate the terrain, they are designed within the 30- foot high building envelope per the Hillside Development standards. Twenty foot by twenty foot horse corrals are proposed for several of the lots, each with access to a horse trail. California Sycamore trees are proposed for slope planting. C (-~ ~ DRC COMMENTS DR 98-10 - BARRAT[' AMERICAN April 20, 1999 Page 2 Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Provide substantial variation in front yard setbacks, In some cases this may require re-plotting of home plans to accommodate useable rear yard areas given slopes, 2. Plot one-story homes along the south and west sides of Almond Street, on Lots 55 through 61 on Saddlewood Place, and on corner lots wherever possible. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. For the most part, the side and rear elevations have upgraded treatment consistent with the front elevations. Provide further details, such as corbels, shutters, and belly bands, 2. Provide either decorative masonry walls or decorative wrought iron fencing for interior yard fences that are visible from surrounding streets, either due to grade differences or proximity to horse trails (such as along north side of Carrari Street). Wood fencing is only acceptable in interior yard areas not visible from surrounding streets. ,- 3. Provide at least a 5-foot landscape strip between the back of sidewalk and any wall. 4. Locate fence walls at top of slope rather than at toe of slope. 5. Provide a more naturalized rip rap treatment for storm drain outlet south of tract. 6. Provide intensified landscaping, including cascading vines, within terraces between retaining walls to create a more natural appearance and reduce visual impact of walls and slopes. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Where wood siding is used on the front elevation, it must be continued around side and rear elevations as well. 2. The existing Oak tree on Lot 44 shall be preserved and protected in place according to the requirements of Municipal Code Section 19.08.110. 3. Provide at least a 5-foot landscape strip between the back of sidewalk and any wall. 4. All perimeter walls, between home connecting walls, and retaining walls shall be decorative masonry with pilasters on freestanding walls. Provide either decorative masonry walls or decorative wrought iron fencing for interior yard fences that are visible from surrounding streets, either due to grade differences or proximity to horse trails (such as along north side of Carrari Street). Wood fencing is only acceptable in interior yard areas not visible from surrounding streets. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the above comments. c,,_G? DRC COMMENTS DR 98-10 - BARRATT AMERICAN April 20, 1999 Page 3 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Pare Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee recommended approval subject to staffs comments and the following additional comments: 1. Plot one-story home on Lot 60 to preserve views for existing home to the north. No other re- plotting of homes is necessary. 2. Eliminate the PVC fencing on the north side of the Community Trail on the north side of Carrari Street and replace with concrete curb/mow strip. 3. Gates shall be wrought iron instead of wood. 4. Provide wrought iron fencing for fences at top of slopes instead of solid masonry walls. 5. Provide a color coded Site Plan showing plotting of one- and two-story homes for Planning Commission review. 8. Provide a perspective rendering of a typical trail and surrounding landscaping. Suggest a view of the southwest comer of the site showing the Community and Local Feeder trails on the north side of Carrari Street and associated slope landscaping. RECEIVED TO: BradBuller "~ City Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga', Ca. 91730 Oi~Y°t~ancboOuca~onga Dear Mr. Bullet, P~annjngOjWs~ I ~ sending this letter ~er c~cem for the proposed devel- o~n~ for nhe area at the.north end of ~c~bald avenue on the east side of ~he street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 1S914).. ~is area of R~cho ~camonga, ~o~ as "Alta ~" ~s a ~iet, friendly ~d peaceful area. I am concemed tha~ ~his. develo~en= threatens the ~ality of life we now enjoy due to increase traffic, noise levels ~d crib. I am concemed ~out proper drainage do~chibald ~d the fac~ t~t current studies on these ~tters are not ~ing us~ ~o access i~acts. I ~ also concemed ~ou= the wildlife that is est~lish~ in the area. 0n the City of Rancho ~camonga W~ Site. it says the goals of ~he Pla~in~ Co~ssion include; protecting =he natural enviro~ent and the co.=.~ity identity. ~e develo~ent of this area will directly oppose these goals. In also says =he review comttees value p~lic participation and encourages i= by "aeig~rh~ meetings" to receive input fr~ ~he residents ~s~ing p~lic hearing notices. We have not had any t~e of "neig~rh~ meeting" for the applic~t to e~lain their pro- ject. X ~derst~d t~t since this area was appro~d for devel- o~ent in the early 1980~s, the city is no~ retired to ~il notices or even post the ~te of a ~lic heating. However, this area has changed ~as~ically since the e~ly 1980's when this plan was approved. In o~er ~o prese~ the ~al~ty of ~r ne~g~rhood, I am r~esting the city leave this area as 'o~n space." ~ts would allow it to continue ~o sere as a buffer for ~ise, traffic ~atnage between neig~orho~s, ~d a h~tat for wil~fe. We. also u~e up ~o date studies on ~raffic, noise, cri~ ~ drain- age (e~ecially in hi~ rain years, su~as last year,s ~1 Nino). I re~est =o be no~fi~ of a ~lic hearing, ~d that the other s~r~ding residents ~ notified as well. B~ZZ ~n~e=, Hayo~ Oi~e WilliaM, City CO~Cil Paul Biane. City Co~cil To: Brad Buller City Planner JAN ~ 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Dear Mr. Buller, I am sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel- opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). This area of Rancho Cucamonga, known as "Alta Loma" is a quiet; friendly and peaceful area. I am concerned that this development threatens the quality of life we now enjoy due to increase traffic, noise levels and crime. I am concerned about proper drainage down Archibald and the fact that current studies on these matters are not being used to access impacts. I am also concerned about the wildlife that is established in the area. On the City of Rancho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the goals of the Planning Commission include; protecting the natural environment and the community identity. The development of this area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review con~nittees value public participation and encourages it by ,,neighborhood meetings" to receive input from the residents and posting public hearing notices. We have not had any type of .neighborhood meeting" for the applicant to explain their pro- ject. I understand that since this area was approved for devel- opment in the early 1980's, the city is not required to raail notices or even post the date of a public hearing. However, this area has changed drastically since the early 1980's when this plan was approved. In order to preserve the quality of our neighborhood, I am requesting the city leave this area as "open space." This would allow it to continue to serve as a buffer for noise, traffic and drainage between neighborhoods, and a habitat for wildlife. We also urge up to date studies on traffic, noise, crime and drain- age (especially in high rain years, such as last year's E1 Nino). I request to be notified of a public hearing, and that the other surrounding residents be notified as well. Sincerely, cc: The Planning Commission Bill Alexander, Mayor Diane Willjams, City Council James Curatalo, City Council Bob Dutton, City Council Paul Biane, City Council November 23, 1998 R !:: C E I V E D Mr. Brad BuYer NOV City Planmet 10500 Civic Center Drive City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Planning Division I own ~ north of the proposed development ofwacts #13316 and 15914. When I pro'chased the property three years ago, I was told there is a city ordinance which prohits building in such a way. to obstruct the view, which is a major part of life in Alta Loma. I am not against development, but 123 homes on the east side of the end of Archibald Avenue is not conducivv to this community's icLentity. It is greed. It affects the quail, bob cats, deer, raRlesnakes, coyotes, owl, mice, posseurns, raccoons and an entire myriad of insects that make this area home. Also, the notice of proposed development was not posted. Quite conveniently, the sign still lies in the field, out of sight, while the notice of "estate sites" stands with banam waving. I have ridden my horse titrough the middle of the field for three years and I hav~ friends that hav~ ridden there well over se/t~ yeats. Hang gliders land in the field, ckildren scout prize treasures, and it provid~ a landscape of a peaceful habitat for all residents. The is so much more that would be b~neficial instead of 123 homes (unbelievable). Signs posted for horg riders' safety, dower spells on Archibald Avenue, and horse trails I am requesting nolitication of dates and times of public he~,i,,gs as well as a copy of the studies and planning for the devvlopm~t of this area to incltule 123 new homes. I would also like proof that the view will not 1~ obstructed as a result of the development, and the facts upon which the decision to build 123 structures would be co~ti,,_~n: to this community and the lifestyle. 123 tract homes simply are not Thank you for your ;iii,iiediate attention. 4849 Arch'bald Avenue Alta Loma, CA 91737 (909) 481-7161 Home (909) 4684203 Work To: Brad Buller City Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Dear Mr. Buller, I am Sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel- opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). This area of Rancho Cucamonga, known as "Alta Loma" is a quiet, friendly and peaceful area. I am.concerned that this development threatens the quality of life we now enjoy due to increase traffic, noise levels and crime. I am concerned about proper drainage down Archibald and the fact that current studies on these matters are not being used to access impacts. I am also concerned about the wildlife that is established in the area. On the City of R~ncho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the goals of the Planning Co~m~ission include; protecting the natural environment and the coa~unity identity. The development of this area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review comittees value public participation and encourages it by "neighborhood meetings" to receive input from the residents and posting public hearing notices. We have not had any type of "neighborhood meeting" for the applicant to explain their pro- ject. I understand that since this area was approved for devel- opment in the early 1980's, the city is not required to mail notices or even post the date of a public hearing. However, this area has changed drastically since the early 1980's when this plan was approved. In order to preserve the quality ~f our,~eighborhood, I am requesting the city leave this area a~ "open space." This would allow it to continue to serve as a buffer for noise, traffic and drainage between neighborhoods, and a habitat for wildlife. We also urge up to date studies on traffic, noise, crima and drain- age (especially in high rain years, such as last year's E1 Nino). I request to be notified of a public hearing, and that the other surrounding residents be notified as well. Sincerely, ~~.~ '~~ ./ CC: The Planning Co..~ission NOV Bill A/exander, Mayor Diane Williams, City Council -' · :. James-Curatalo, City Council Bob Dutton,~City Council .; Paul Biane, City Counci~_~ RECEIVED November 23, 1998 Mr. Brad Bailer NOV ~ 5 1998 City Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Planning Division Dear Mr. Butler: I own properly north of the proposed development of tracts #13316 and 15914. When I purchased the property three years ago. I was lold there kq a city ordinance which prohim budding in such a way. to obstruct the view, which is a major part of life in Alta Loma. I am not against development. but 123 homes on the east side of the end of Archibald Avenue is not conducive to this community's identity. It is greed. It affects the quail. bob cats, deer, rafflesnakes, coyotes, owl, mice, posscums, raccoons and an entire m)Tiad of insects that make this area home..Also, the notice of proposed dex;elopmcnt was not posted. Quite conveniently. the sign still lies in the field, out of sight, while the notice of "estate sites" stands with banners waving. I have ridden n~' horse through the middlc of the field for three years and I have frierlds thal have ridden there well over seven years. Hang gliders land in the field, children scout prize treasures, and it provides a landscape of a peaceful habitat for all residents. There is so much more that would be beneficial instead of 123 hou.qes (unbelievable). Signs posted for horse riders' safeB,, slower speeds on Archibald Avenue, and horse trails or walking paths to name a few. I am requesting notification of dates and times of public hearings as well as a copy of the studies and planning for the dcvclopmenl of this area to include 123 new homes. I would also like proof that the view will not be obstructed as a result of the development, and the facts upon which the decision to build 123 structures would be conducive to this eommuni~' and the lifestyle. 123 tract homes sunply are not. Thank you for your immediate attention. Sincer , it. and ~ onald D. ennetl 4849 Archibald Avenue Alta Loma, CA 91737 (909) 481-7161 Home (909) 468-4203 W~ork RECEIVIj. D To: Brent Le Count Associate Planner APR 0 1999 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 9173~y 04 Ra~cho Cucamo~ ri Dear Mr. Le Count, pIKmbqgDiViSiOrI p 1 17, 1999 I am sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel- opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). I have talked to you several times on the phone, and I thank you for you courtesy and time to research questions myself and my neighbors have had. The last time I spoke to you, I found out that in the plan Hidden Farm Road is to be extended across Archibald into the new housing development. I must ex- press my~ over this part of the plan. My understand- ing is the original plan was made in the early 1980's. At this time it made sense to connect the two tracts of homes, since our home was only built a couple of years before that. However, it is now 19 years later! I cannot believe this has not been reas- sessed for its feasibility. The situation is very different now. Allow me to point out just a few concerns I have. First, since these homes are being built 19 years apart, these are two · r tracts of homes. Second, it is likely to result in a danger to the children who live in these two areas. Kids love to ride their bikes, roller skate, etc. Having Hidden Farm continue across Archibald makes it more likely children will be trying to cross this busy street which currently has a 50 mph speed limit. Third, having three exits onto Archibald from the new tract will definitely effect the traffic on this busy road. I don't understand why new traffic studies are not required 19 years later. Quite a bit can change in 19 years. Aren't there new tracts built since then that are not included in the traffic study from the 1980's? Fourth, the quality Of life for those used to this area of Rancho Cucamonga, known as "Alta Lom" is quiet, friendly and peaceful. As a resident, I am concerned that this development threatens this quality of life we have all come to appreciate. I am concerned for more traffic coraing down our street (Hidden Farm). This a street that is a~, it doesn't go anywhere! It is obviously not necessary for emergency evacuation. What is the reasoning behind joining these streets together? In order to try to compromise, I have a few suggestions. Why couldn't the new Hidden Farm Road be offset from the old Hidden Farm Road, as the other new streets are from the existing ones. Or could the new Hidden Farm Road be made into a cul de sac also? Either one of these would make it much less likely for people to continue across. I also request current studies on traffic be done to access impacts and that the new homes be single story. Lastly, I request that Barratt be asked to educate the new home buyers on the wildlife in the area. As a Biology and Environmental Science Professor at Mount San Antonio College, I have a great appreciation for the wildlife in this area, as do · many of my non-science oriented neighbors. We know to keep our trash covered and not to leave dog and cat food out at night, so as not to attract the wildlife into the neighborhood. There are many tips that could help avoid future conflicts between the new residents and the wonderful Rancho Cucamonga wildlife. In summary, I feel that in order to establish the safest environment for children, maintain the quality of life and pursue the most logical living situation, Hidden Farm Road should not continue across Archibald from the new tract into our old one. On the City of Rancho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the goals of the Planning Commission and I assume the planning divi- sion include; protecting the natural environment and the communi- ty identity. It also says the review committees value public participation and encourages it. Therefore, I hope you will consider some of these points. I also again, thank you for your help in the past and look forward to talking to you in the fu- ture. Thank you for your time. Cynthia J. '/a~nnon 9574 Hidden Farm Road Alta Loma, Ca. 91737 cc: Brad Buller, City Planner The Planning Commission Bill Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Curatalo, City Council Bob Dutton, City Council Paul Biane, City Council Jack Lam, City Manager To: Brad Buller ~ city Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Ci~ 0f ~a Dear Mr. Buller, g~visiOn I am sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel- opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). This area of Rancho Cucamonga, known as "Alta Loma" is a quiet, friendly and peaceful area. As a resident, I am concerned that this development threatens the quality of life we now enjoy due to increase traffic, noise levels and crime. I am concerned about proper drainage down Archibald and the fact that current studies on these matters are not being used to access impacts. As a Biology and Environmental Science Professor at Mount San Antonio College, I am also concerned about the wildlife that is established in the area. I have witnessed numerous native Cali- fornia species utilizing this area in a variety of ways. The larger predators, such as coyotes (which are so important for balancing an ecosystem) use this area as a corridor and a resi- dence. I have seen such species as red-tailed hawks, Cooper's hawks, red-shouldered hawks, American kestrels and great horned owl hunting and nesting in this habitat. These are just a fraction of the wildlife using this area. So much of our South- ern California wildlife is already gone, since this area was abandoned for development in the early 1980's, it has developed a diverse and balanced ecosystem worth saving. On the City of Rancho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the goals of the Planning Commission include; protecting the natural environment and the community identity. In my opinion, the development of this area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review con~nittees value public participation and encourages it by "neighborhood meetings" to receive input from the residents and posting public hearing notices. We have not had any type of "neighborhood meeting" for the applicant to explain their project. I have been informed by the planning department that since this area was approved for development in the early 1980's, the city is not required to raail notices or even post the date of a public hearing. However, this area has changed drastically since the early 1980's when this plan was approved. In order to preserve the quality of our neighborhood, I am requesting the city leave this area as "open space." This would allow it to continue to serve as a buffer for noise, traffic and drainage between neighborhoods, and a habitat for wildlife. We also urge up to date studies on traffic, noise, crime and drain- age (especially in high rain years, such as last year's E1 Nino). I request to be notified of a public hearing, and that the other surrounding residents be notified as well. Cynthia J annon 9574 Hidden Farm Road Alta Loma, Ca. 91737 cc: The Planning Co~unission Bill Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, City Council Jim Curatalo, City Council Bob Dutton, City Council Paul Blanc, City Council To: Brad Bullet City Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Dear Mr. Buller, I am sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel- opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). This area of Rancho Cucamonga, kno~rn as "Alta Loma" is a quiet, friendly and peaceful area. I am concerned that this development threatens the quality of life we now enjoy due to increase traffic, noise levels and crime. I am concerned about proper drainage down Archibald and the fact that current studies on these matters are not being used to access impacts. I am also concerned about the wildlife that is established in the area. On the City of R~ncho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the goals of the Planning Con~nission include; protecting the natural environment and the CO~LUL~Unity identity. The development of this area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review con~nittees value public participation and encourages it by "neighborhood meetings" to receive input from the residents and posting public hearing notices. We have not had any type of "neighborhood meeting" for the applicant to explain their pro- ject. I understand that since this area was approved for devel- opment in the early 1980's, the city is not required to mil notices or even post the date of a public hearing. However, this area has changed drastically since the early 1980's when this plan was approved. In order to preserve the quality of our neighborhood, I am requesting the city leave this area as "open space." This would allow it to continue to serve as a buffer for noise, traffic and drainage between neighborhoods, and a habitat for wildlife. We also urge up to date studies on traffic, noise, crime and drain- age (especially in high rain years, such as last year's E1 Nino). I request to be notified of a public hearing, and that the other surrounding residents be notified as well. Diane Williams, City Council CityofRancho Cucamonga James Curatalo, City Council Planning Division Bob Dunton, City Council Paul Biane, City Council jnDa/r To: Brad Bullet ~7: KathyHunter City Planner ~ 9575 Hidden Fa~ Rd 10500 Civic Center Drive Nta L0ma CA 91737-1619 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Dear Mr. Buller, I am sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel- opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). This area of Rancho Cucamonga, known as "Alta Loma. is a quiet, friendly and peaceful area. I am concerned that this development threatens the quality of life we now enjoy due to increase traffic, noise levels and crime. I am concerned about proper drainage down Archibald and the fact that current studies on these matters are not being used to access impacts. I am also concerned about the wildlife that is established in the area. On the City of Rancho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the goals of the Planning Conmlission include; protecting the natural environment and the coranunity identity. The development of this area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review committees value public Participation and encourages it by "neighborhood meetings. to receive input from the residents and posting public hearing notices. We have not had any type of "neighborhood meeting- for the applicant to explain their pro- ject. I understand that since this area was approved for devel- opment in the early 1980,s, the city is not required to mail notices or even post the date of a public hearing. However, this area has changed drastically since the early 1980's when this plan was approved. In order to preserve the quality of our neighborhood, I am requesting the city leave this area as "open space.. This would allow it to continue to serve as a buffer for noise, traffic and drainage between neighborhoods, and a habitat for wildlife. We also urge up to date studies on traffic, noise, crime and drain- age (especially in high rain years, such as last year,s E1 Nino). I request to be notified of a public hearing, and that the other surrounding residents be notified as well. Sincerely, cc: The Planning Co~mnission Bill Alexander, Mayor R E C E | V E O Diane Williams, City Council James Curatalo, City Council Bob Dutton, City Council NOV Z 4~38 paul Biane, city council City of Rancho Cucamonga Pianning D~ision To: Brad Buller City Planner R E C E | V E D 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 NOV g S ~98 Dear Mr. Buller, 0ityo~RanOh0 Cuoam0nga I am Sending this letter over concern for the pro~~ opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). This area of Rancho Cucamonga, known as "Alta Loma" is a quiet, friendly and peaceful area. I am concerned that this development threatens the quality of life we now enjoy due to increase traffic, noise levels and crime. I am concerned about proper drainage down Archibald and the fact that current studies on these matters are not being used to access impacts. I am also concerned about the wildlife that is established in the area. On the City of Rancho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the goals of the Planning Con~nission include; protecting the natural environment and the community identity. The development of this area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review committees value public participation and encourages it by "neighborhood meetings" to receive input from the residents and posting public hearing notices. We have not had any type of "neighborhood meeting" for the applicant to explain their pro- ject. I understand that since this area was approved for devel- opment in the early 1980's, the city is not required to mail notices or even post the date of a public hearing. However, this area has changed drastically since the early 1980's when this plan was approved. In order to preserve the quality of our neighborhood, I am requesting the city leave this area as "open space." This would allow it to continue to serve as a buffer for noise, traffic and drainage between neighborhoods, and a habitat for wildlife. We also urge up to date studies on traffic, noise, crime and drain- age (especially in high rain years, such as last year's E1 Nino). I request to be notified of a public hearing, and that the other surrounding residents be notified as well. Sinc~e~~oL_~ Bill Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, City Council James Curatalo, City Council Bob Dutton, City Council Paul Biane, City Council TO: Brad Bullet R E ~ ~ | V ~ ~ City Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive NOV S 5 ~9~ Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Dear Mr. Buller, C~yotRanCho Cucamonga planning DMsion I am sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel- opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). This area of Rancho Cucamonga, known as "Alta Loma" is a quiet, friendly and peaceful area. I am concerned that this development threatens the quality of life we now enjoy due to increase traffic, noise levels and crime. I am concerned about proper drainage down Archibald and the fact that current studies on these matters are not being used to access impacts. I am also concerned about the wildlife that is established in the area. On the City of Rancho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the goals of the Planning Commission include; protecting the natural environment and the community identity. The development of this area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review committees value public participation and encourages it by "neighborhood meetings" to receive input from the residents and posting public hearing notices. We have not had any type of "neighborhood meeting" for the applicant to explain their pro- ject. I understand that since this area was approved for devel- opment in the early 1980's, the city is not required to mail notices or even post the date of a public hearing. However, this area has changed drastically since the early 1980's when this plan was approved. In order to preserve the quality of our neighborhood, I am requesting the city leave this area as "open space." This would allow it to continue to serve as a buffer for noise, traffic and drainage between neighborhoods, and a habitat for wildlife. We also urge up to date studies on traffic, noise, crime and drain- age (especially in high rain years, such as last year's E1 Nino). I request to be notified of a public hearing, and that the other surrounding residents be notified as well. Sincerely, c Alexander.% ; on q 7 Diane Williams, City Council James Curatalo, City Council Bob Dutton, City Council Paul Biane, City Council RECEIVED Brad Butler NOV 2 4 1998 City planner 10500 Civic Center Drive City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucan~onga, CA 91730 Planning Division Dear Mr. Buller, I am sending thi~ letter in regards to the proposed development for the area at the north end of Archibald Avenue, (File No. DR-98-10, Tentative Tracts 13316, 15914). This development will result in the removal of a siEni~cant amount of sage scrub habitat, a threatened natural COmmUllity. AS a resident of San Bernardino County it concerns me that little attention is being given to the San Bemardino County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. If the biological integrity of threatened habitats is to be maintained in San Bernardino County Politician~ and planners are going to have do more to provide for open space, wildlife corridors, and wildlife habitat. Residential developments necessitate the removal of large areas of natural vegetation and are incompatible with the goals of the San Bemardino County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan. The proponents of this development project need to come up with a creative way to initiate of study of sage scrub habitat. The components of thk study should include: A. The ecological status of sage scrub habitat in San Bernardino County 1. Its current ecological health. 2. What management practices can be done to improve its ecological health. 3. The cumulative impacts of existing development. 4. All proposed development and its cumulative impacts. B Studies should include the effects of development on the: 1. Riparian Systems 2. Water Quality 3. Raptor Ne~thag Sites 4. Botanical Comm~mity. Habitat maps need to be developed using G.I.S. methodology. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga continues to publish on its web site that the goals of the planning COmmisSiOn include protecting the natural environment and the community identity, the city needs to show the public that they stand behind their statements. ~hmi~ Instructor, Biological Sciences Mount San Antonio College MR. & MRS.STEPHEN M. ALEXANDER 4939 ARCHIBALD AVE ALTA LOMA, CA 91737 909/466-0086 FAX:909/484-0447 RECeiVED Ap.16, 1999 Mr. Brad Bullet City of Rancho Cuca~.~ga Ci~ P~u P~anning Division 105~ C~c ~t~ ~v~ ~o ~ CA 91730 ~: File No. DR-98-10 ~ ~ 13316,15914 ~ pau~ ~ ~ely ~j~nt to ~e!~ment. We ~e n~er ~n hcl~ ~ ~y ~io~ ~ou~ we ~e ~ ~ ~ 1~4. At · e ~e d ~, of~. We o~ l~ ~s~~ono~homc~g. B~dy~offi~W ~. ~n ~ ~e ~ for ~e ~j~. ~- ~g ~ ~ bm -~hle W ~ ~ ~ ~ail~ 1 ) l~g 2) elimi~g 3) pmxim~ ~no~ 4) ho~ ~ e~g a ~ ~ ~g ~g 5) ~,~wo~f~~now~inM~(~d~ 15 m~) 1 ) flip 2) ~~hiM~to~e~~to~in~dOfWeg~~ 3) ~ ~ b~ ~ ~ f~ a ~nim~ of 24" ~ h~Me h~g m ~ no~. 4) 5) ~e~n~~~. ~ of ~ n~ m a~ ~e ~ ~ We, t~, ~ ~ ~ h~ ~on ~ ~ ~ of ~. Ho~, ~ ~ not ~ ~ ~ ~ pw~. We ~ve ~ ~ h ~s and ~ w~on. Sm~, RECEIVED HERMAN AND GUNVOR VALENTIJN 5237 LONDON AVENUE ALTA LOMA, CA 91737 JUt 1 ~ ~99 City of Rancho Cucarnonga, Planning Division PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P.O.BOX 807 RANCHO CUCANONGA, CA 91729 Alta Loma, July 8,1999. In response to the letter of June 24, 1999,issued by the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, we like to express our concerns regarding the impact of the proposed solution to the runoff from the 84 acres of new buildings and streets. We have already reviewed the proposed drainage project at the City Planning Division and found that water and debris clearly are channeled through the easement located on the east side of our house. Aware as the city of Cucemonga is about the erosive potential of the proposed runoff, the city relies on an engineering report to make sure that erosion practically is eliminated. With this in mind, the undersigned wish to be informed in detail what kind and how much construction is going to take place on the easement of their property. The information we need to receive from you should address itself to several aspects of the expected impact on above mentioned easement, such as proposed reinforcement of the present natural gnlley on the easement. More in particular we want to know what form your construction activities foresee with respect to the shape and lining of the runoff channel (U-shaped or large tubing) without impeding our access to our property to the east of the easement and without endangering playing children. In short,please submit in writing a detailed plan concerning the impact of the project on the specific easement of our property before August 11,1999. RECEIVED TO: Brent Le Count Associate Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive JUL 12'F399 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 CityofRanchoCucamonga 1 1999 Pmnning Divisio~u y 1, Dear Mr. Le Count, I am sendin9 this letter over concern for the change in the public hearin~ date concerning the proposed development for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). Myself and many of my neighbors were at the plannin~ commission meetin~ on June 9Oh. I presented the plannin~ commission with a petition signed by 23 residents of the area. MOSt of us marked our calendar, and rearranged our schedules for the July 14th hearing date. Now, there are signs posted which chan~e the dace from the original July 14Oh date to AUS"dSC llth. If the date must be chan~ed, why not change it to one in September after school has started and everyone is more likely to be in town? Many residents would like Co be present for this hearing and ask for your consideration in this matter. Thank you for your time. Si cerely~ ~Jhann~n~d~/~--..__ 9574 Hidden Farm Road Alta Loma, Ca. 91737 cc: Brad Buller, City Planner The Planning Commission Bill ~-lexander, Mayor Diane Williams, Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Curatalo, City COuncil Bob Dutton, City Council Paul Biane, City Council Jack Lam, City Manager City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Development Review 98-10 2o Related Files: Tentative Tract 13316, Development Review for Tract 13316 (expired) 3. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 - BARRATT AMERICAN - The design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for a previously recorded Tract Map (Tract 13316) consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very-Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side ofArchibald Avenue, northofCarrariCourt-APN: 1074-061-15 through27, 1074'041- 08through21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074-461-04through 21, 1074-601-01 through 14, 1074-611-01 through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074-051-09 through 16. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Barratt Amedcan David Jacinto 2035 Corte Del Nogal, Suite 160 Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760) 431-0800 5. General Plan Designation: Very-Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) 6. Zoning: Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Vacant land and single family homes 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Brent Le Count, AICP Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 '10. Other agencies whose approval is required: United States Army Corps of Engineers (Streambed Alteration) and California Department of Fish and Game (also Streambed AIt.ration) C 7 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-10 Page ? 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 (v') Transportation/Circulation (s/) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing (v') Biological Resources (~') Utilities and Servica Systems (V') Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (v') Aesthetics (V') Water (v') Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality (f') Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance 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. (e/) 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 eadier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as descdbed 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 eadier EIR, including revisions or Brent Le Count, AICP Associate Planner May 18, 1999 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-10 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. 1. ~ND USE AND P~NNING. Would the pmposak a) Confli~ with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) (~) b) Confli~ with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the proje~? ( ) ( ) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) (~) d) Disrupt or divide the physical a~angement d an established community? ( ) ( ) (~) 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumufatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) , ( ) ( ) (v') b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e,g,, through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (e/) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the pmposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) (V') ( ) ( ) b) Seismic ground shaking? ~_,..,<E~, ~ ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-10 Page 4 c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) (~') ( ) ( ) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') f) Erosion, changes in topography. or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~,) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') Comments: a,b,c) The northern portion of the site falls within the AIquist-Pdolo Special Study Zone of the Cucamonga Fault. A geologic investigation was conducted during the processing of Tentative Tract 13316 to determine if geologic hazards were present that may affect development of the site. The investigation revealed that no evidence of previous fault or subsurface rupture within the property was present. However, as an added precautionary measure, the report recommended a 100-foot building setback from the north property line. The geologic study was reviewed by the City's geologist and was determined to be complete and adequate. A condition of approval was placed on Tentative Tract 13316 requiring the 100- foot building setback and same shall be included for the subject Development Review. The project design is in conformance with this requirement. With mitigation the impact is not considered significant. f) The project will cause changes in topography because the site is currently vacant. A soils report will be required pdor to issuance of a grading permit and grading will be supervised by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer. The impact is not considered significant. h) A portion of the site is indicated to have "Tujunga-DelhF soil type per the General Plan which states that this soil type "may have soil beadng capacities that could limit some development." A soils report will be required prior to issuance of a grading permit to ensure soil bearing capacities are adequate to accommodate the project. The impact is not considered significant. s~ ~ u.~ s 4. WATER. ~11 the proposal result in: ~ ~ ~ a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pa~ems, or the rate and amount of sudace water runoff? ( ) ( ) (~) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-10 Page 5 b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ) (v') ( ) ( ) 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? ( ) ( ) ( (f) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?. ( ) ( ) ( (v') h) impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( (~') i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: a) The absorption rate will be altered because of the paving and hard scape proposed. All runoffwill be conveyed to approved drainage facilities which have been designed to handle the flows. The impact is not considered significant. b) There are two special flood hazard areas (Zone "A" on the Flood Insurance Rate Map) within the project area. One is located along the east tract boundary and the other bisects the tract, about 500 feet east of Archibald Avenue. Per the conditions of approval for Tract 13316, the westerly stream will be diverted into a basin which outlets to a storm drain in Huntswood Place and discharges to its original stream bed south of Carrari Court. These improvements will require Federal Emergency Management Agency approval prior to grading permit issuance, thereby mitigating potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. Homes along the east tract boundary are more than 50 feet from the stream bed and therefore outside the flood hazard area. e) Both the stream which bisects Tract 13316 and the one along the east tract boundary are also USGS Blue Line Streams. Per the conditions of approval for Tract 13316, the westerly stream will be diverted into a basin which outlets to a storm drain in Huntswood Place and discharges to its original stream bed south of Carrari Court. United States Army Corps of Engineers and California Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-10 Page 6 Department of Fish and Game permits are required to alter a blue line stream, thereby mitigating potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal.' a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') Comments: a) The South Coast Air Quality Management District's Air Quality Management Plan accounts for the existing land use designations in its programs. The proposed Development Review proposes construction of 123 single family homes consistent with the existing land use designation for the property, Very-Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre.) Also, according to Table 6-2 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, dated November 1993, the threshold of single family homes that could cause a potential air quality impact is 166 homes. Therefore, no increase in air quality impacts is expected from the project. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle tdps or traffic congestion? ( ) (f) ( ) 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? (v') ( ) ( ) 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)? ( ) ( ) (t/) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? C.J C~<::~. ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-10 Page 7 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 install frontage street improvements in their ultimate configuration, per City Ordinance, and to pay Transportation Development Fees. The impact is not considered significant. c) The project will be required to install one through street connection from Archibald Avenue to Almond Street with the first phase of development to assure adequate emergency access. The impact is not considered significant. 7. 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)? ( ) (v') ( ) ( b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrew, etc.)? ( ) (f) ( ) ( c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) (~') ( ) ( d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, dparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) (v') ( ) ( e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: a and d) The property is located in an area recently identified by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Service as potential habitat for endangered or threatened species. Also, staff received a letter from Gerald Braden, a biologist with the San Bemardino County Museum, indicating habitat value of the subject site. Habitat assessment and biological surveys were required to determine potential habitat value and any potential impacts, particularly to the federally-listed threatened California Gnatcatcher and the endangered San Bemardino Kangaroo Rat. Habitat assessment and protocol surveys were conducted by Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc., consulting biologists permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The results of the surveys indicate that the site does not contain suitable habitat for the Gnatcatcher and no Gnatcatchers were detected on site. The surveys also indicate that the site is not suitable habitat for the San Bemardino Kangaroo Rat and no signs of the rat were present. Based on this information, the proposed development of the 84 acre site will not likely result in adverse effects to rare, sensitive, or endangered animal species. ~ C) ~ Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-10 Page R The site contains Blue Line Streams which are devoid of wetland vegetation. The site also contains Sage Scrub vegetation along the stream banks. A mitigation agreement has been established with the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game pursuant to 1603, 401, and 404 permits. Mitigation is accomplished via design of the project which includes establishing 2.5 acres of native shrub land and wetland habitat on the detention basin slopes and acquisition of land in an Alluvial Fan Scrub Mitigation Bank in the Cajon Wash. With mitigation, the impact is not considered significant. b and c) The project will cause the removal of several Eucalyptus trees. A condition of approval for Tentative Tract 13316 required the developer to obtain a Tree Removal Permit prior to removal ofthe trees. The current applicant has filed a Tree Removal Permit for consideration by the Planning Commission. The Tree Preservation Ordinance requires replacement of on site Eucalyptus trees on a t:1 ratio. There is also an Oak tree on the site (lot 44) and a condition of approval required the tree to be preserved in place. The same requirement shall be placed on the subject Development Review. The impact is not considered significant. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) (v') 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? ( ) ( ) (v') 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A dsk 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 planE., C~/.~ ) (~') ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-10 Page 9 Significant Irapad Less c) The creation of any health h~ard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) d) Exposure of people to existing sour~s of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) e) Increased tim hazard in areas with fiammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) (f) ( ) ( ) Commen~: b) The project will be required to ins~ll a through street connection from Archibald Avenue to Almond Street with the flint development phase to assure adequate emergency access. ~th mitigation, the irapad is not considered significant. e) The site falls within the "Wildland/Urban Interface" zone and is therefore subject to fire ha~rd mitigation requiremen~ such as vege~tion management, specialized home construction methods, and other requirement. A condition of approval requires compliance with Fire Distrial requirements. ~th such mitigation, the impa~ is not considered significant 10. NOISE. ~llthepmposalmsultin: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (f) ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (f) Commen~: a) The projed will increase existing noise levels sin~ the site is cu~ently vacant. The project is not expected to increase noise levels beyond anticipated limits. The impact is not considered significant. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered govemment services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) L Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-10 Page ~10 b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') c) Schools?' ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: a) The site falls within the "Wildland/Urban Interface" zone and is therefore subject to fire hazard mitigation requirements such as vegetation management, specialized home construction methods, and other requirements. A condition of approval requires compliance with Fire Distdct requirements. With mitigation, the impact is not considered significant. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ( ) (v') b) Communication systems? ( ( ) (~') c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( )' ( ) (V') d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) (V') ( ) ( ) t~ Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~,) Comments: e) There are two special flood hazard areas (Zone "A" on the Flood Insurance Rate Map) within the project area. One is located along the east tract boundary and the other bisects the tract, about 500 feet east of Archibald Avenue. Per the conditions of approval for Tract 133t6, the westerly stream will be diverted into a basin which outlets to a storm drain in Huntswood Place and discharges to its original stream bed south of Carrari Court. These improvements will require Federal Emergency Management Agency approval prior to grading permit issuance, thereby mitigating potentially significant impacts to a less than significant ,eve,, C: Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-10 Page 11 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal.' a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) (~/) ( ) ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~,) Comments: b) The project includes a large retention basin along the nodhem tract boundary. The basin will have a spillway leading down to the northern end of the Huntswood Place cul-de-sac and will be quite visible. Provision of landscaping and river rock cobble shall be used to visually enhance the spillway. With mitigation, the impact is not considered significant. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposak a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (t/) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Restdct existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-10 Page 12 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, ~use a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or mstri~ the range d amm or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate impo~ant examples of the major periods of California histo~ or pmhisto~? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) b) Sho~ te~: Does the project have the potential to achieve sho~-te~, to the disadvantage d long-term, environmental goals? (A sho~-term impact on the environment is one which occum in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-te= impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) c) Cumulative: Does the proje~ have impa~s that am individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effe~s of a proje~ am considerable when viewed in conne~ion with the effe~s of past proje~s, the effects d other cu~ent proje~s, and the effe~s of probable future proje~s.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (f) d) Subs~ntial adveme: Does the proje~ have environmental effects which will ~use substantial adveme effe~s on human beings, either dim~ly or indim~ly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (f) ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES Geological Problems: 1. No structures shall be permitted within 100 feet of the north property line of lots 44, 57, 58, and 59. 2. The developer/applicant, or his agent, shall provide each prospective home buyer of lots 44, 57, 58, and 59, wdtten notice of the Cucamonga Fault Zone in a standard format as determined by the City Planner. A copy of the written notice shall be submitted and filed with the City. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-10 Page 13 3. 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. Water: 1. Storm drain improvements related to flood hazard areas shall be subject to review and approval by the Federal Emergency Management Agency prior to issuance of grading permits. 2. Streambed alteration of USGS identified Blue Line Streams shall be subject to review and approval by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game, Transportation: 1. The developer shall install frontage street improvements to their ultimate configuration per City ordinance and pay applicable Transportation Development Fees, 2. A through street connection shall be installed from Archibald Avenue to Almond Street with the first phase of development to assure adequate emergency access. Biological Resources: 1. All non-fruit beadrig trees in excess of 15 feet in height and 15 inches in trunk circumference that are removed to accommodate the project shall be replaced at a minimum ratio of 1:1 with the same species as those removed as required by Municipal Code Section 19.08.100. 2. The existing Oak tree on lot 44 shall be preserved and protected as required by Municipal Code Section 19.08.110. The tree shall be enclosed by an appropriate construction barrier, such as chain link fencing, prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits and prior to commencement of work. 3. The developer shall ensure the establishment of 2.5 acres of native shrub land and wetland habitat on the detention basin slopes as required by 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement and Nationwide 26 Permit of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 4. The developer shall mitigate removal of on-site sage scrub through acquisition of equivalent habitat in the Alluvial Fan Scrub Mitigation Bank in Cajon Wash. Hazards: 1. A through street connection shall be installed from Archibald Avenue to Almond Street with the first phase of development to assure adequate emergency access. Initial 8tucly for .~lty of Rancho Cucemonga 2. All provisions of the 8an Bemardlno County Fire Se.-~.., eveday pisthc~ shall apply. A Fuel Modifiaation/Idanegement Plan sr~ll be aul)rritted for Fke Chiet and City Planner review and approval Frior to the issuance of ~redlng permits. Aesthetics: 1. Provision of ~art~plng and ~iver ro~kcobDie shall be use¢l to vfsuatly e/'~nce the spillway at the northern end of Hgntewmxi Plate to the setllfaotion of the Chy Planner. EARLIER ANALY6E6 Ester armlysss may be usecl where, pursuant to the heftnB, Ixogrim EtR, or o~ner CEQA process, erie or more ef~ have been actequately arelyzsd in an leriler EIR or Negative Deaarati~n per Section 1EO63(6)(3}(D). The effects ~eft6fle~ above for thi~ pn}ject m w~hln the stage d and eciequate~y anely'4e¢l in Ihe following earfir document(a) pursuant to m opliceble leg=i stenclari~s. and su~ effects were addmild by mitigation measures baled on the e;Irllr analysis. The following earlist analy~ea were gtililea In ;ampling titis Inlti Study and are aveIlls f~r review in the City of RlinG~lo Cucsmonga. Pinning DlvlliOn Offloll,, 10500 Clvio Center Drive (crte~ lill thslt al~ly): (f) Geneml Plan EIR (Cel'af~a April 6, 1381) (t/)Miater Elwlronmentel Assessment forffie 1989 GeNeral Ran Up;late (SCH f88020115. cartiRed ,tenue'y 4o 1 (v') Negative DeQteratj~ for Tentative Trlct 13316, Adopted by the Pinning Commission on March 25, 1987 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I ceffify that I am the applicant. for th$ proJe4~ delcribe¢l in this Inlti; Slucly. I acknowledge that I hive reed thll Intttel Study lind the propaled miligiltgn mauures. Further, I have revised the preject plane or t~---"~ are]/or hamby lii~ree to ~ l:~:~pc~ed mjUiNl~¢~ rnee~l~ree to ~ the efte~ts or mlzigm lhe ef~ to · point where etearly n~ slgnfficlnt environmental effects waula Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-10 Page ! ~. 2. All provisions of the San Bemardino County Fire Safety Overlay District shall apply. A Fuel Modification/Management Plan shall be submitted for Fire Chief and City Planner review and approval pdor to the issuance of grading permits. Aesthetics: 1. Provision of landscaping and river rock cobble shall be used to visually enhance the spillway at the northern end of Huntswood Place to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 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): (~/) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (V')Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (~/) Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract 13316, Adopted by the Planning Commission on March 25, 1987 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: Date: Print Name and Title: 2000 feet. Dh-~ ~oads cross i~e project sims at various local~s~ and access is open 6'ore most sides. SURVEY M~rHO!}8 The habitat assessment survey consi~ of walking slowly over the project sites, searching, identLcTinS, recording and mapleS, i~ present. habitat eomponents,(~S. larval food done in conjunction with th~ ~ assessment ro~ oth~_ sensitive plant ta~ i.e. Plummer's Madposa (Calochom~ plmmm, ra~). The survey was gcnezagy pea'formed in ~ with sn6cipatcd pmt~_! met_.hodology. On 6 May 1998, Pacific Southwest's se~ior bioloaist, R. I~ Beauchamp, cond~ ~efocuml botanical~eld review ofth~proje~t~c~ Mr. Beauchamp is familiar with the Quino Checkerspot BuRcrfiy, its habitat requirements and food p]antt The 199si leDarm one of oPthnalralnfall andinodm'arcasofthere$ionhos~plamBr~wtoop~malsize, suggcstingthat had the hog plam been prcscnt oa tlm site, ffieywouldlavelmmmvidma. LIMITATIONS AN*D DF-X~a-taONS Survey Limitatltms Dhpausc i~ a state of s~_~ aui~,~-n. Drouaht or low wlntm,~ rminf. di nay ~ the arowth Vegetation Communities Vegetation habitat or comm~mtties on the site have been mbjcctod to past distmtMu~ by prior use ofthe sites as orchards. Succeuional Sage Serub Successional Sage Scrub commm~cs amount to ~.04 acrgs of the hrSer site. Tho habitat C~fornla SaShbrush (~trtem/~ c~05,n/m). nat-top Bu~-wh~t (F-.-/oSm~fag/m/mm), BhckSaSe(Xa/~meH~.P, ra)andWhitoSage(Xdmam/mM). Tt~oMamwitlantt~Sa~ Annual Grassland AnmlgCraulaNl~-_d_Rsideralkeasarecharactealzedbyad~ms~toaparsecoverof annual Srasses °r simPlY barc areas due t° vehld~ activitY or Past th*e ab~ practices, This habitat, totallln8 8896 acres ofboffi pa_~ is a dL~'op..nce-_,zl~L-! .~,-~+~ ,,,.,,, o.4~ec t,,....~ hold fields, or opo~___inSs in native scttrb habitat' No(~hJinoJm~aifoodmmeb~in ~0 39j~d ~ ~r~{311 LI~9~PBL6e~ 6~:0~ 07/i~/i9~ 0~;5& ~09~45&47 Ti~ ~ PAC~_ 02 r~mm Mad~e C,~,'~u,'tants, Environmental Anotysls and Resource Planning Endangered Spedes Surveys · M~figa~on Design · Ecological Services 1159 Iowa Ave.. Suffe D · RiverslOe. CA tF2,507 · (q09) 684-7081 · (FAX) 784-5647 ernall: tlerron~dre~oo~.corn · W~A~V: membe's ooI.com/flerramdre 18 July 19~9 Ms'. BnmtLeCaum Pzetu 10500 Civic Cemer Drive PostOtceBozS07 Rm',cho O,'ca~0e~s, CA 91727 P,e: San Bamudino Fa~oo l~t ~svey, Tentative Tract 13316 F. ndanSm~ San Bemarao Ka~_-~o P,.~ (D.'~,..~_.,-./-. ...~.-~f.:_--..j ~-.-_,-) on Tract ]3316, ncar the nollh end of Axch'bald Avetree. The U.S. Fish and W'ddfife Service accepted survey protocol for this F, ndan~ered subspecies involves · live m,ppin8 study conducted t-r five ~ome~tivc ni~%~. TMC bepn m: smo~ on Monday, 12 3ut~. No SmBennudino KanMsroo l~s(SUKK)w~e capmr~dm~thef,,s- Trapping wa~ djrmed by Stepbee 3. Myers, who holds Federal Fish and W'ddlLfe Perufit No. 804203-2~ He was assisted by other TMC employees. Trapping w~_.s _conducted accordS_ to protocols esublished for the SgKR. which call for five consecutive hiShis oftrappin8, between dude and dawn. A total of lS0 12' Sh~-~an ilve tttps were set mtd baited with a combjnmion of mlled-oafm and bird seed. The traps we~ set at _d,.~_e~ checked ax midnight and chccked and close 1. Northbetwamthetwodrahmgesconsisffimgof60t~apstomi. 2. Djroctiy~thetwo~~of 50traps. 3. Northemedgeoftheea.terndr~uageconsls~ngof20trap& 4. F~,.~of#3oomistingof20mtps. · S~themofthemstdzuin~comistinSof2Ot~ap J. s. 07/~97i99~ 08:5~ 9097845~4~ Ti~ ~ PA,:~, 03 The results ofth~ trap_ _Vi~_ sun~_ m shown in Tables I and 2 below, Table 1. Tentative Tra~ 13316 (P,s~ho Cucamon~a): Small mamm, I tn ,J~in~ sur~.,r variables. 12-13 July {UM. ldV/. WN l~O 74 66 ~0 20 l~w 13-14 ~dy I SIM. WS 180 67 ~6 <10 0 New 14-15 .tul lt-16+dy B.Hd, DF, W~ Key, to BiOlN~_**tdField MW: Miahmd D, WrdCeX DF = David Fldtner ws = TO = BD - n-".l Deppe Table 2. Tentative Trm 13316 ~ Cucamonga): Small matured trapping teadis. ~'s ~ ! I ~'m~ 2 2 ~~o~ I 3 2 4 2 ~ ~ 7 5 X2 12 ~ ~~'~-~ 14 13 17 18 ~ 89 ~V~ - 2 2 I 1 6 2 87/19/1999 88:56 9097845647 TIERRA MADRE PAGE 04 ~q~mBer~ardin~ka~a~n~swseca~msred~n~rether~cap~ures~fanyspecies~fkanF~ar~r~t~ Bssed ontl~se rcsutts, tbe endaaSe~d rodentsazejudSed tobe absent fromthls locatiorL If you have any questic,.~s, p|6ase cc.?~act me or R. l~tchel Beaudip at 619 477-S333. zI~d~MADP, H COIv'SULTANTS, ]lfC. 3 City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for pubtic review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Pubtic Resources Code. Project File No.: Development Review 98-10 Public Review Period Closes: June 9, 1999 Project Name: Project Applicant: Barratt Amedcan Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrari Court - APN: 1074-061-15 through 27, 1074-041-08 through 21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074-461-04 through 21, 1074-601-01 through 14. 1074-611-01 through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074-051-09 through 16. ProjectDescription: Thedesignreviewofdetailedsiteplanandbuildingelevationsforpreviouslyrecorded Tract 13316, consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Venj Low Residential Distdct (less than 2 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 clearly 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) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. Ju,v 28, 1999 Date of DeterminationAdopted RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 FOR TRACT 13316 CONSISTING OF 123 LOTS ON 84 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY-LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE, NORTH OF CARRARI COURT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074-061-15 THROUGH 27, 1074-041-08 THROUGH 21, 1074-591-01 THROUGH 16, 1074-461-04 THROUGH 21, 1074-601-01 THROUGH 14, 1074-611-01 THROUGH 16, 1074-021-02 THROUGH 26, AND 1074-051-09 THROUGH 16. A. Recitals. 1. Barratt Homes has filed an application for the Development Review 98-10 for Tract No. 13316, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinaf~er in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 14th day of July 1999, and continued to the 28th day of July 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on July 28, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrari Street with a street frontage of 1800 feet on Archibald Avenue and 700 feet on Carrari Street and is presently vacant. The site sits at the base of the foothills and slopes from northwest to the southeast at a 10 to 15 percent grade. The elevation difference across the site is approximately 269 feet. There are two natural streams that cross the site from north to south. The stream channel has steep slopes varying from 25 to 30 percent. The two streams carry drainage from the north through the site to the south. This drainage is proposed to be controlled by constructing a retention basin at the northern end of the site with a storm drain which outlets south of the site. Vegetation on the site includes three communities, successional sage scrub, annual grassland/ruderal areas, and Eucalyptus woodland. There is a cluster of three mature eucalyptus trees and one mature oak tree (on Lot 44); and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant or developed with single family homes, the property to the south consists of single family homes, the property to the east is PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-10 BARRATT July 28, 1999 Page 2 vacant and developed with single family homes, and the property to the west is developed with single family homes; and c, The application involves design review of detailed site plan, building elevations, grading, and landscaping for a recorded Tract; and d. The project will not increase traffic in the vicinity beyond that anticipated by the General Plan and the streets have been designed to accommodate the traffic demand; and e. The project is designed to minimize view obstruction to the degree possible; and f. The project site is potential habitat for threatened or endangered species (i.e., California Gnatcatcher and San Bernardino Merriam Kangaroo Rat, respectively) and biological surveys were conducted by a permitted biologist in accordance with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service protocols. The protocol surveys concluded that the project site was not suitable habitat and the species were not found; and g. The project site is potential habitat for an endangered species, the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly, and a habitat assessment was conducted and determined that due to lack of host plants and past disturbances from agricultural use, the site does not support adequate habitat and the species is not present; and h. The project has a valid Nationwide Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and applicant has obtained Streambed Alteration Agreement No. 5-070-98 from the California Department of Fish and Game; and i. The project site is located within the '~ildland/U rban Interface" zone and San Bernardino County Fire Safety Overlay District. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above-referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the distdct in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated 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 Mitigated Negative PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-10 BARRATT July 28, 1999 Page 3 Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Mitigated 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 Mitigated 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the project which are listed below as conditions of approval. c. 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 Mitigated 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 the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public headng, the Planning Commission hereby 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. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planninq Division: 1 ) Plot one-story home on Lot 60 to preserve views for existing home to the north. 2) All final home plotting shall be per the conceptually approved plans. 3) All drainage channels on individual lots shall be "v" gutter type rather than trapezoidal channels unless expected flows necessitate otherwise. 4) Provide bddge over equestrian trail drainage swales at trail intersections such as between Lots 69 and 70. 5)Gates between homes fronting the street shall be wrought iron instead of wood. 6) Locate fence walls at top of slope rather than at toe of slope except along Archibald Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-10 BARRATT July 28, 1999 Page 4 7) Provide wrought iron fencing for side and rear yard fences at top of slopes instead of solid masonry walls, 8) All between home connecting walls, and retaining walls shall be split face block with pilasters. Wood fencing is only acceptable in interior yard areas not visible from surrounding streets. 9) Provide terraced retaining walls in comer side yard slope areas to maximize useable yard area. 10) Provide intensified landscaping, including cascading vines, within terraces between retaining walls to create a more natural appearance and reduce visual impact of walls and slopes. 11 ) Use low maintenance and native plant materials for slope landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 12) All splash walls shall be split faced block and incorporated with walls as much as possible, 13) Equestrian trail splash wall footings and reinforcing steel shall be designed to accommodate 6-foot high walls. 14) Install the perimeter slump stone block walls for the tract with the installation of public improvements. 15) Provide architectural details, such as corbels, shutters, and belly bands on side and rear elevations to match that shown on front elevations. 16) Provide substantial variation in front yard setbacks. This may require ra-plotting of home plans to accommodate useable rear yard areas given slopes. 17) Where wood siding is used on the front elevation, it must be continued around side and rear elevations as well. 18) Provide at least a 5ofoot landscape stdp between the back of sidewalk and any wall. 19) Provide 15-foot deep useable rear yard areas either through grading or decks and patios. 20) The spillway at the south end of the tract shall be designed to have a more natural appearance. 21) The retaining walls along the sides of the basin spillway at Lot A and screen walls forthe drainage channel between Lots 9 and 10 shall be split faced block subject to City Planner and City Engineer review and approval. 22) Provide river rock treatment for the concrete basin spillway at Lot A for native aesthetics and to preve~__,~th~%~.~lway from being used as a PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-10 BARRATT July 28, 1999 Page 5 skateboard ramp, subject to City Planner and City Engineer review and approval. 23) Provide low maintenance landscaping, such as but not limited to drought/heat tolerant trees, shrubs, ground cover, and rip-rap on the inside and outside slopes of the debds basin subject to review and approval by the City Planner and City Engineer. Debris basin fencing shall be decorative rather than chain link. 24) Provide a standard handicapped ramp at curb at end of local trail at the northeast corner of Lot 31 and a stepthrough rather than a vehicle gate. 25) Stepped footpaths shall be provided for all slopes in excess of 3: 1. 26) The front, visible edge of terrace drains shall be naturalized cobble. 27) Incorporate boulders found on-site during grading into design. 28) Notify the property owners for Lots 13 and 14 of Tract 9590 prior to commencement of any work for the drainage channel and spillway. Submit a copy of the notice to the City Planner pdor to commencement of work. 29) The Construction Contractor shall select the construction equipment used onsite based on low emission factors and high energy efficiency. The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. 30) The Construction Contractor shall utilize electdc or diesel-powered equipment in lieu of gasoline-powered engines where feasible. 31) The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. Dudng smog season (May through October), the overall length of the construction period should be extended, thereby decreasing the size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and equipment operating at the same time. 32) The Construction Contractor shall support and encourage rideshating and transit incentives for the construction crew. 33) Dust generated by the development activities shall be retained on site and kept to a minimum by following the dust control measures listed below. a. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-10 BARRATT July 28, 1999 Page 6 systems shall be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease. b. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day, and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. c, After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed, the entire area of disturbed soil shall be treated immediately by pickup of the soil until the area is paved or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur. d. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. e. Trucks transporting soil. sand, cut or fill materials and/or construction debris to or from the site shall be tarped from the point of odgin. 34) The Construction Contractor shall utilize as much as possible pre- coated natural colored building matedais, water-based or Iow-VOC coating, and coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, such as high volume low pressure (HVLP) spray method, or manual coatings application such as paint brush, hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag or sponge. 35) The developer shall make a good faith effort to notify and obtain permission from adjacent property owners for all off site cleadng of vegetation for fire protection/wildland interface requirements pdor to issuance of building permits to the satisfaction of the City Planner. En ineerin Division: 1 ) The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical) on the project side of Archibald Avenue shall be undergrounded from the first pole on the south side of Carrari Street to the first pole south of the north tract boundary, prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. All services crossing Archibald shall be undergrounded at the same time. Reimbursement of one-half the adopted cost of undergrounding from future development as it occurs on the opposite side of the street is not feasible because the property is currently developed. 2) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunicetions and electrical) on the opposite side of Almond Street shall be paid to the City prior to the -PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-10 BARRATI' July 28, 1999 Page 7 issuance of building permits. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length of the project frontage. 3) All lot line adjustments shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. At a minimum process a lot line adjustment between Lots 37 and 40, so the property line will follow the perimeter wall. 4) All public improvement plans for streets, trails and the storm drainage system shall be completed and signed by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. a) A complete plan check resubmittal shall be made, including plan check fees. b) Street grades greater than 12 percent are subject to approval of the City Engineer. c) Provide curb adjacent sidewalk along Almond Street, transitioning to property line adjacent across the drive approach for Lot 40. All access ramps shall be per Standard Drawing 102 (no modifications). d) Public maintenance of Lot A (debds basin) shall not extend into Lots 57, 58 and 59. Landscape Maintenance District plans previously submitted shall be revised. e) Show the property line between Lot C (City owned) and the landscape easement (City maintenance across multiple private lots) on the north side of Carrad Street on the Landscape Maintenance District plans. 5) Improvement Phasing: a) The debris basin and all related storm drainage improvements, including Huntswood Place street improvements, shall be installed prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase I development. b) One through street connection from Archibald Avenue to Almond Street shall be installed full width, including street lights and related storm drains, with Phase I development. c) Erosion protection measures for rough graded phases shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for proper channelization to the storm drain system. 6) Community Trail Design: a) Install ddve approaches and provide vehicle gates with side access, per Standard Drawing 1006-A, for Lot C at Carraft Street PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-10 BARRA'I'I' July 28, 1999 Page 8 and Birdsong Place and for Lot B at Almond Street and Birdsong Place. At the Carrari Street trail entrance the drive approach shall be located far enough south that a 12-foot DG path can be maintained. b) The equestrian bridge within Lot C, which crosses the channel south of Huntswood Place between Lots 9 and 10, shall be designed to accommodate City maintenance vehicles, including a concrete slab. c) Provide gated access to the Community Trail on Lot C from Lot 14 of Tract 9590 to the south, on both sides of the channel which crosses that parcel. City maintenance vehicle access to the channel facility shall be secured. d) Gates from lots onto Community Trails shall accommodate horses and pedestrians, but not vehicular traffic. Gates shall be shown on the Community Trail improvement plans, including Lots 60 through 64 which back onto Archibald Avenue (Std Dwg 1008) and Lots 9 through 30 which back onto Lots B and C (Std Dwg 1009-B). Provide step through barriers (Std Dwg 1007) at intersections with local feeder trails. e) Trail fencing for the Archibald Community Trail shall not block the lines-of-sight for the four Archibald Avenue intersections. f) VVhere trail gradients exceed 4 percent, drainage diversion devices shall be installed tothe satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Planner. g) Concentrated drainage shall cross the trail in underground facilities. h) Manhole covers shall be designed to accommodate equestrian traffic. Manholes located in Community Trails shall have non- skid Polymer covers (only 30" diameter available). i) Eliminate the PVC rail fencing on the north side of the Community Trail on the north side of Carrad Street and replace with concrete curb/mow strip. 7) Dedicate additional easement rights-of-way to accommodate vehicular access where the Community Trail crosses Lot 14. 8) Ddve approaches on Lots 1,65 and 88 shall be located as far from the intersection BCR for Archibald Avenue as possible. 9) The grade break between a standard residential drive approach ramp and the on site driveway shall not exceed 14 percent on any lot. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-10 BARRA'I'r July 28, 1999 Page 9 10) Aesthetictreatmentofstormdrainspillwaysshallbetothesatisfaction of the City Engineer and City Planner. 11 ) All off site easements necessary for the installation of storm drainage facilities and slopes adjacent to street or public trail improvements shall be recorded pdor to the issuance of grading permits: a) A drainage acceptance agreement shall be obtained from the property owner downstream of the Birdsong Place terminus and interim measures installed to accommodate concentrated runoff which may bypass the catch basins, so as to not damage private property or the Community Trail, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. b) The project proposes to discharge rear lot and Community Trail drainage at the south comer of Lot 18 across up to three adjacent properties before it reaches the San Bernardino County Flood Control District basin. This will require drainage acceptance from the affected property owners or a storm drain easement and SBCFCD permit. Drainage acceptance and measures to accommodate runoff downstream shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Building Official. The preferred option is installation of a local storm drain from the south comer of Lot 18 to Alta Loma Basin No. 3. 12) TheexpandedCommunityTraileasementoffsitesouthofLot15shall be recorded prior to grading permit issuance. 13) IftheimprovementagreementandbondsforTract13316donotre~ect the current owner/developer, bond substitutions shall be completed pdor to the issuance of building permits. 14) D.eveloper shall obtain a 404 Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers prior to altedng the blue line stream(s) for storm drainage improvements. 15) All improvements within public rights-of-way, including public trails and the basin, shall be constructed per the public improvement plans. A note to this effect shall be placed on related pdvate plans for walls/fences, grading, etc. 16) To accommodate city maintenance, the basin access read shall extend to the proposed slope bench on the north side of the basin. Road surface to the satisfaction of the City Planner and City Engineer. 17) Provide a minimum 3-foot clearance for flow line between building/chimneys and property line walls. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-10 BARRATT July 28, 1999 Page 10 Environmental Mitiqation Measures: 1 ) No structures shall be permitted within 100 feet of the north property line of Lots 44, 57, 58, and 59. 2) The developer/applicant, or his agent, shall provide each prospective home buyer of Lots 44, 57, 58, and 59, written notice of the Cucamonga Fault Zone in a standard format as determined by the City Planner. A copy of the wdtten notice shall be submitted and filed with the City. 3) 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. 4) Storm drain improvements related to flood hazard areas shall be subject to review and approval by the Federal Emergency Management Agency prior to issuance of grading permits. 5) The developer shall comply with the terms and conditions of their Nationwide Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Streambed Alteration Agreement No. 5-070-98 from the California Department of Fish and Game. 6) The developer shall install frontage street improvements to their ultimate configuration per City ordinance and pay applicable Transportation Development Fees. 7) A through street connection shall be installed from Archibald Avenue to Almond Street with the first phase of development to assure adequate emergency access. 8) Tree Removal Permit 98-26 is approved subject to replacement of trees at a one to one ratio. All non-fruit beadng trees in excess of fifteen feet in height and 15 inches in trunk circumference that are removed to accommodate the project shall be replaced at a minimum ratio of 1:1 with the same species as those removed as required by Municipal Code Section 19.08.100. 9) The existing Oak tree on Lot 44 shall be preserved and protected as required by Municipal Code Section 19.08.110. The tree shall be enclosed by an appropriate construction barrier, such as chain link fencing, prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits and prior to commencement of work. 10) The developer shall ensure the establishment of 2.5 acres of native shrub land and wetland habitat on the detention basin slopes as PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-10 BARRA'Fr July 28, 1999 Page 11 required by 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement and Nationwide 26 Permit of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 11) The developer shall mitigate removal of on-site sage scrub through acquisition of equivalent habitat in the Alluvial Fan Scrub Mitigation Bank in Cajon Wash. 12) AII Provisions ofthe San Bernardino County Fire Safety Oveday District shall apply. A Fuel Modification/Management Plan shall be submitted for Fire Chief and City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. 13) Provision of landscaping and dver rock cobble shall be used to visually enhance the spillway at the nodhem end of Huntswood Place to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF JULY 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATI'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 regu ady introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of July 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ¥ CITY O1: RANC[ IO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 28, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count. Associate Planner Darice Sebring, Planning Aide SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14162 - FAN - A request for an extension of a previously a pproved tentative tract map including design review for the development of 17 single family lots on 4.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (24 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of 19th Street at the western city limit - APN: 202-021-37. BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract 14162 was initially approved by the Planning Commission on August 26, 1992. Since that time. the State granted automatic extensions for several years during the recession. This extended the expiration of the subject Tentative Tract to August 26, 1998. On September 9, 1998, a time extension for the Tentative Tract was approved by the Planning Commission. This extended the Tentative Tract's expiration date for one-year to August 26, 1999. TRACT TIME EXTENSION: In 1998, the City Council amended the City's Subdivision Ordinance to provide for the maximum time extensions allowable under the State Subdivision Map Act. The City may extend tentative tract maps for up to 11 years from the original approval date. Extensions are granted in 12 month increments. There are four more 12- month extensions available that may be granted by the City (up to the year 2003). Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension and compared the proposal with current development criteria outlined in the Development Code. The City's requirements have not changed and the project conforms to all standards. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Pad I of the Initial Study has been prepared by the applicant. Staff has completed Parl II of the Environmental Checklist and found that conditions in the area have not changed appreciably since the Tentative Tract was originally approved August 26, 1992. The only significant change is that the Route 30 Freeway construction has begun, however, the project site is two blocks away and the freeway construction is anticipated to reduce traffic volume on 19th Street. ITE~ D 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 Planning Commission grant a one-year time extension for subdivision map and design review for Tentative Tract Map 14162 by the adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Brad Buller City Planner BB:DA~Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Tentative Tract Exhibit "C" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit "F" - Building Elevations Exhibit "G~ - Floor Plans Exhibit "H" - Written Request from Applicant Exhibit "1" - Initial Study Part II Exhibit "J" - Letter from homeowner Resolution of Approval for Time Extension for 'IF 14162 Resolution of Approval for Design Review for 'l'F 14162 OF RANC~,-CUCAlV[ONGA P~NING~ DI~SION TITLE: J~.':~,. t/-~. t, ~ .~'.~- EXHIBIT: 'rA ,', SCALE: :ITY OF RANCHO _ . -~ :~UCA1VIONGA PLANNING- DMSION TITLE: ~ ~ .,..~:/~...~ ~N --= LOT SUMMARy ;~. PLAN BUMMARy LEGEND OF · ~ '~ AMONGA PLANMNG- DI~SION IlLLIE: ~n~-,/~=J .r~,J,: ,C/~,~ N '- EXHIBiT:/'C'~ SCALE: / -- ~:~' '~l ®, . , ,,' ® ® ® ,,,~ E~:"~"" SCALE: SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION Co~ P~+c~ .... " "' SIDE ELEVATION ~ROHT ELEVA11OH; SIDE ELEVATION t hEAR ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION . __ I FRONT ELEVATION ITEM: q'TFLE: ~. /,J...~ z" : / .?'1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA EXHIBIT: PLANNING DMSION SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION FRONT EL.EVATION CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA T/TLE: PLANNING DMSION EXHIBIT:'F~' SCALE:/ RRST R.O~R Pt.A~. I ~ECOND R,(X)~ P~AN 1T~M: ~T CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DMSION ExHmrr:"G~' SCALE: FIRST FLOOR PLAN ,I .... SECOND FLOOR PLAN rrEM: CrTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: PLANNING DMSION EXHIBIT:~'~-~'~ SCALE:/' ITEM: *"F TITLe: FI~, ~_.~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DMSION ExHmrr:"'_C--~" SCALE: ATDITECH AeSeSOCIATI e5 INC. Subdivision, Survey * Engineering Design 135 N. San Gabriel 81vd., # 100, San Gabriel, CA 91775 · Tel: (626) 570-1918 June 16, 1999 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Ranch Cucamonga, Ca 91729 Re: Tract #14162 19th and Saphire To whom it may concern, Due to economical hardship we are requesting a time extension on the above referrenced tract map. Tentative map has been approved. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact my office at (626) 570-1918. Si~ erl ~n ao · v ' er/Land Surveyor City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Time Extension for Tentative Tract 14162 2. Related Files: 3. Description of Project: A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map, including design review, forthe development of 17 single family lots on 4.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of 19th Street at the western City limit - APN: 202-021-37. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Tanya Fan 3223 E. Garvey North West Covina, CA 91791 5. General Plan Designation: Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) 6. Zoning: Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Existing single family detached dwellings to the north (noah of 19th Street), east and south within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Also, within Rancho Cucamonga there is a water storage facility of the Cucamonga County Water District to the west and single family detached dwellings within the City of Upland. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Brent Le Count, Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TT 14162 - Fan 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 (x) Transportation/Circulation (x) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources (x) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics (x) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality (x) Noise (x) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance 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 mi' ted pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigatio sures that a osed upon the proposed project. Principal Planner July 6, 1999 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TT 14162 - Fan 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. 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: 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) 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposah a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) - ( ) ( (x) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( (x) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( (x) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga 1'I' 14162 - Fan Page 4 b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ) (x) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ) (x) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) (x) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) (x) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) (x) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 4. WATER. Will lhe proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ) ( ) ( ) (x) 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TT 14162 - Fan Page 5 i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater othe~ise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) The project will increase runoff because the site is currently vacant and the project will add imperious surfaces such as street improvements, driveways, and roo~ops. The approved Tentative Tract Map includes conditions of approval requiring ce~ain storm drain system and ground surface conveyance improvements that will handle the increased flows. The impact is not considered significant. g) Because of the tract improvements listed above it is expected that some reduction in rainwater percolation to the ground water may result. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal.' a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) (x) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) (x) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) (x) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ' ( ) (x) 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga 1'I' 14162 - Fan Page 6 c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) (x) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) (x) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) (x) 0 Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) (x) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) The project will increase the number of traffic trips in the area since it entails adding 17 new homes. The approved Tentative Tract Map has conditions of approval requiring certain public improvements to handle the increased traffic. The impact is not considered significant. 7. 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)? ( ) ( ) _ ( ) (x) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga 'FF 14162 - Fan Page 7 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the ' proposah a) Conflict with adopted energy consedation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the ragion and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 9. HA~RDS. 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)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) - ( ) (x) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TI' 14162 - Fan Page 8 Comments: a) The acoustical analysis prepared on August 6, 1990, indicated the project design, which includes a minimum 6-foot high wall along 19th Street and the northwestern frontage, will adequately mitigate current and future noise. 11, PUBLIC SERVICES, Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government sen/ices in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ( ) (x) ( ) b) Police protection? ( ( ) ( ) (x) c) Schools? ( ( ) (x) ( ) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ( ) ( ) ( ) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a & c) The project will increase the demand on public services since it entails adding 17 new homes. The approved Tentative Tract Map has conditions of approval requiring the developer to participate in a Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts for the necessary construction and maintenance of fire protection and school facilities. The impact is not considered significant. 12, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS, Would the proposal resuff in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial a~erations to the fo~owing utilities: 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) ( ) ~ Solid waste disposal? ~ ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga 'IF 14162 - Fan Page 9 g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a, b, d) The project will produce a need for water supplies, waste disposal, gas and electric service since it entails adding 17 new homes. The approved Tentative Tract Map has conditions of approval req uiring the developer to provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewer system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable t.v. The cost of these improvements will be borne by the developer. The impact is not considered significant. e) The project will increase runoff because the site is currently vacant and the project will add impervious surfaces such as street improvements, driveways, and roo~ops. A drainage study was completed which determined that existing and proposed streets and storm drains are sufficient to handle the increased surface runoff. The approved Tentative Tract Map includes conditions of approval requiring certain storm drain system and ground surface conveyance improvements that will handle the increased flows. The cost of these improvements will be borne by the developer. The impact is not considered significant. 13. AESTHETICS, Would the proposal,' a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ' ( ) (x) c) Create light or 91are? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TT 14162 - Fan Page 10 ,.,..,, ,_..., .....: s:=., ,,,":',; ':;="' ,; d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( } (x) Comments: a) The proiect will increase the demand on parks in the area because it involves adding 17 new homes. The developer will be responsible for payment of park fees at the time of building permits issuance to offset any impact on parks. The impact is not considered significant, 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TT 14162 - Fan Page 11 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) 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 lega. I 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) () Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract 14162. approved by the Planning Commission on August 26, 1992. Dg7 City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The fo~owing Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the Ca~fornla Environmental Qua~ty Act Section 21091 and 2f092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Time Extension for Tentative Tract 14162 Public Review Period Closes: July 28, 1999 Project Name: Project Applicant: Tanya Fan Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the south side of 19th Street at the western City limit - APN: 202-021-37. Project Description: TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14162 - FAN - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map, including design review. for the development of 17 single family lots on 4.7 acres of land in the Low Residential Distdct (2-4 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 deteRnine 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) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. July 28, 1999 Date of Determination Adopted By J RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14162 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 4.7 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 19TH STREET AT THE WESTERN CITY LIMIT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 202-021-37. A. Recitals. 1. Tanya Fan has filed an application for the extension of the approval of the Design Review for Tentative Tract 14162, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject time extension request is referred to as "the application." 2. On August 26, 1992, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 92-112, thereby approving the application subject to specific conditions and time limits. 3. On the July 28, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on July 28. 1999. including written and oral staff reports. this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The previously approved Design Review is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans. codes and policies; and b. The extension of the Design Review approval will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans. ordinances. plans, codes and policies; and c. The extension of the Design Review approval is not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and d. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local ordinance. 'PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TE FOR DR TT 14162 - FAN July 28, 1999 Page 2 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension for: Desiqn Review Applicant Expiration TT 14162 Tanya Fan August 26, 2000 4. 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. 92-112 and the Standard Conditions, and incorporated herein by this reference, to add the following: Planninq Division 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, padicipate, at its own expense, in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his obligations under this condition. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall cedify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28'" DAY OF JULY 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI'P( OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman A'I'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 28th day of July 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TE FOR DR 'i'i' 14162 - FAN July 28, 1999 Page 3 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. 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. 14162, AND MODIFYING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THEREOF, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 17 UNITS ON 4.7 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 19TH STREET AT THE WESTERN CITY LIMIT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 202-021-37. A. Recitals. 1. Tanya Fan has filed an application for the extension of the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 14162, 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 August 26, 1992, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 92-112, thereby approving the application subject to specific conditions and time limits. 3. On July 28, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set fodh in the Recitals, Pad A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on July 28, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The previously approved 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 d. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TE FOR TT MAP 14162 - FAN July 28, 1999 Page 2 3. 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: 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 during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby 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 Applicant Expiration Tentative Tract 14162 Tanya Fan August 26, 2000 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3 and 4 above, this Commission hereby modifies the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 92-112 and the Standard Conditions, and incorporated herein by this reference, to add the following: Planninq Division 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TE FOR TT MAP 14162 - FAN July 28, 1999 Page 3 such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his obligations under this condition. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF JULY 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman A'FrEST: 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 28th day of July 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF P, ANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: July 28, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Donald Granger, Planning Technician SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 99-03 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to require wireless communication providers to install facilities that would not interfere with the City's 800 MHz public safety radio communications system. BACKGROUND: The City of Rancho Cucamonga is a partner in an 800 MHz radio system operated by the West End Communications Authority (WECA). The system is vital to provide communications during or after emergencies or natural disasters. The City is in receipt of a letter from Thomas Beltram, Execulive Director for WECA, describing a recent breakdown of the 800 MHz public safety communication system due to interference from a wireless communication facility. The Fire Protection District also contacted staff in support of this amendment. ANALYSIS: Certain wireless communications facilities, including, but not limited to, paging systems and cellular and digital telecommunications, operate at frequencies in close proximity to the 800 MHz utilized by the public safety communications system. WECA has requested participating cities to incorporate language into the permitting process to ensure that communication providers are aware of the 800 MHz public safety system and that networks built within the City would not interfere with the WECA system. Staff has drafted a Resolution that would add a performance standard to Section 17.26 of the Development Code (Regulations for Wireless Communications) that would require any wireless communication facility to not interfere with the public communications system, including, but not limited to, the 800 MHz trunking system. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The amendment 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). CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper. ITEM E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DCA 99-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA July 28, 1999 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution Recommending Approval of the Development Code Amendment 99-03 to the City Council. City Planner BB:DG:taa Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter dated May 17, 1999, from West End Communication Authority Executive Director, Thomas W. Beltram Exhibit "B" - Resolution Recommending Approval of DCA 99-03 END COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY 9330 Baseline Road · Suite 203 o Rancho Cucarnonga 91730 Office Phone: (909) 466-7210 · FAX: (909) 466-7213 MAY 2 6 R May 17, 1999 U ,', JUN 0 8 1999 City of Rancho CucamOnga TO: MR. LEE MC DOUGAL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR, CITY OF MONTCI..~/I~,rtnillg Division MR. G. MICHAEL MILHISER, CITY MANAGER, CITY OF UPLAND, MR. GLEN ROJAS, CITY MANAGER, CITY OF CHINe, MR. JACK I. AM, CITY MANAGER, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUBJECT: NEXTEL INTERFERENCE We recently experienced an inlerference problem on our 800 MHz backbone system I'rom a radio site owned and operated by Nextel, Inc. The problem, which occurred in the City of Ontario effectively, eliminaled perlabia radio coverage within a radius of about 1/2 mile around the Nextel site. The problem was reported to Nextel whose technical staff quickly resolved the issue. Portable coverage in the area was restored on the WECA backbone. A similar problem was reported on a public safety system in Washington County near Portland. Oregon. I conlacled the Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency QNCCCA} Io discuss the mailer and to compare notes. The WCCCA system is similar in size Io San Bernardino County's. They reporl Ihat due to design problems Ihelr system had portable coverage problems. Nextel was licensed to two hundred twenty nine (229) of the six hundred (600) available frequencies in the area. The Nextel licenses included an 800 MHz frequency range which was close enough to those of the public safety system to potentially cause interference. After the Nextel system was installed, public safety coverage problems became much worse. The lechnicol staff of WCCCA reports that it has been working toward a solution with Motorola and with Nextel for the past four months wiltl mixed results. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Is the agency charged with th; responsibility for resolving Interference problems. Despite the public safety Implications of this Issue and since Nextel had legal licenses to provide service In the area, the FCC recently ruled It would not Intervene In the matter. I want to emphasize that to date we have experienced only one such problem and it was solved quickly 1o our salisi'action. In light of the aforementioned FCC decision. I believe it is prudent to prolecl the backbone system whenever possible. I am Iherefore requesting that language be added to each City's permitting process to ensure that communications companies are aware the 800 MHz public satiety system and they agree that any network built within the City will not inlerfere with the WECA system. "Serving theWest End Public Safety Agencies" RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 99-03, REGARDING WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for Development Code Amendment No. 99o03, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject Development Code Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 28th day of July, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on 28th day of July, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located within the City; and b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment. c. The City of Rancho Cucamonga utilizes an 800 MHz trunking system for its public safety radio communications. This backbone system is critical for providing communications during or after emergencies and disasters. The proposed amendment is necessary to assure that there is no interference with the public safety radio communications system. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and b. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code; and c. That the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DCA 99-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA July 28, 1999 Page 2 d. That the subject application is consistent with the objectives the Development Code; and e. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been prepared and reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and further, specifically finds that based upon substantial evidence, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendment will have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed amendment is exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15308. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of Development Code Amendment No. 99-03 to add a new section as follows: "17.26.075 - Performance Standards No wireless communication facility shall interfere with the public safety radio communications system, including, but not limited to, the 800 MHz trunking system." 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF JULY 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman A'FI'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 28th day of July 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: July 28, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Rebecca Van Buren, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAl USE PERMIT 97-13 - FOOTHILL PROPERTIES, LL¢, - A request for a time extension of a previously approved master plan for a retail shopping center consisting of design review for 116,394 square feet of leasable space on 11.75 acres of land under the Community Commercial designation of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 7), located between Spruce and Elm Avenues on the south side of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-352-63 through 69. Related File: Tentative Parcel Map 15044. BACKGROUND: Conditional Use Permit 97-13 was approved by the Planning Commission on August 27, 1997. The approval will expire on August 27, 1999. Foothill Properties, LLC recently purchased the site and is requesting an extension of time to commence the project. ANALYSIS: As of December 1998, Conditional Use Permits are approved for five years with no provisions for extension. The subject Conditional Use Permit was approved prior to adoption of this provision. In this situation, the Commission has the authority to issue a time extension for up to three years for an overall lifetime approval of five years. Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension and compared the proposal with current development criteria outlined in the Development Code and Industrial Area Specific Plan. The development standards have not changed in the Community Commercial designation of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 7). Based on this review, the project meets the applicable development standards. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The applicant prepared Part I of the Initial Study, which included a habitat suitability and soils evaluation for the Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly (Thomas Olsen Associates, December 22, 1997). The report indicates the site is vegetated almost exclusively by non-native species and the soil conditions are not suitable habitat forthe Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly. No impacts to the Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly or its habitat are expected to occur as a result of proposed development. Staff completed Part II of the Initial Study and found that conditions in the area have not changed appreciably since the Conditional Use Permit received approval in 1997. Staff feels that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and recommends the Planning Commission adopt a Negative Declaration, consistent with the Negative Declaration adopted for the original project approval. ITEM F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 97-13- FOOTHILL PROPERTIES, LLC July 28, 1999 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve a three year time extension request, the maximum allowable, through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval and the issuance of a Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet City Planner BB:RVB:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's Letter Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "C" - Site Plan Exhibit "D" - Phasing Plan Exhibit "E" - Elevations Exhibit "F" - Initial Study Resolution of Approval with Conditions for Time Extension for Conditional Use Permit 97-13 FOOTHILL PROPERTIES, LLC May 27, 1999 Planning Division City of Rancho Cucamonga H E e: E i V E D P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0807 dlJbl I ~ Gentlemen: CRy of Rancho Cucamong'a pmnning Division SUBJECT: Time Extension Request Resolution No. 97-50 CUP 97-13 Resolution No. 97-51 Tentative Parcel Map 15044 The above stated resolutions v,'crc issued in August 27, 1997. However, the property was sold to us last April 1998 and the project has not commenced. We, therefore, respectfully request extension of time. Wc have attached herewith the documents and fcc payment required for tim,' extension request. Your favorable response would be most appreciated. Should you have questions, please fccl frcc to call us at 310/820-8838. Sincerely, P.O. llox 49931, Los/lngeles, CA 90049 Tel 310/820-8838 Fax 310/820-8070 Wohl Wohl Wohl City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Conditional Use Permit 97-13 Time Extension Tentative Parcel Map 15044 Time Extension 2. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit 97-13: A request to develop a master plan for a retail shopping center consisting of design review for 116,394 square feet of leasable space on 11.75 acres of land under the Community Commercial designation of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 7), located between Spruce and Elm Avenues on the south side of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-352-63 through 69. A Negative Declaration was adopted for this project in August of 1997. Tentative Parcel Map 15044: A subdivision of 11.75 acres of land into 8 parcels in the Community Commercial designation of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 7), located between Spruce and Elm Avenues on the south side of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-352-63 through 69. A Negative Declaration was adopted for this project in August of 1997. 3. Description of Project: A request to provide an additional 3-year time period to implement a previously approved Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Foothill Properties, LLC. P.O. Box 49931 Los Angeles, CA 90049 5. General Plan Designation: Community Commercial 6. Zoning: Community Commercial 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project is surrounded by a developed retail center to the north, a hotel and vacant land to the south, a developed industrial park and vacant land to the east, and a developed restaurant to the west. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Rebecca Van Buren / Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 rr Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-13 & TPM 15044 Page 2 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Caltrans 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 (X) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing (X) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics ( ) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation { ) Mandatory Findings of Significance 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 eadier 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 "Poter~tially 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. Rel~ecca Van Buren Associate Planner June 17, 1999 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-13 & TPM 15044 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. 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.' 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: a) The project is consistent with the General Plan and the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the design is compatible with existing and planned land uses in the vicinity. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal.' a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( } (X) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The site is planned for Community Commercial use and is vacant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-13 & TPM 15044 Page 4 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( (X) b) Seismic ground shaking'.,' ( ) ( ) ( (X) c) Seismic ground failure. including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) (X) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ) (X) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) (X) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) (X) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) (X) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: Grading will be inspected by the Building and Safety Division for consistency with the Uniform Building Code. h) Consistent with the Uniform Building Code, a soils report is required by the Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading permits. 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-13 & TPM 15044 Page 5 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? ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ) ( ) ( ) (X) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ) ( ) ( ) (X) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater othersvise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: g) The drainage easement that crosses the site from north to south has been identified and incorporated into the plan of development. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) (X) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) (X) c) Alter air movement. moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) (X) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) (X) Comments: a) An air quality study was completed in conjunction with the Environmental Assessment for General Plan Amendment 96-01A and concluded there are no negative impacts. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-13 & TPM 15044 Page 6 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) ) (X) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ) (X) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) ) (X) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ) ( ) (X) f) Conflicts with adopted policies suppoding alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ) ( ) (X) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) Analysis for General Plan Amendment 96-01A indicated there would be no significant increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion as a result of retail development on this site. d) Parking is not allowed off-site on any public streets abutting the project, The Development Code requires adequate on-site parking as a condition of approval. 7. 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)? ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees. eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat. etc.)? ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-13 & TPM 15044 Page 7 d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) A habitat suitability and soils evaluation for the Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly was conducted by Thomas Olsen Associates, dated December 22, 1997. The repod indicates the site is vegetated almost exclusively by non-native species with a 70-90 percent vegetative cover. The surface soil evaluation states "The near surface soils at this site do not meet the criteria of the Delhi sand. The soils at this site are considered compacted fills and alluvial soils." The repo~ finds that suitable habitat for the Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly does not occur on-site. No impacts to the Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly or its habitat are expected to occur as a result of proposed development due to the existing soil and vegetative conditions and adjacent commercial and industrial development. The site was rough graded for development at the time infrastructure improvements were made for the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park. Furlher, pad of the site was covered with vineyards. The development of this site would have no impact to wildlife. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) (X) 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) Comments: a) The project will be consistent with adopted energy conservation ordinances and the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-13 & TPM 15044 Page 8 9. H8RDS. 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)? ( ) ( ) ( (X) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( (X) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Increased fire hazard in areas wi~h fiammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) No hazardous materials are expected to be sold or stored in the proposed retail center. 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) ncreases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( (X) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ' ( (X) 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or resu/l in a need for new or a/tered 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) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-13 & TPM 15044 Page 9 e) Other governmental se~ices? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a-e) As stated in the Environmental Assessment for General Plan Amendment 96-01A, the area is urbanized and public se~ices are existing. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utibTies: a) Power or natural gas? (X) b) Communistion systems? (X) c) Lo~l or regional water treatment or dis(ribution facilities? (X) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ) (X) e) Storm water drainage? ) (X) 0 Solid waste disposal? ) (X) g) Lo~l or regional water supplies? ) (X) Comments: a-g) The area is urbanized and infrastructure is in place for development. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposah a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) (X) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (X) ( ) c) Create light or glare? (X) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-13 & TPM 15044 Page 10 Comments: b) Development will be designed and/or conditioned to be compatible with surrounding existing uses, including the adjoining hotel and planned development on the south side of Eucalyptus Street. c) Exterior lighting for the site will be consistent with requirements of the Development Code. 14. CULTU~L RESOURCES. Would the proposah a) Disturb paleontologi~l resources? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Disturb archaeologi~l resources? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Affect histori~l or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Have the potential to ~use a physi~l change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: As s~ated in the Environmental Assessment for General Plan Amendment 96-01A, the site is pad of the Rancho Cu~monga Business Park Master Plan of Development. The site has been rough graded and street improvements, including public utilities, have been installed. No known cultural resources exist on the site. 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal.' a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ( ) ( ) (X) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a-b) Commercial recreation is a permitted use on the site; therefore. recreational opportunities could be increased as a result oi' commercial development. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-13 & TPM 15044 Page 11 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (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) 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 ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-13 & TPM 15044 Page 12 (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) (X) Environmental Assessment for General Plan Amendment 96-01A, determined May 1, 1996. City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Qua~ty Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Pubtic Resources Code. Project File No.: Time Extension for Conditional Use Permit 97-13 and Parcel Map 15044 Public Review Period Closes: July 28, 1999 Project Name: Project Applicant: Foothill Properties, LLC Project Location (also see attached map): Located between Spruce and Elm Avenues on the south side of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-352-63 through 69. Project Description: A request for a previously approved Parcel Map for the subdivision of 11.75acres of land into 8 parcels and a previously approved master plan for a retail shopping center consisting of design review for 116,394 square feet of leasable space in the Community Commercial designation of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 7). 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 ap~icant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avokJ the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly 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) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. July 28, 1999 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-13, A MASTER PLAN FOR A RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER CONSISTING OF DESIGN REVIEW FOR 116,394 SQUARE FEET OF LEASABLE SPACE ON 11.75 ACRES OF LAND UNDER THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (SUBAREA 7), LOCATED BETWEEN SPRUCE AND ELM AVENUES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF o APN: 208-352-63 THROUGH 69. A. Recitals. 1. Foothill Properties, LLC has filed an application for the extension of the approval of Conditional Use Permit 97-13, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject time extension request is referred to as "the application." 2. On August 27, 1997, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 97-50, thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Conditional Use Permit 97-13. 3. On July 28, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on July 28, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The previously approved Conditional Use Permit is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes and policies; and b. The extension of the Conditional Use Permit approval will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes and policies; and c. The extension of the design review approval is not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TE FOR CUP 97-13 July 28, 1999 Page 2 d. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local ordinance. e. The project was granted an initial approval period of two years. Subsequently, the City Council adopted its Ordinance No. 596, which established an approval period of five years with no further time extensions allowed; hence, the project may be extended for up to three years. 3. 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: 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. 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 the 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-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 ah.d 2 above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension for: Project Applicant Expiration CUP 97-13 Foothill Properties, LLC August 27, 2002 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 above, this Commission hereby modifies the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 97-50 and the Standard Conditions, and incorporated herein by this reference, to add the following: Planninq Division 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, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TE FOR CUP 97-13 July 28, 1999 Page 3 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 the applicant of his obligations under this condition. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF JULY 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 duty and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of July 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: July 28, 1999STAFF REPORT TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Maria E. Pcrez, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15044 - FOOTHILL PROPERTIES, LLC - A request for a time extension for a previously approved Parcel Map for the subdivision of 11.75 acres of land into 11 parcels in the Community Commercial designation of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 7), located between Spruce and Elm Avenues on the south side of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-352-63 through 69. A Negative Declaration was adopted for this project in August 1997. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts for consideration. Related File: Conditional Use Permit 97-13. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Tentative Parcel Map 15044 was approved by the Planning Commission on August 27, 1997. Prior to expiration, the applicant filed the current time extension request. A parcel map can receive a total of three years time extension. This first request for an extension is for the maximum of two years. A one-year extension can still be granted upon a future request. Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension and compared the proposal with current development criteria outlined in the Industrial Area Spcci~c Plan. Based on this review, the Tentative Parcel Map meets the development standards of the General Industrial District. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The applicant completed Part I ofthe Initial Study. Part 11 ofthe Initial Study was completed in conjunction with related file CUP 97-13. Staff feels that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and recommends the Planning Commission adopt a Negative Declaration~ consistent with the Negative Declaration adopted for the original project approval. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the P lann ing Commission approve a two-year ti me extension for Tentative Parcel Map 15044 through adoption or the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, Dan James Senior Civil Engineer Attachments: Vicinity Map (Exhibit "A") Tentative Map (Exhibit "B") Resolution ITEM G CITY OF ITEM: Vicinity Map RANCH0 CUCAMONGA TITLE: TPM 15044 EN{~INEERING DIVISION EXIIIBIT:"A" .... I . ' ""~. ..... _'--.----~_ "'~' .,... ,=-'-"". -'~:; ......,~.,_--~,.~,~_.-~.. ::.-~T_TS_I-~'Z ....... ...... ~ .....~{..--r_= .......I '~ ........ .......~; ' .. ' ..... " · ~....- ~ ' ~ ....... ,,,~,.,~.. , '=]...-' ""~' .- .' I" '~ ~t · :~ .... el ' '- """., -~ """=".' ' ..-. ';;_..-::.~-~:.'~ ~'~RC~ ~. ~ ~."='..-i"-/ - ;, ..'i' - ~ ~'- ..... . PARCEL 2 ..Oh'._ .-'--. ..... PARCEL 3: .... · ' PARCEL 8 ~ ~t'. _. ._. .-;',.;: .... ..... ~'.."'" 'i .. -,_ ~ CITY OF /~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA ITEM: Tentative Map ENGINEERING DIVISION TITLE: TPM 15044 ' EXHIBIT: "B" RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15044, A SUBDIVISION OF 11.75 ACRES INTO 11 PARCELS IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION OF SUBAREA 7 OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD BETWEEN SPRUCE AVENUE AND ELM AVENUE - APN: 208-352-63 THROUGH 69 A. Recitals 1. Foothill Properties, LLC has filed an application for the extension of the approval of Tentative Parcel Map 15044, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject time extension request is referred to as "the application." 2, On August 27, 1997, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 9%51, thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Tentative Parcel Map 15044. 3. On May 28, 1999, the applicant filed a request for a time extension. 4. On July 28, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts bet 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 meeting on July 28, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows. a. The previously approved Tentative Parcel 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 Parcel 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 Parcel Map approval is not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TIME EXTENSION FOR CUP 97-13 July 28, 1999 Page 2 d. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local ordinance. e. The project was granted an initial approval period of two years. Subsequently, the City Council adopted its Ordinance No. 596, which established an approval period of five years; hence, the project may be extended for up to three years through a two-year extension and one subsequent one-year extension; 3. 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: 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. 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 the substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, tttc Planning Commission hereby 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'l and 2 above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension for: Project Applicant Expiration TPM 15044 Foothill Properties, LLC August 27, 200 I 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TIME EXTENSION FOR CUP 97-13 July 28, 1999 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 2gTM DAY OF JULY 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 28t~ day of July 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RECEIVED Ranning Division RECEIVED JUL 2 l 1999 C~ty of ~ancho CucamOr, c,, ~ Ranning Division Ruth Margot Kerr 8651 Foothill Blvd, Space 88 Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 ~Tuly 28. 1999 Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Gentlemen: Subject: LEFT EXIT on to Foothill Blvd from Case Volerite Mobile Home Park I have been a resident of the Case Volante Mobile Home Park since 1978. At that time, it was o breeze to exit from the park, make a left hand turn, and continue in a westerly direction. As the city of Rancho Cucamonga grew, traffic increased on Foothill Blvd. And during this time, it became increasingly difficult to exit the park. After a number of traffic accidents in this area, and after repeated requests to the City Engineers to alleviate this hazardous condition, a traffic signal was erected at the corner of Baker and Foothill. This controlled the traffic pattern and made it, once again, possible to carry on our daily routines with greater ease, i.e., shopping, doctor appointments, hospital tests (San Antonio Community Hospital), etc. I received A Notice of Public Hearing that just east of the Case Voleate Mobile Home Park on Foothill Blvd., o new Bated community for some 159 homes is being planned. This new project will have both right and left lane exits. What about the left lane exits for the 200 families in the mobile home pork? We a/so have o need for a left hand lane when exiting the pork to travel in o westerly direction, as well as using this lane to make o left turn entering the pork when coming from east. The Case Volante Mobile Home Park of Rancho Cucamonga, is a senior park, having 203 spaces, and has been a planned community for some 40 years. ]Zt is urgently requested that you give consideration to grant, the residents of the Case Volante Mobile Home Park, the right to have access to o left lane exiting the park to travel west, as well as using this lane to enter the pork from the east. Re,__~ssp cffull ,~.~.~ Ruth Margot Ker'r July 28, 1999 Planning Commission, Let me tell you who I am; Catherine Wolf 8651 Foothill # 68 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. I own a home in Casa Volante MI-[P. I moved here in1989 and since August 1992 have along with my husband worked as Park Managers for the park owner, Brad Downey. This letter is in response to the Notice of Public Hearing regarding the Variance 99-06 - Fu Mai limited Partnership is requesting. While I have no objections to the variances requested, I am concerned with the future aspects of two fair size communities ( 203 units in CVMHP and 159 units in the Fu-Mai project) exiting on to Foothill Blvd. Ill understand correctly, Casa Volante will have only a fight turn exit from the community, while the Fu-Mai homes will have the ability to exit left or right on to Foothill. Many of the residents in Casa Volante, an over age 55 community use the medical facilities in the San Antonio Hospital area. A left turn would allow us to easily reach these facilities. Due to length of time Casa Volante has been located on Foothill Blvd., ~he closer proximity of the projected Fu Mal exit to Vineyard Ave. and the above mentioned item I feel mor¢~ consideration should be given to the future entrance and egress of Casa Volante Park. Many times traffic at the Vineyard and Foothill interseclion does not flow smoothly. It is often backed up to Baker St. I will appreciate your consideration of my concerns in regards to this matter. Sincerely, Catherine Wolf CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: July 28, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-27 - FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - A design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved Tentative Tract Map 15540 consisting of 159 single family lots on 24.56 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and Development Code, located between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route, west of the Cucamonga Creek Control Channel - APN: 207-211-01, 18 through 21, 31, 32 and 34. Related files: Variance 99-06, Tentative Tract 15540, and Tree Removal Application 93-04. VARIANCE 99-06 - FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - A request to reduce the minimum building separations from 15 to 10 feet, the minimum building-to-curb setbacks from 15 to 8 feet, and the required common open space area percentage from 35 percent to approximately 10 percent of the total project area for the proposed residential subdivision of 159 single family lots on 24.56 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and Development Code, located between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route, west of the Cucamonga Creek Control Channel - APN: 207-211-01, 18 through 21, 31, 32 and 34. Related files: Tentative Tract 15540, Development Review 99-27, and Tree Removal Application 93-04. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North Existing Art Studio and Traffic School; Office South - Existing apartments and single family homes; Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel West Existing mobile home park, apartments, market, and vacant land B. Site Characteristics: The narrow, long, basically rectangular site extends from Foothill Boulevard to Arrow Route and is immediately west of the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel The site contains several building foundations near the center of the site. These ITEMS H & I PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 99-27 & VAR 99-06 - FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP July 28, 1999 Page 2 foundations remain from the barrack buildings that served to house Italian prisoners of war on the property during the later stages of World War II. The site contains 222 mature trees, 69 of which are worthy of preservation, as recommended by the arborist. Curb and gutter exist along the site"s Arrow Route frontage. The site slopes generally north to south at an average of 3 percent. ANALYSIS: A. Backqround: Tentative Tract Map 15540, consisting of a 159 lot subdivision, was approved in conjunction with the Design Review and Variance by the Planning Commission on June ' 23, 1993. The Design Review and Variance applications expired on June 23, 1998. Since the approved Variance and Design Review have expired, the current Tentative Tract Map is not in compliance with the development standards for the Medium Residential District. Without the Variance, the Tentative Tract does not meet the minimum 35 percent common open space requirement for the Medium Residential District. The Applicant has requested a time extension for the Tentative Tract Map, which will be presented to the Planning Commission at the August 11, 1999. meeting. However, before a time extension can be granted, a new Design Review and Variance application must be approved and accompany the time extension request. Therefore, the applicant has resubmitted the exact same Design Review and Variance applications that were previously appreved by the Planning Commission. B. General: The project is identical to the previously approved project. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the project site for the development of 159 single family detached homes. Even though the property is zoned Medium Residential, the applicant is proposing detached single family homes. Three common open space areas, each containing a minimum of three amenities, are provided on-site and are equally distributed within the project. Two paseo connections from the north and south common open space areas are provided for access to the future regional trail along Cucamonga Creek Channel. The site is proposed to be served by private streets with gated entrances along Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route frontages. The private streets are designed to meet the City's minimum width requirements for local residential streets, but have reduced parkway width behind the curb line. The Foothill Boulevard vehicular access also provides ingress and egress to the Casa Volante Mobile Home Park, immediately west of the site. Ultimately, the existing mobile home park access is planned to be eliminated. The new access to Foothill Boulevard will be signalized and have a median opening to facilitate safe traffic flow for vehicles leaving these projects in accordance with the design guidelines and objectives of the Foothill Specific Plan. Four flour plans with three elevations each (not including reverse plans) are proposed. The four floor plans range in size from 1,202 square feet to 1,817 square feet. Plan 1 is the only single story floor plan. The largest plan also has a side-on garage version that will be used along the main spine to break up the potentially repetitive street scape. C. Desiqn Review Committee: The Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Fong} reviewed the project on July 6, 1999, and recommended that the additional architectural elements be added to the proposed elevations and brought back for further review. The Committee (McNiel, Stewart Fong) reviewed the revised elevations on July 20, 1999, and recommended approval. See PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 99-27 & VAR 99-06 - FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP July 28, 1999 Page 3 D. G radinq and Technical Review CommitteeS: The Committees have reviewed the project and recommend approval subject to the conditions outlined in the attached Resolution of Approval. E. Environmental Assessment: The Environmental Assessment accompanied the Tentative Tract time extension request, that was presented to the Planning Commission on June 9, 1999. The item was continued at the request of the applicant until the August 11, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting. The Design Review and Tentative Tract time extension request, 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 May 20, 1999. VARIANCE ANALYSIS: The proposed Variance is identical to the previously approved variance for this project. The applicant has submitted an application to reduce the minimum side yard building separations, the minimum building-to curb setback and the minimum percentage of common open space throughout the project. The purpose of a Variance is to provide flexibility from the strict application of development standards when special circumstances pertaining to the property such as size, shape, topography, location, or unusual characteristics would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and the same district. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: In considering any request for a Variance, there are a series of findings under State Law that must be substantiated by facts in order to approve the request. Generally, these findings center around the uniqueness or special circumstances of a particular property or the use of the designation. A. Buildinq Separation Reduction: The applicant is proposing to reduce the required minimum building separations, from 15 feet to a proposed minimum of 10 feet, in 86 situations through the project. All of the reduced separations occur in the side yards between units. The Development Code standards requires a 15-foot minimum building separation for multiple family development, The intent behind a 15-foot building separation requirement is to create a propodionally sufficient open space between larger, more massive multiple unit buildings in attached residential projects. The multiple family development standards apply to this project since the property is zoned primarily for multiple family development (Medium Residential). However, the applicant is proposing to construct a detached single family project at a density (6.5 dwelling units per acre) typical of the Low-Medium Residential District. For comparison, the Low-Medium Residential District allows side yard setbacks at a minimum of 5 feet from a shared property line, thereby allowing adjacent buildings to be separated by 10 feet. Even though the Development Code allows single family homes 10 feet apart in the Low and Low-Medium Residential zones, the Planning Commission has expressed that the side yard should be increased on a large percentage of lots to allow for recreational vehicle (RV) storage visually screened area. The applicant has stated that the Covenants, Codes and Restrictions for the project will not permit RV parking. Therefore, since this project takes on the appearance of a project typical to the Low- Medium Residential District and the applicant is addressing the RV storage issue, staff feels that the granting of the Variance would be inconsistent with the objectives of developing small lot, single family detached subdivisions within the City. Therefore, staff feels this portion of the Variance should be granted. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 99-27 & VAR 99-06 - FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP July 28, 1999 Page 4 B, Building-to-Curb Separation: The application proposes to reduce the minimum building-to- curb setback, from 15 feet to a minimum of 8 feet, for 26 lots. The request is for the front yard setback, where the larger, two-story units are plotted on internal cul-de-sac lots. The intent behind the 15-foot building-to-curb separation is to allow for a landscape area sufficient for specimen size trees to provide an immediate softening for the larger scale, multiple unit residential buildings. Since the applicant is proposing detached homes at a maximum height of two stories, the bulk of the homes will be less than the typical multiple unit residential building. Therefore, staff feels that the intent behind the building-to-curb setback does not apply in this situation. Despite this. the applicant will be providing full front yard landscaping (a minimum of two trees per front yard. four trees per corner lot, not including street trees) in each individual yard. Staff believes that the intent of the 15-foot building-to-curb setback should not apply to detached single family projects in multiple family residential zones; therefore, this portion of the Variance should be granted. C. Common Open Space: The applicant is proposing to reduce the common open space area from 35 to approximately 10 percent of the total net project area. The applicant contends that their project provides sufficient open space but, given the product type, a majority of the open space is located in individual private yards. The Development Code Table requires projects in the Medium Residential zone to have a minimum of 35 percent common open space and a total of 40 percent total open space within project boundaries. The proposed project, despite having only 10 percent common open space. has approximately 50 percent of the net area in private open space, which amounts to 60 percent total open space, or 20 percent more than the total open space required for this zone. Furthermore, the total number of common open space amenities (5) required for a 159 unit residential project is proposed in the three common open space areas. Staff believes that the applicant has met the intent of the multiple family standards by providing the necessary number of common open space standards amenities required for multiple family projects in a single family project. In addition, the abundance of private open space typical of a detached residential subdivision adequately substitutes for the loss of common open space area. Therefore, this portion of the Variance should be supported. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inla~d 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 approve Development Review 99-27 and Variance 99-06 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. Brad Buller PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 99-27 & VAR 99-06 - FU MA1 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP July 28, 1999 Page 5 Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "D" - Recreation Area and Amities Exhibit "E" - Floor Plans Exhibit "F" - Elevations Exhibit "G" - Design Review Committee Action Comments dated July 6, and July 20.1999 Resolution Approving Development Review 99-27 with Conditions Resolution Approving Variance 99-06 TENTAT l VE TRACT NO. t 55~r0 ~*" :~ ...... ~t ..... " '~ :~', :,: .... ._,..-~..,..,.~ / ,,j : DEIAILED SII[ PLAN TENTAT I VE TRACT NO, 15540 ., . " "" "..z"'., .:.:...=.t..: ... ....: :.~ ..~'..' ...'.A. ;", :.s. ..'.'.. .'..':.,. .',~, .'. /:' .'.. .' . " ' -~ TYPICAL FRONT YARD LANDSCAPING RECREATION AREA IUI]~IlfilIIIlIltlI~ ::~Z "' "' ....... ~EVA~ ~EVATION , u _ . ,_ . . RECREA~N AREA 'C' ~.~ ELEVATION Enlarged Site AmenRies DiiAi.i.O I-IARI{IN(TrON ................. L-2 ~ ~, ~ Main Recreation Area Enlargement~ ~ '~2.,'~ FU MAI LTD. ~3XO~L!L/~O~Y ~]@ ~flOI~L~ ' ,~ZX,~-,~ It0~,lt~c FIARMNG~rON ................. L*3 · FU M.41 LIMITED P~RTNERSHIP · · FU MAI L/M/TED PARTNERSHIP · PlAN 3 · FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP · PL4N 4 · FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP · · FU M/~I LIMITED PARTNERSHIp · · FU MAI LIMIII:u PARTNERSHIP · DESIGN REVIEW/COMMENTS 9:00 p.m. Rudy Zeledon July 6, 1999 ,.. DEVELOPMENT REVIEVV 99-27- FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - A design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved Tentative Tract Map 15540 consisting of 159 single family lots on 24.56 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and Development Cede Areas located between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route, west of the Cucamonga Creek Control Channel - APN: 207-211 - 01, 18 through 21, 31, 32 and 34. Related files: Variance 99-01, Tree Removal Application 93-04. Backqround: When Tentative Map 15540 was approved by the Planning Commission on June 23, 1993, it was approved in conjunction with the Design Review of house products and Variance. The Variance was approved for the reduction in the minimum side yard building separations from 15 to 8 feet, the minimum building to curb setback from 15 to 10 feet, and the minimum percentage of common open space from 35 percent to approximately 10 percent. The approved Variance and the approved design of house products are essential to and an integral part of the Tentative Map. A request to extend the Tentative Map must include the Design Review and Variance. Unfortunately, the approval for the Design Review and the Vadance have lapset while the Tentative Map was extended to June 23, 1999. Therefore, the applicant agreed to submit a new Design Review, Variance, and Tree Removal application for the project and agreed to continue the heating for the time extension request to the August 11, 1999, Planning Commission meeting. ~arameters: The narrow, long, basically rectangular site ex~ends from Foothill Boulevard to Arrow Route and is immediately west of the Cucamonga Creek Rood Control Channel. The Case Volante Mobile Home Park is directly west of the northerly two-thirds of the site. The site contains 222 mature trees 69 of which are worthy of preservation as recommended by the arbodst. Two paseo connections ~re planned on-site to connect the proj~;'~ to the future Regional Multiple Purpose Trail along Cucamonga Creek. The proposed Foothill Boulevard vehicular access is proposed to be shared with the mobile home park on-site, consistent with the access and median break location shown on the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (the current mobile home park vehicular access will be eliminated). The Arrow Route access lines up with the driveway for the apartments on the south side of the street. The site generally slopes from norlh to south at slightly less than 3 percent. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: The applicant has resubmitted the same project as previously approved by the Commission on June 23, 1993. Staff has reviewed the development plans, compared it with the odginal ones and determined that the conditions of approval placed by the Design Review Committee (Vallette, Melcher, Coleman) on May 4, 1993, are still valid. They are as follows: 1. Plan 2 elevations should be modified to include stone/brick veneer against the back wall of the porch, instead of false window/shutter elements, and wrap around comers to the side return walls. 2. The chimney caps should be painted to match the chimney stack color. 3. Adequate lighting for the common open space areas should be provided to improve functionality and safety, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division and Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. 4. The design of the on- and off-site visitor parking areas should be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division, prior to the issuance of building permits. .. ,, G DRC COMMENTS .. DR 99-27 - PU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIp July 6, 1999 Page 2 5. The curved planter walls, along the street scape frontages, should be exlended further in both directions, which will take on the appearance of walls gradually blending into the undulating berming. The specific design should be reviewed and approved by the planning Division, prior to the issuance of grading permits. 6. The units on Lots 34, 131, and 132 should be set back further from the recreational areas to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. · 7. The final Grading Plan should be revised to indicate a lower combination block/retaining wall and lower building pads for Lots 1 through 8. 8. Individual flag lot driveways should be "necked down" to a maximum width of 12 feet at the driveway approach and include decorative pavement banding to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 9. Seretonal roll-up garage doors and automatic garage door openers should be provided on all models. 10. Retaining walls should be composed of decorative masonry materials and be limited to a maxjmum height of 4 feet. 11. Decorative paving materials, such as interlocking concrete pavers, should be utilized at all key pedestrian crossings, off-street visitor parking areas, common open space areas, entrances to cul-de-sac streets, long driveways on flag lots. and at project entrances. 12. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape area should be provided between the comer side yard walls and sidewalks along the spine street. 13. The visitor parking area outside the Foothill Boulevard entrance gate should be screened from public view of the major artedal through the use of herruing, dense landscaping, low walls or any combination thereof, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 14. Wood fencing should be treated with a water sealant. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the projed. Attachments: Development Plans Desion Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pare Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Rudy Zeledon The Committee recommended that items 1 through 5, 7, and 9 through 14 shall be placed as condition of approval. The Committee recommended that the applicant address the following design concerns and submit for further Committee review under Consent Calendar ageride: t. The units on 131, and 132 should be set back further from the recreational areas, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. Lot 34 should be provided with dense landscaping to the satisfaction of City Planner, 'DRC COMMENTS DR 99-27 - FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP July 6.1999 Page 3 2. Individual flag lot driveways should be 'necked down' to a maximum width of 12 feet at the driveway approach. Decorative pavement such as scored and patterned concrete, brick ..~ banding or a combination thereof be provided, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. - ' 3. Architectural enhancement be provided to Plan 2. .: 4. Provide window treatment for all sectional garage doors. CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Rudy Zeledon July 20, 1999 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-27- FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - A design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved Tentative Tract Map 15540 consisting of 159 single family lots on 24.56 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and Development Code areas located between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route, west of the Cucamonga Creek Control Channel - APN: 207-211-01, 18 through 21, 31, 32 and 34. Related files: Variance 99-06 and Tree Removal Application 93-04. This item was continued from the last meeting to allow the applicant to revise exterior elements on the proposed elevations, The applicant has revised the elevations and resubmitted in time for normal distribution. Staff recommends approval and will present the plans at the time of the meeting. Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pare StewarL Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Rudy Zeledon The Committee reviewed the revised elevations that showed architectural enhancement for Plan 2 and window treatment for all garage doors. The Committee stated that the revised elevations were acceptable with a condition that light fixtures be added to Plan 4. The Committee then recommended approval of the project with the condition as listed above and the ones listed in the July 6, Design Review Committee Action. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 99-27 FOR TRACT 15540, THE DESIGN REVIEW OF DETAILED SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS FOR 159 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 24.56 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8- 14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AREAS LOCATED BETWEEN FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ARROW ROUTE, WEST OF THE CUCAMONGA CREEK CONTROL CHANNEL - APN: 207-211-01,18 THROUGH 21,31, 32 AND 34. A. Recitals. 1. Fui Mat Limited Partnership has filed an application for the approval of Development Review No. 99-27, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 28th day of July 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on July 28, 1999, including written and oral staff.reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to properly located between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route, west of the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel with a Foothill Boulevard street frontage of 378.49 feet, an Arrow Route frontage of 558.21 feet and a lot depth of 2,474.03 feet and is presently improved with curb and gutter along Arrow Route, several building foundations located toward the center of the site, and 222 mature trees scattered throughout the site; and b. The properties to the north of the site consist of an existing art studio and traffic school, the property to the south is developed with apartments and single family residences, the property to the east is the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel, and property to the west contains the Casa Volante Mobile Home Park, apartments, market, and vacant land; and 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99-27 FOR TT15540 FUI MAILIMITED PARTNERSHIP JULY 28,1999 Page 2 b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planninq Division 1} Architectural enhancement shall be provided to Plan 2. Plan 2 elevations should be modified to include a combination of a patterned center tile on a recessed niche with wood trim or recessed pot shelf with wood corbels, instead of false window/shutter elements. 2) Provide light fixtures on Plan 4 (side entry condition elevation), such as a coach light, on each side of the center window to enhance blank wall. 3) The chimney caps should be painted to match the chimney stack color. 4) Adequate lighting for the common open space areas should be provided to improve functionality and safety, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division and Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. 5) The design of the on- and off-site visitor parking areas should'be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division, prior to the issuance of building permits. 6) The curved planter walls, along the street scape frontages, should be extended further in both directions, which will take on the appearance of walls gradually blending into the undulating betruing. The specific design should be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division, prior to the issuance of grading permits. 7) The units on Lots 131, and 132 should be set back further from the recreational areas, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. Lot 34 should be provided with dense landscaping, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 8) The final Grading Plan should be revised to indicate a lower combination block/retaining wall and lower building pads for Lots 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99-27 FOR TT15540 FUI MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP JULY 28, 1999 Page 3 9) Individual flag lot driveways should be "necked down" to a maximum width of 12 feet at the driveway approach. Decorative pavement such as scored and patterned concrete, brick banding or a combination thereof be provided, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 10) Sectional roll-up garage doors and automatic garage door openers should be provided on all models. Provide window treatment for all sectional garage doors. 11 ) Retaining walls should be composed of decorative masonry materials and be limited to a maximum height of 4 feet. 12) Decorative paving materials, such as interlocking concrete pavers. should be utilized at alt key pedestrian crossings, off-street visitor parking areas, common open space areas, entrances to cul-de-sac streets, long driveways on flag lots, and at project entrances. 13) A minimum 5-foot wide landscape area should be provided between the corner side yard walls and sidewalks along the spine street. 14) The visitor parking area outside the Foothill Boulevard entrance gate should be screened from public view of the major arterial through the use of berming, dense landscaping, low walls or any combination thereof, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 15) Wood fencing should be treated with a water sealant. Enqineerinq Division 1 ) All conditions from Planning Commission Resolution 93-46, approving Tentative Tract 15540 shall apply. 2) A class III Bike Route shall be installed on Foothill Boulevard. 3) A Class II Bike Lane shall be installed on Arrow Route. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF JULY 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman 'PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99-27 FOR TT15540 FUI MAILIMITED PARTNERSHIP JULY 28,1999 Page 4 I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho CucamQnga. at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of July 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: Development Review 99-27 ~ Tentative Tract 15540 SUBJECT: 159 sin.qle lot subdivision APPLICANT: Fu Mai Limited Partnership LOCATION: Between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route west of Cucamonga Creek 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 Completion Date 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. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner'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. Time Limits 1. DevelopmentJDesign Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued within 5 / years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include __ __ / site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors. landscaping. sign program. and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations. and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 2. 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. Projed NO. DR 99°27 Completion Date 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided. all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with all receptacles shielded from public view. 7. 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. 8. 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, betruing. and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 9. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. 10. 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 Adicles 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 provid.ed 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. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or dwelling unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of a solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for the subdivision which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the final map or issuance of permits, whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures, or any other object, except for utility wires and similar objects, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.060-G-2. Proiect NO DR 99-27 Completion Date 14. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all __ / lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to. public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns. hours of construction activity. dust control measures, and security fencing. 15. 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. 16. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each / support post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two ¼-inch lag bolts. to withstand high winds. Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall extend at least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade. 17. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain. paint, or water sealant. / 18. On corner side yards. provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. / 19. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. __/__ __ 20. For residential development, recreation area/facility shall be provided as required by the __/____ Development Code. 21. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. D. Buildin9 Design 1. An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units and for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other alternative energy systems are demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. All swimming pools installed at the time of initial development shall be supplemented with solar heating. Details shall be included in the buildin9 plans and shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 2, All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment, detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 3.Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowner's Association shall be submitted for City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 4. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, 'shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent 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. E, Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) Projec~ NO DR 99-27 Completion Date 2. 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). 3. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be .__J...~/ provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/recreational uses. 4. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, _._/ / and exits shall be striped per City standards. 5. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 feet in depth .~/ / from back of sidewalk. 6. Multiple car garage driveways shall be tapered down to a standard two-car width at street. ._._/ / 7. On flag lots, use a 12-foot driveway within flag to maximize landscape area. .~/ / 8. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles _.._J / on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation tor the owner and prohibit parking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas. 9. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho /__J 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. F. Landscaping 1. 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 architecl and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case or a custom lot subdivision. 2. 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. 3. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but I~ss 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. 4. 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. 5. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously _.~/.__/ maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satislactory condition. Sc-6/14/99 4 Pmiect No DR 99,27 Completion Date 6. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the / /___ Development Code, 7. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering /.__/ sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route. 8. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the / / perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer, 9. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas __/ / the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division, 10. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of / /___ Xedscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. G, Signs 1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a pa'd 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 ol any signs. H, Environmental 1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special ._._J / Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 2, A final acoustical repod 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 it appropriate, verify the adequacy ol the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report. 3. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of _._/ /___ implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall 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 certiticate 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. I, Other Agencies 1. 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 ~ighting. 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. Projed NO DR 99-27 Completion Dale APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: J. General Requirements 1. Submit four complete sets of plans including the following: a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch. number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units. gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g. Planning Division Project Number (i.e., TT #, CUP #, DR #, etc.) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils rapon. /_.__/ Architect's/Engineers stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or wails. /___/ 4. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to the City prior to permit issuance. 5. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the ....J / Building and Safety Division. K, Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be .J /.__ 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 permit application. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to / / existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include. but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transpodation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation / / and prior to issuance of building permits. Projed NO OR 99-27 Completion Date 4. 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 or holidays. L. New Structures 1. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. /.__/ 2. Roofing materials shall be Class "A." / / 3. Exterior wails shall be constructed of the required fire rating in accordance with UBC Table 5-A / / 4. Openings in exterior walls shall be protected in accordance with UBC Table 5-A. / / M. Grading 1. 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 c0nformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to / / perform such work, 3. 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. / /.__ 5. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for / /.__ existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California Registered Civil Engineer. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: N. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. The developer ._J / 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 CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation ot the final map occurs. 2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,500 gallons per minute. ..../ / a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department J / personnel prior to water plan approval. b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants / / shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 3. 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 witnesse...~_.d by fire depailment personnel. sc,e, q4~s 7 Pr0jed N~ DR 99-27 Complelion Date 4. 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. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be / / submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water suppiy for fire protection is available, pending completion of the required fire protection system. 6. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to / / final inspection. 7. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. / / X Other: for recreation building only. / / Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, flammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if the sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. 8. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: /_._.J X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. /J X Other: see attached Ordinance for entry gate requirements for each gate. /_._/ 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. Gated/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire .__/ / Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 11. $132.00 Fire District fee(s), and a $1 per 'plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho .__J / Cucamonga Fire Protection District prior to Building and Safety permit issuance. *' . A Fire District fee in the amount of $132.00 shall be paid at the time of Water Plan submittal. *'Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal oe plans, 12. Ptans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, .__/ /_._ UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 99-06 A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM BUILDING SEPARATIONS FROM 15 TO 10 FEET, THE MINIMUM BUILDING-TO- CURB SETBACKS FROM 15 TO 8 FEET, AND THE REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE AREA PERCENTAGE FROM 35 PERCENT TO APPROXIMATELY 10 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL PROJECT AREA FOR A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 159 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 24.56 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE, LOCATED BETWEEN FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ARROW ROUTE, WEST OF THE CUCAMONGA CREEK CONTROL CHANNEL. AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-211-01, 18 THROUGH 21,31, 32, AND 34. A. Recitals. 1. Fu Mai Limited Partnership has filed an application for the issuance of Variance No. 99-06 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 28th day of July 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth'in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on July 28, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route, west of the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel with a Foothill Boulevard street frontage of 378.49 feet, an Arrow Route frontage of 558.21 feet and a lot depth of 2,474.03 feet and is presently improved with curb and gutter along Arrow Route, several building foundations located toward the center of the site, and 222 mature trees scattered throughout the site; and b. The property to the north of the site consist of an existing art studio and traffic school. the property to the south is developed with apartments and single family residences, the property to the east is the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel, and property to the west contains the Casa Volante Mobile Home Park, apartments, market, and vacant land; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 99-06 - FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP July 28, 1999 Page 2 c. The application contemplates the development of 159 single family detached homes at a density of 6.5 dwelling units per acre, and three common open space areas within the project boundaries; and d. The Variance request to reduce the minimum building separation of 15 feet to 10 feet is needed to allow side building separations to be a minimum of 10 feet in 86 situations throughout the project; and e. The Development Code requirement for a 15-foot minimum in building separation is intended for more massive multiple unit development where breaking up large building masses is more critical; and f. The proposed 10-foot building separation is permitted in lower density single family residential zones governed by the Development Code, typical of the proposed density; and g. The Variance request to reduce the minimum building-to-curb setback of 15 feet to 8 feet is needed to allow homes to be as close as 8 feet from the front curb for 26 lots within the project; and h. The minimum 15-foot building-to-curb setback requirement also stems from the multiple family development standards. The intent of this standard is to allow for a landscape setback area of sufficient size to grow large trees to soften the appearance of the larger, more bulky multiple unit residential buildings: and I. Front yard landscaping is required and conceptually shown in the plan package to aid so~ening the appearance of the less massive detached homes from view of the private streets; and j. The variance for the reduction in common open space from 35 to 10 percent is needed to construct an individual lot single family detached subdivision on the property; and k. The Development Code Table 17.08.040(c) requires 35 percent common open space, 40 percent total open space (private and common) for development.in the Medium Residential Development District, Optional Development Standards; and I. The application contemplates only 10 percent common open space area, but 50 percent of the net lot area as private open space for a total open space percentage of 60 percent, well in excess of the 40 percent total open space required by the Development Code; and m. The application includes the minimum Development Code requirement of 5 common open space amenities. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessan/physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 99-06 - FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP July 28, 1999 Page 3 b. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. c. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. d. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. e. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below: Planninq Division 1 ) Variance approval shall expire if building permits are not issued within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JULY 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel. Chairman ATT'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 28th day of July 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: