Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1999/08/11 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY AUGUST 11, 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 i Vice Chairman Macias _ Com. Mannerino i Com. Stewart __ Com. Tolstoy __ II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 14, 1999 Adjourned Meeting of July 14, 1999 July 28, 1999 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related projecL Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each projecL Please sign in after speaking. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TRACT 15540 - FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - A request for a time extension of a previously approved tentative tract map, for the development of 159 single family lots on 24.56 acres of land in the 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. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related files: Development Review 99-27 and Variance 99-06. (Continued from June 9, 1999) B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15711 - PACIFIC COMMUNITIES - A request for a time extension for an approved residential subdivision of 283 lots on 80.39 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential Distdct (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, generally located north of Foothill Boulevard, east of Etiwanda Avenue, south of Interstate 15 Freeway, and west of East Avenue - APN: 1100-141-01 and 02, 1100-171-01 and 13, 1100-181-01 and 04, and 1100-201-01. Related files: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 96-01 and Tree Removal Permit 96-17. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-30 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-08 - PACIFIC COMMUNITIES - The review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Phases 1 and 2 of previously approved Tentative Tract 15711 consisting of 191 single family lots on 45.3 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, generally located north of Foothill Boulevard, east of Etiwanda Avenue, south of Interstate 15 Freeway, west of East Avenue - APN: 1100-141-01 and 02, 1100-171-01 and 13, 1100-181 - O1. Related files: Time Extension for Tentative Tract 15711 and Tree Removal Permit 96-17. V. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS D. EMERGENCY ACCESS PLAN FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15798 - Generally located south of Highland Avenue, east of East Avenue, west of Interstate 15 Freeway. VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS This. is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed hera are those which do not already appear on this agenda. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS E. ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS F. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROGRESS - Oral report Page 2 VIII. ADJOURNMENT The Plannin~l Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an I 1:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ADJOURN TO A WORKSHOP IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING IN THE RAINS ROOM TO DISCUSS DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PROJECTS REVIEWED DURING THE PREVIOUS QUARTER. I, Gail 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 August 5, 1999, at least 72 hours prYor to the meetin~l per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center DrYve, Rancho Cucamonga. Page 3 VICINITY MAP CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CFFY OF ILakNCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: August 11, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 - FU-MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - A request for a time extension of a previously approved tentative tract map for the development 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: Development Review 99-27 and Vadance 99-06. BACKGROUND: At irs June 9, 1999 meeting. the Planning Commission continued consideration of the project to August 11, 1999, meeting, at the request of the applicant to allow time to submit a new Design Review and Variance application. Under the State Subdivision Map Act, the City has sixty days from the expiration date of the Tentative Tract Map to act on an extension request. Therefore, the City must act on the time extension no later than the August 11, 1999, Planning Commission meeting. Tentative Tract 15540, Design Review, and Vadance 93-03 were originally approved by the Planning Commission on June 23, 1993. Since that time, State Senate Bill 428 and Assembly Bill 771 granted automatic time extensions to June 23, 1998. On May 14, 1997, a time extension for the Tentative Tract alone was requested by the applicant and approved by the City Planner. This extended the Tentative Tract expiration date for one-year to June 23, 1999. The related Design Review and Variance expired on June 23, 1998. However, the applicant submitted a new Design Review and Variance application, which was approved by the Planning Commission on July 28, 1999. ANALYSIS: In 1998, the City Council amended the City's Subdivision Ordinance to provide forthe maximum time extensions allowable under the State Subdivision Map Act. The City may extend Tentative Tract Maps for up to eleven years from the original approval date. Extensions are granted in twelve-month increments. There are two more twelve-month time extensions available that may be granted by the City (up to the year 2001). Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension and compared the proposal with current development criteria outlined in the Development Code and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Based on this review, the Tentative Tract Map does meet the development standards for the Medium Residential District. Item A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT15540- FU-MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP August11,1999 Page 2 DESIGN REVIEW & VARIANCE: The related Design Review and Variance for the Tentative Tract Map expired on June 23, 1998. A new Design Review and Variance application was submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Commission on July 28, 1999. In December 1998, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 596 establishing a five-year approval period, with no time extensions, for Development/Design Review and Variance applications. Therefore, under the current local law the new approved Design Review and Variance applications expire on July 28, 2004. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Part I of the Initial Study has been prepared by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and found that conditions in the area have not changed appreciably since the Tentative Tract was originally approved June 23, 1993. Staff recommends adherence to the mitigation measures for cultural resources and tree removal, which were included in the original project approval. 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 the Planning Commission grant a one-year time extension for Tentative Tract 15540 through the adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. City Planner BB:RZ:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A' - Letters from Applicant Exhibit "B' - Site Utilization Map Exhibit 'C" - Tentative Tract Map Exhibit 'D' - Tentative Tract Time Extension Chart Exhibit 'E' - Tree Identification Plan Exhibit "F' - Initial Study Part II Resolution of Approval FORMOSA INVESTMENTS & DEVELOPMENTS FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 801 S. Garfield Ave. Suite 200 Alhambra, CA 91801 U.S.A. Tel 818-289-0223 Fax 818-289-4806 F~brusry 2.1~, 1~ Den Colmen. l~rinciple Plsnns CITY O~ ~0 ~C~GA C~ D~m~ D~ P~nn~n~ Di~ ~LJ~CT ~NCE: T~ T~ 15540 T~e T~ T~ lJ~ ~ ~ire on l~e ~, 1999. I ~ ~ ~ one ~ ~on ~,X/-~/~ '~nr"' ~ ,~ FORMOSA 8G/82/1999 IG: 34 909-9~8-8~G4 MADOrE AND ~SSOCIATE PAGE 82 Jun - 02~ - 99 02: 35P Ko Reem I t~,, I=, 02 FORMOSA INVESTMENTS & DEVELOPMENTS FU MAd UMITED PARTNERSHIP 801 $. Gan'lmd Ave. Sulte200 AIl~lm~ro. CA 91801 U.S.A. Tel 8 ~8-28q-0223 R::lxS18-289-48~6 RECEIVED JUN 0 ~ 1999 city of Rancho CucamonO~, Pm~ing Diviion June2, 1999 Dan Colman, Principle Planner CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Community Deve/opmem Depamnent Piannin~ Division 105043 Civic Centa Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 SUBJECT REFEI~NCE: Temativc Tract i 55. ~0 Time extension Dear Mr. Coleman: f request the map extension be continued until ! proten · new Design Review and Variance Applications with the time flames allowed by Respeet~|ly, FU-MA1 LIMITED PAJ~TNERSHIP FGRMO,SA SITE UTILIZATION MAP TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 155"10 '~ : !:_!:_~ ~::~ .:::~,, '.... ;r"' E::I ' :;"' --.-.-.E_':] E:~_ ..... !~""' i~i! ............ -'-:: r::~,, ...X" ~':1:~ ~':'::,~:, ~' ':::' . ~-::' ~:::~ ,t ......~,~ ... ·: .... ; I "" ..... ' .... ' ~.::::_.:.,.,~ TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15540 _ ~ TENTATIVE TRACT tlAP 'g~:~" TENTATIVE TRACT NO, 15540 TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 TIME EXTENSION CHART Action(Extensions) TT15540 DR and Extension Time Expiration Variance 99-03 Original Approval ,,,m~. ,,m~. 2 Years June 23. 1995 June 23. 1999 SB 428. ,,,,~ ,,ml, 2 Years June 23. 1997 October 12.1993 AB711. ,,,~, I,m~ 1 Year June 23. 1998 June 6. 1996 City Planner, ,,.ml~ Expired I Year June 23, 1999 May 14, 1997 * (6/23/98) * May 5, 1997, Staff received letter from applicant, requesting a one year time extension. CUCAMONGA CREEK FLOOP CONT~,OL CHANNEL ,m ' ~ r, TANp ~r STANP X LEGENP ~ ~ STANP REMOVE MOBILE NOMES TENTATIVE TRA~T t-i-3~,~ ] ~,r, City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 - FU-MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 2. Related Files: VARIANCE 93-03 AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 93-04 3. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTANDTENTATIVETRACTNO. 15540- FU-MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - A request for a time extension of a previously approved tentative tract map including design review for the development 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 Flood Control Channel - APN: 207-211 - 01, 18 through 21, 31, 32 and 34. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Fu-Mai Limited Partnership 867 South Atlantic Boulevard Monterey Park, CA 91754 5.. General Plan Designation: Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) 6. Zoning: Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: 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, apartment, market and vacant land 8.. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Ddve Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Rudy Zeledon Assistant Planner (909) 477-2750 EXHIBIT "F" /g9/,:~2.,, ~ Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 2 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Cucamonga County Water District 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 (f) Transportation/Circulation (v') Public Services ( ) Population and Housing (V') Biological Resources (V') Utilities and Service Systems (t/) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (v') Aesthetics (V') Water ( ) Hazards (v') 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. (v') 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 "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1 ) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: ~ Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 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? ( ) ( ) (t/) 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? ( ) ( ) (v') d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) (v') 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal.' a) Cumulatively 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)? ( ) ( ) (V') c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) (v') 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 4 b) . Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) (e/) ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/) Comments: a,b,c and d) The northwest portion of the project site falls within the Red Hill Fault Zone per Figure V-4 of the General Plan and is subject to potential fault rupture, ground shaking, and ground failure. The General Plan also indicates that "differential subsidence could occur across the Red Hill fault causing ground shaking." A Geologic Fault Study was prepared to identify any fault traces on-site and establish mitigation measures if any fault traces were found. The report found no evidence of faulting on the site. See Geologic Fault Investigation Study by RMA Group dated December 4, 1992. f) The site will be graded to accommodate the proposed structures. Grading will be conducted under supervision of a licensed surveyor or civil engineer to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. The impact is not considered significant. 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (~) ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( f' ) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 5 Signer~ar~ 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? ( ) ( ) (v') g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) (~') h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) (~) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) (~/) Comments: a) Paving and hard scape necessary to accommodate the project will result in increased runofffrom the site. Drainage will be conveyed to existing facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal.' 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? ( ) ( ( ) (v') d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ( ) (v') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 6 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (V') ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) (V') c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) (v') d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) (v') e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) (v') f) Conflicts with adopted policies supportin9 alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( (v') g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( (v') Comments: a) The project will not exceed the maximum density allowed in the district in which it's located. However the project will generate additional vehicle tdps around the project area. The applicant will be required to complete the necessary street improvements and provide a traffic signal (at the Foothill Boulevard access point) to accommodate the vehicle tdps that will be generated by the project. The number of tdps generated by the project is not expected to be 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., hedtage trees, Eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., Eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 7 d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (t/) Comments: a) The site contains many mature tress which are in conflict with the proposed development and improvements. An arborist report was prepared for the project site to determine the significance of the trees and the feasibility of relocating them to areas, which are not in conflict with the proposed project. The Planning Commission approved a Tree Removal Permit subject to the following mitigations (see Approved Resolution 9346): i) Trees No. 1-16, 22-23, 36, 37, 39, 41, 43-45, 47-57, 69, 61-63, 66-69, 72, 74, 75, 78-84, 89, 91, 93-95, 97, 99, 102-139, 141-147, 149,150, 152-165, t57, 158, 160, 16t, 163-167, t70, 172-187, t9t-193, t95-20t, and 203-220 may be removed as required to imps;ove the property per the final site, grading, and landscaping plans and the final map. Replacement of all trees are required, excepted for trees No. 22-33, 35, 37, 39, 41, and 43- 45. ii) Trees No. 17-21, 34,36, 38, 40, 42, 46, 58, 60, 151, 162, 188-190, 194, 202, And 221 shall be preserved in-place per the consulting arborist report. iii) Trees No. 64, 66, 10, 71, 73, 76, 77, 85-68, 90, 92, 96, 98, 100, 101,140, 148, 186, 159, 168, 169, 171, and 222 shall be preserved in-place or relocated per recommendations of the consulting arborist report. 8. '. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?. ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') 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') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 8 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)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) d) Exposure of people to existing sourues of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fiammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) t 0.' NOISE. Wd/the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (V') ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) Comments: a) The project involves the construction of 159 single family homes. Construction activity is likely to result in an increase in noise levels from associated grading and development activity. Construction hours will be limited as required by the Development Code, to lesson any construction related disturbance in noise levels to the surrounding properties. The resulting residential project is not likely to produce a significant increase in existing noise levels. b) The General Plan indicates future noise levels exceeding 70 Ldn along Foothill Boulevard and exceeding 65 Ldn along Arrow Route, which requires detailed analysis of noise attenuation measures, Significant noise impact on the residents will likely result, if sound attenuation devices (interior and exterior) are not incorporated into the project design to screen noise impacts created by traffic on Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route. An acoustical analysis was prepared by J.J. Van Houton and Assoiates, Inc., on December 21, 1992, to determine what mitigated measures would be necessary to reduce noise levels to a permissible Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 9 level. To mitigate significant adverse traffic impacts from Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route, the noise study recommended that, in order to mitigate noise to "safe" levels, a minimum 6-foot high wall be constructed along both Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route, along the top of the proposed street scape berms and/or slopes. These walls are already incorporated into the conceptual design of the subdivision. The noise impact is not considered significant. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government se~ices in any of the following amas: a) Fire protection? ) ( ) ( ) b) Police protection? ) ( ) ( ) c) Schools? ) ( ) (V) ( ) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ) ( ) ( ) (~) e) Other governmental se~ices? ) ( ) ( ) (~) Comments: a) When Resolution 93~6, approving TentatiVe Tract 11540, was approved, a Standard Condition was placed on the project, which required the applicant to consent to or pa~icipate in the establishment of a Mello-Ross Community Facilities Distdct to finan~ or constm~ion an~or maintenan~ of necessa~ school facilities. 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? ( ) ) ( ) f) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) v') c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) ~') d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) v') e) Storm water drainage? ( ) (v') ( ) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ~/) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) v') J Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 10 Comments: e) As a condition of tract approval, desilting facilities will be required for off-site drainage entering the Arrow Route storm drain and revision of City plans for the connection of a private storm drain to the Arrow Route storm drain. The resulting impact on services in not likely to be significant. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposah a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) (v') b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? () () (v') c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( v' ) ( ) Comments: c) New light and glare will be created since the site is currently vacant. A condition of approval will require the applicant to submit a Lighting Plan for review and approval to ensure minimal impacts to the surrounding properties. As a result of these measures, the effects of the new light generated is not expected to be significant. t4. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) (v') b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) (V') 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) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) (V') Comments: c) The project site has historical significance because it was used as a Labor Camp to house Italian Prisoners of War dudng the later part of Wodd War II (1944-1946). On May 11, 1993, the City Council approved Resolution 93-122, which designated the Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 11 Cucamonga Labor Camp site a local Historic Point of Interest. As part of the condition of approval for the tract, the historical significance of the site will be documented through the incorporation of plaques or similar historic monuments to be located on the site. In addition, if any significant artifacts are found dudng grading procedures, all grading activity on the site shall cease and a cultural resources survey prepared by a certified archaeologist under the satisfaction of the City shall be provided. The installation of the historical plaques will serve to mitigate the loss of the remaining elements of the prisoners of War Camp. t5. RECREATION. Would the proposah a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) V') b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') 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 ram or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major pedods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 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.) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( 85,'20."'1.q9'5 15:55 '~09-'94E,-:9464 f',IADOLE ~tJD A'_:.E. CI+::I,;TE F'AGE SENT BY: R CUCAMONGA C0M 0EV; 5-18.9~ 14:10; 9094772847 =;' 90e 948 8464; lnmal Study for City of Rangho Cucamonga Pa e12 T 0 TENTATIVE TRAC 1554 c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that t are ~ndividuslty timRed, but oumulatively considerable? ("Cumulativeiy considerable" means that the incremental affects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of othcr Current projects, and the effects of prot~able future projects,) ( ) ( ) ) (v') d) Substantial adverle: Does the project have environmental effects which Will cause substantial adverse effects on human beingl, either directly or ~ndirectly~ ( ) ( ) ) (v") EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier sr~alyses may be used where. pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process. one.or more effects have been adequately analyged in an sirliar EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 154363(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope o! end adequately analyzed in the following eartier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigltjOn seacurie based on the earkier analysis The following earlier analyses were utilized In Completing this Initial Study and am availaisle for review in the City of Ranthe Cucarnonge, Planning Divtllon offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (V') General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1961) (v') Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR (SCH 187021615, oertffied September '~ e, 1987) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the proled described in this Inmal 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 effectl to s point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur. City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Time Extension for Tract 15540 Public Review Period Closes: August 11, 1999 Project Name: Project Applicant: Fu-Mai Limited Pa~lnership Project Location (also see attached map): 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. Project Description: A request for a time extension of a previously approved tentative tract map for the development of 159 single family lots on 24.56 acres of land in the Medium residential Distdct (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and Development Code areas. Related files: Development Review 99-27 and Vadanca 99-06. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: [] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative DeClaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where cleady no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 417-2750 or Fax (909) 417-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. Au.qust 11, 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 THE TIME EXTENSION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE · TRACT MAP NO. 15540, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT 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. A. Recitals. 1. Fu-Mai Limited Partnership has filed an application for the extension of the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 15540, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map Time Extension request is referred to as "the application." 2. On June 23, 1993, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 93-46, thereby approving the Tentative Tract Map No. 15540 subject to specific conditions and time limits. 3. On June 9, and continued to August 11, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said headng on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public headng on June 9, and continued to August 11, 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT15540-FU-MAILIMITED PARTNERSHIP August11,1999 Page 2 d. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local ordinance, 3. 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 Declaration and Monitoring Program attached heroto, 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 therounder; 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. Aithough 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 dudng the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension for:. Tentative Tract Applicant Expiration Tentative Tract 15540 Fu-Mai Limited June 23, 2000 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2. and 3 above, this Commission hereby modifies the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 93-46, and incorporated herein by this reference, to add the following conditions: 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 15540- FU-MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP August 11, 1999 Page 3 such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attomey's fees which the City, its agents. officers, or employees, may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate, at its own expense, in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his obligations under this condition. En,qineednq Division 1) All conditions from Planning Commission Resolution No. 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 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary I, Dan Coleman, Acting 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 11 th day of August 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: Tentative Tract 15540 (Time Extension) This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe above-listed project. This program has been prepared in compliance with State law to 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 covedng 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 significant 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 Mitigation Monitoring Program Tentative Tract 15540 (Time Extension) 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 department 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 to 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 monitodng 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 pedod of time. 9. In those instances requiring long-term project monitodng, 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. h\FINAL\CEQAWIMP Form.wpd CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 11, 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 TENTATIVE TRACT 15711 - PACIFIC COMMUNITIES - A request for a time extension for an approved residential subdivision of 283 lots on 80.39 acres of land in the Low- Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, generally located north of Foothill Boulevard, east of Etiwanda Avenue, south of Interstate 15 Freeway, and west of East Avenue - APN: 1100-141-01 and 02, 1100-171-01 and 13, 1100-181-01 and 04, and 1100-201-01. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit 99-30 and Development Review 99-08. BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract 15711 was approved by the Planning Commission on August 14, 1996. On August 12, 1998, the applicant, Diversified Pacific, requested a one-year time extension. At that time, the applicant's attorney requested reconsideration of a tract condition requiring park dedication and improvements. The matter was studied at great length by staff, the City Attorney, and the applicanrs attorney to determine the appropriate level of mitigation for open space and recreational impacts. Thereafter, a proposed modification was presented to the Commission. The Planning Commission approved a one-year time extension with the modification to conditions to require dedication of the land for the 5-acre park; however, the developer was not required to construct the park improvements. Diversified Pacific sold the property with its entitlemerits to Pacific Communities. During the plan check of the approved tentative tract, staff became aware of issues of maintenance costs and sidewalk design in this Landscape Maintenance Distdct (LMD) as a result of Proposition 218. Maintenance costs and alternate designs forthis LMD are currently under evaluation. Staff is exploring the maximum amount of landscaping the distdct can bear. The details of alternate designs for City-maintained areas will be discussed at a future workshop with the Planning Commission. Staff recom mends the Planning Com mission modify the conditions of approval to add a new condition which allows greater flexibility in the design and improvement of City-maintained landscape areas to address this matter: The developer shall provide improvements to City maintained landscape areas to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director to comply with City policies for publicly maintained landscape areas. The developer shall submit revised Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) plans for review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of building permits, The developer supports this concept and has agreed to add this condition to the Tentative Tract Time Extension. Item B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tentative Tract 15711 Time Extension August 11, 1999 Page 2 Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension and compared the proposed subdivision with current development criteria outlined in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Based upon this review, the Tentative Tract meets the development standards for the Low-Medium Residential District and the Etiwanda South Overlay District. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The applicant prepared Part I of the Initial Study and submitted an updated noise study (Advanced Engineering Acoustics, March 1999). Staff completed Part II of the Initial Study and found that environmental conditions in the area have not changed appreciably since Tentative Tract 15711 was approved in 1996 with a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The property is not located in an area identified as potential habitat for endangered or threatened species. The Initial Study for this project is contained as Exhibit "H" in the Staff Report for Conditional Use Permit 99-30 and Development Review 99-08, also under consideration at tonight's meeting. Staff feels the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and recommends the Planning Commission adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 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 approval of a 12 month time extension.' City Planner BB:RVB:gs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant Resolution of Approval June 30, 1999 Ms Rebecca Van Buren Planning Department City ofRancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Tentative Tract No. 15711 Time Extension Request Dear Ms. Rebecca Van Buren: Please accept our application for time extension to the subject tentative tract. As you are aware, we have been working very diligently during the past year, trying to obtain approval for Development/Design Review. That submittal package is still waiting for the City's approval. All engineering design plans have been resubmitted recently for second plan check. This time extension is needed in order for the City to complete its review and approval process. We expect to record our first two tracts within this year. Thank you for your help and expediting in this matter. If you still need anything else, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Director of Engineering CC: Dan Guerra/Derbish, Guerra & Asso. Nelson Chung lOOO l)ovc .Street * Suitc 1()0 * Ncwl~ort Beach * ~Z),.~26~50 * Tc1949-660-8988 * Fax 9zl.9-660-8866 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. 15711, AND MODIFYING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THEREOF, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 283 LOTS ON 80.39 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, EAST OF ETIWAN DA AVENUE, SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 15 FREEWAY, AND WEST OF EAST AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 1100-141-01 AND02, 1100-171-01 AND 13, 1100-181- 01 AND 04, AND 1100-201-01 A. Recitals. 1. Pacific Communities has filed an application for the extension of the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 15711, 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 14, 1996, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 96-50, thereby approving the application subject to specific conditions and time limits. 3. On August 12, 1998, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 98-53, thereby approving a one-year extension of time on the application subject to specific conditions. 4. On August 11, 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. 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 set forth in the Recitals, Par~ A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on August 11, 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, TE FOR TT15711 August11,1999 Page 2 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. 3. 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 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 Commissipn 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 projectwhich are listed below as conditions of approval. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the Califomia Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considedn9 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 dudng 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. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension for:. Project Applicant Expiration Tentative Tract 15711 Pacific Communities August 14, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TE FOR TT15711 August11,1999 Page 3 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1.2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby modifies the conditions of approval contained in Resolutions No. 96-50 and 98-53 to add the following conditions to read as follows: Plannin.q 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 discration, 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. 2) The developer shall provide improvements to City maintained landscape areas to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director to comply with City Policies for publicly maintained landscape areas. The developer shall submit revised Landscape Maintenance Distdct (LMD) plans for review and approval by the Community Development Director pdor to issuance of building permits. En,qineedn,q Division 1) All previously adopted conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 15711, as contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 96-50 and 98-53, shall apply. 2) The project's Congestion Management Program/Traffic Impact Analysis (CMPrrlA) study shall be approved by SANBAG pdor to final map approval. As determined by the City Engineer, make a fair share contribution to traffic mitigations. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman PLANNING COMMISSTON RESOLUTION NO. TE FOR TT15711 August11,1999 Page 4 ATTEST: Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary I, Dan Coleman, Acting 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 1 lth day of August 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: Tentative Tract 15711 (Time Extension), Conditional Use Permit 99-30, and Development Review 99-08 This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe above-listed project. This program has been prepared in compliance with State law to 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 significant 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 Ddve Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Mitigation Monitoring Program TT 15711 (Time Extension), CUP 99-30, and DR 99-08 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 department 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 adse 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 I 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 to 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 pedod 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. I:\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\CUP99-30mmp.wpd CI'FY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: August 11, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Rebecca Van Buren, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-30 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-08 - PACIFIC COMMUNITIES - The review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Phases 1 and 2 of previously approved Tentative Tract 15711 consisting of 191 single family lots on 45.3 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, generally located north of Foothill Boulevard, east of Etiwanda Avenue, south of the Interstate 15 freeway, and west of East Avenue - APN: 1100-141-01 and 02, 1100-171-01 and 13, and 1100-181-01. Related Files: Tentative Tract 15711 Time Extension, and Tree Removal Permit 96-17. BACKGROUND: In 1996, the City amended the Etiwanda Specific Plan to create the Etiwanda South Overlay District for the area south of the I-15 Freeway. This allowed smaller lots in this area, but retained the architectural and design guidelines of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. In August of 1996, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract 15711 (Diversified Pacific), the first subdivision since the Overlay District was created. Although several charming, craftsman-style elevations were presented to show how smaller lots may comply with design guidelines, the Tentative Map itself did not include house products (subdivision-only). Pacific Communities recently acquired the property from Diversified Pacific, and is now proposing house products. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Pacific Communities is proposing the design review for two of the three phases of previously-approved Tentative Tract 15711. Phases 1 and 2 contain 191 of the 283 lots involved. The site area is south of Miller Street, between Etiwanda and East Avenues. There are five lots within the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District, which require special setbacks, architectural treatment, and street scene ¢harecter. ANALYSIS: A. General: A Conditional Use Permit is required for residential developments in the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District in the Low-Medium District. The five lots in the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District trigger a Conditional Use Permit in addition to the Development Review process. Pacific Communities is proposing two product lines, consisting of 11 floor plans with over 40 elevations. The houses range from 1,587 to 3,146 square feet. Most corner lots have single story units. Fifty percent of the lots have a side-on garage or the garage is set behind the front part of the dwelling. Phase 1 is located on the eastern part of the site from Miller Avenue wrapping around to East Avenue, and contains the Product 1 house plans. Product 1 includes the smaller dwellings ranging in size from 1,578 to 2,300 square feet. Phase 2 is located on the western part of the site and includes the Etiwanda Avenue lots. Phase 2 contains the Product 2 house plans ranging in size from 1,756 to 3,146 square feet. Item C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 99-30 & DR 99-08 - PACIFIC COMMUNITIES August 11, 1999 Page 2 The Etiwanda Avenue lots are designed to allow the lots access from the interior cul de sac, but have creative massing and architectural detail comparable to front elevations. The Etiwanda Avenue street scape includes front porches, siding, shutters, pot shelves, brackets, and other distinguishing architectural features. A low (less than 4 feet high) wrought iron fence defines the homeowner-maintained landscape areas and stone pilasters with entry gates provide a pedestrian entrance from Etiwanda Avenue. Essentially, these lots are designed to have two front yards, one from the cul-de-sac and the other along Etiwanda Avenue. B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on July 6, and 20, 1999. The Committee (Stewart, McNiel, Fong) recommended approval with conditions, which have been incorporated into the attached Resolution of Approval, see Exhibit "1." C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee reviewed the project on July 7, 1999. The Committee clarified that the location and design of public sidewalks (curb- adjacent versus parkway) will be determined as part of the related Tentative Tract 15711. The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions contained in the attached Resolution. D. Environmental Assessment: The applicant prepared Part I of the Initial Study and submitted an updated noise study (Advanced Engineering Acoustics, March 1999). Staff completed Part II of the Initial Study and found that environmental conditions in the area have not changed appreciably since Tentative Tract 15711 was approved in 1996 with a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The property is not located in an area identified as potential habitat for endangered or threatened species. Staff feels the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and recommends the Planning Commission adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 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. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 99-30 and Development Review 99-08 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. City Planner Attachments:Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Etiwanda Avenue Frontage Lots Exhibit "D" - Grading Plan Exhibit "E" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "F" - Floor Plans Exhibit "G" - Elevations Exhibit "H" - Etiwanda Avenue Street Scene Exhibit 'T' - Design Review Committee Action Comments dated July 6 and 20, 1999 Exhibit "J" - Initial Study Resolution of Approval with Conditions J Site Utilization Map o,,..,.,..~.,c,,,cFoothill Meadows A ~'A~'.-'~"-~...Tentat,ve Tract No. 15711-.- '7'%:':(:5~':E:::::":";':7'Rancho Cucamonga, CA. EXHIBIT F~ACDIFIC3 C:OKAMUNITIE$ INC::. T~AOT ~ST,-1 srrE PLAN PACIFIC COMMUNITIES INC. TRACT '15711-1 SITE LAN NOTE: PACIFIC COMMUNITIES INC. T~CT 15711-2 SITE TRACT 15711 2-Car Garage ALT. GARAGE 40LO" J Kitchen DinmR Room IL_ fIRST FLOOK PLAN S[COND fLoOR PLAN 1038 SO. fl. PLAN THR[[ I~ 3 Car Garage SECOND FLOOR PLAN F~ST fLOOR PLAN 1006 SQ. FT. 1294 SQ. FT, Iotal: 2300 SQ. FT. ,,~1 L~ pACIFIC COMMUNITIES PRODUCT I PLAN FC) UR E } Masler Bedroo,~ Family Room Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Ca, Garage Ilom, Bedroom li+ 2E,0 sq. II 40'-0" FLOOR PLAN PACIFIC COMMUNITIES PRODUCT II PLAN ONE BONUS ROOM OPTION i~ Bedroom 4 + 170 sq.ft. 61, 62 & 73 Only SECOND FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN m~ ~ ~me 1283 sq.ft. 1365 SO. FT. BONUS ROOM OPTION Straight-in Garage at Lois total: 2648 SO. FT. + 328 sq.ft. 61, 62, & 73 only E PACIFIC COMMUNI11ES PRODUCT II PLAN THREE PRAIRIE PACIFIC COMMUNITIFS pRODUCT I pLAN ONE E PRAIRIE PACIFIC COMMUNITIES PRODUC1 I PLAN TWO IC: CALIFORNIA BUNGALOW PRAIRIE PLAN THRE[ ~ fACIFIC C.(JMMUNITIES PRODUCT I PLAN THREE CALiFORNiA BUNGALOW PACIFIC COMMUNIIIES .PI~ODUC1 I pLAN FOUR RANCHU CUCAMONGA ~...,_----~-~.-- -Z'~'/--P PACIFIC COMMUNITIES PRC) DUC1 I PLAN FOUR PACIFIC COMMUNITIES PRODUCT II PlAN PRAIRIE PACIFIC COMMUNi11ES PR(')DUC] II PLAN ONF Jm~ ROOF pITCH 5: 12 EARLY CALIFORNIA l',O' Typ, OVERHAIKi pACIFIC COMMUNITI[~ pR()DUC1 II PLAN (3ALIFORNIA BUNGALOW P~ACIFIC COMMUNiTtES PRC) DUC[ II PLAN TWO [] CALIFORNIA RANCH 7,~1~' PACIFIC COMMUNITIES PRODUCT II PLAN TWO J~ Eleval~on "2D" w/Office PACIFIC COMMUNITIES PRODUC1 II PLAN PACIFIC COMK4UNITIES 'PRODUC1 II PLAN TWO jj: :r. ',..~,:,. F c""~:~ ':'*' '~: ,,. ~'.~,....-- _ ..... ,. CALIFORNIA RANCH ~:~~'-~ ........... ~ EARLY CALIFORNIA PACIFIC COMMUNITIES PRODUCT II PlAN TWO $ PACIFIC COMMUNlilES PRODUC1 II pLAN THREE [] ,- ,/ll-,,,,~ -- ,,~,~, __,, ,.~, ,.e ,..~ CALIFORNIA RANCH ,, _~ ,...~c_..*~~?~., Elevalion "3C" w/Library PACIFIC COMMUNITI[S PRODUCT II PLAN THI{E[ ~ ._. 1::.,:,..'~~ Elevation "3D" w/Library PACIFIC COMMUNITIES PRODUCT fi PLAN THREE CALIFORNIA RANCH Elevation ~3C" w/~onu~ & tibrary PACIFIC COMMUNIIIES PRODUC1 II PLAN THRJt jj: PACIFIC COMMUNITIES PRODLJC'I II PLAN THR[[ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren July 6, 1999 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-30, AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-08 - PACIFIC COMMUNITIES - The review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Phases 1 and 2 of previously approved Tentative Tract 15711 consisting of 191 single family lots on 45.3 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, generally located north of Foothill Boulevard, east of Etiwanda Avenue, south of the Interstate 15 freeway, and west of East Avenue - APN: 1100-141-01 & 02, 1100-171-01 & 13, 1100-181-01. Backqround: In 1996, the City amended the Etiwanda Specific Plan to create the Etiwanda South Overlay District for the area south of the I-15 Freeway. This allowed smaller lots in this area, but retained the architectural and design guidelines of the Etiwanda Plan. In August of 1996, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract 15711 (Diversified Pacific), the first subdivision since the Overlay District was created. Although several charming, craftsman-style elevations were presented to show how smaller lots may comply with design guidelines, the Tentative Map itself did not include house products (subdivision-only). Pacific Communities recently acquired the property from Diversified Pacific, and is now proposing house products. Desiqn Parameters: Phases I and 2 contain 191 of the 283 lots in the Tentative Tract. The site area is south of Miller Street, between Etiwanda and East Avenues. Pacific Communities is proposing two product lines, consisting of 11 floor plans with over40 elevations. The houses range from 1587 to 3146 square feet. Most corner lots have single story units. 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. Parkway versus curb-adjacent sidewalks: The Tentative Map was approved with parkway sidewalks (i.e., a landscape stdp between curb and sidewalk). The developer is proposing curb-adjacent sidewalks in some areas to minimize City-maintained landscape areas and to address grading/drainage issues. Staff does not support curb adjacent sidewalk. 2. Review the Etiwanda Avenue street scene: Even though lots do not take access from Etiwanda Avenue, elevations which are visible from Etiwanda Avenue should be treated with as much creative massing and architectural detail as front elevations. 3. Review proposed architecture: Pacific Communities has made a significant effort to reflect traditional styles; however, additional enhancement may be needed on Product One: Plan 1: Early California Plan 2: California Bungalow And on Product Two: Plan 1: all four styles Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Along Etiwanda Avenue, solid walls enclosing rear yards should use field stone as a major design element, and open fencing should be used in front yards if fencing is needed. DRC COMMENTS CUP 99-30 & DR 99-08 - PACIFIC COMMUNITIES July 6, 1999 Page 2 2. Review location of replacement windrows. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project with revisions noted above. Desifin Review Committee Action: Members Present: Pare Stewart, Larry McNiel, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren The Committee concurred with staff that the sidewalk location will be discussed by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the time extension request for the Tentative Tract Map. The Committee raised concerns that the side-on elevations and proposed street scene along Etiwanda Avenue do not meet the spirit and intent of the Etiwanda Avenue Oveday District. At the meeting, the applicant proposed to address the Committee's concern with adding porches and verandas on the Etiwanda elevations, revising pdvacy wall locations, adding decorative gates with rock pilasters and arbors, and providing a low wrought iron fence in the setback. The Committee recommended the following: 1. Revisions to the Etiwanda Avenue street scape design and building elevations be returned for review on Consent Calendar at the next meeting. 2. The revised design of the house products are acceptable with the following improvements: expand the stone work on porch columns on Product One-Plan 1, expand the stone work and adding a decorative header over garage on Product One-Plan 2. 3. The location of the replacement windrows should be moved from Etiwanda Avenue to elsewhere on-site. CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren July 20, 1999 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-30 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-08 - PACIFIC COMMUNITIES - The review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Phases I and 2 of previously approved Tentative Tract 15711 consisting of 191 single family lots on 45.3 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, generally located north of Foothill Boulevard, east of Etiwanda Avenue, south of the Interstate 15 freeway, and west of East Avenue - APN: 1100-141-01 & 02, 1100-171-01 & 13, 1100-181-01. This item was continued from the last meeting to allow the applicant time to revise the Etiwanda Avenue street scene and to make minor modifications to certain plan types. The architect has worked swiftly to revise plans and resubmit in time for normal distribution. At the time of this printing, Staff has not had an opportunity to review plans but will provide a recommendation at the meeting. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren The Committee reviewed the revised elevations and street scape along Etiwanda Avenue and recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide porches for all houses (four) along Etiwanda Avenue. 2. Provide continuous open wrought-iron fencing with stone or river rock pilasters along Etiwanda Avenue. Hedgerows and mow stdps may be used along property lines within the Etiwanda Avenue street scape setback area. 3. Eliminate the overhead trellis work for the portals for the houses along Etiwanda Avenue. 4. Add for Plan 3, stone or river rock wainscot at the west elevation. City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Tentative Tract '15711 Time Extension, Conditional Use Permit 99-30, and Development Review 99-08 - Pacific Communities 2. Related Files: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 96-01, Tentative Tract 15711 and Tree Removal Permit 96-17. 3. Description of Project: Tentative Tract 15711: A request for a time extension for an approved residential subdivision of 283 lots on 80.39 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, generally located north of Foothill Boulevard, east of Etiwanda Avenue, south of the I-15 Freeway and west of East Avenue - APN: 1100-141-01 and 02, 1100-171-01 and 13, 1100-181-01 and 04, and 1100-201-01. Conditional Use Permit 99-30 and Development Review 99-08: The review of the detailed Site plan and Building Elevations for Phases 1 and 2 of previously approved Tentative Tract 15711 consisting of 191 single family lots on 45.3 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, generally located north of Foothill Boulevard, east of Etiwanda Avenue, south of the I-15 Freeway and west of East Avenue - APN: 1100-141-01 and 02, 1100-171-01 and 13, and 1100-181-01. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Nelson Chung Pacific Communities 1000 Dove Street, Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 5. General Plan Designation: Low-Medium Residential District 6. Zoning: Low-Medium Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan 7.. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: North: vacant, single family residences, I~15 freeway South: vacant, commercial on Foothill Boulevard East: vacant, single family residences, open space West: vacant, single family residences 8.. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TT 15711, CUP 99-30, DR 99-08 - Pacific Communities Page 2 9, Contact Person and Phone Number: Rebecca Van Buren, AICP Associate Pianner (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None 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 ( ) Transportation/Circulation (X) Public Services Population and Housing (X) Biological Resources (X) Utilities and Service Systems (X) 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: ( ) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. (X) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 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. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TT 15711, CUP ~/9-3~.~lR 99-08 - Pacific Communities Page 3 Signed: Rebecca Van Buren, AICP Associate Planner July 19, 1999 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 prop~ah a) Conflict with general plan designation or ( ) ( ) (X) zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicini~? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established communi~? ( ) ( ) (X)' 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) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TT 15711, CUP 99-30, DR 99-08 o Pacific Communities Pa~le 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: f) The topography of the site will be altered to accommodate the project because the site is currently vacant. Grading of the site will be done under supervision of a licensed Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor. The impact is not considered significant. 4. WATER. Wi~ 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 TT 15711, CUP 99-30, DR 99-08 - Pacific Communities Pa~le 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 otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The absorption rate will be altered because of the paving and hardscape proposed. All waters will be conveyed to approved drainage facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. A drainage study was prepared for the project and an on-site detention basin will be constructed until such time that all permanent drainage facilities are completed in the immediate area in conformance with the Etiwanda drainage policies. As mitigation, construct those portions of the Etiwanda/San Sevaine master plan of storm drains necessary to serve and protect the development and construct interim detention basin. 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: Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TT 15711, CUP 99-30, DR 99-08 - Pacific Communities Page 6 issues and SuppoRing Information Sources: Significant Mitigatio~ Silgr,~c~nt ir~N~c~ 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 supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) (X) g) Rail Or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The project will generate new trips because of the new construction. The number of trips is consistent with the Etiwanda Specific Plan EIR and is accommodated by the existing and required infrastructure. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan for which the street widths were evaluated at a build-out condition. The project will be required to install street frontage improvements in their ultimate configuration, per ordinance, and to pay associated Transportation Development Fees. 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 TT 15711, CUP 99-30, DR 99-08 - Pacific Communities Page 7 Comments: a) This site is not within critical or sensitive habitat areas of any endangered species, including, but not limited to, the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, the California gnatcatcher, or Delhi sands flower-loving fly. b) There are a large number of trees on site, predominantly eucalyptus, that will have to be removed to accommodate the development of the site. As mitigation for the removal of the trees, replacement planting per the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance will be required. The removed trees will be replaced at a minimum one-to-one ratio with minimum 15-gallon size trees. These trees shall be of the Spotted Gum Eucalyptus variety and provided in windrows along perimeter property lines, in accordance with the Etlwanda Specific Plan requirements. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 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) 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)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (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) initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TT 15711, CUP 99-30, DR 99-08 - Pacific Communities Page 8 Significant e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fiammable 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) ( ) ( ) Comments: a) The project will increase noise levels since the site is currently vacant and the development would add people and traffic to the area. The impact is not considered significant. b) The subject site is bounded on the northwest by the I-15 Freeway. A noise study was prepared (Gordon Bricken and Associates, September 15, 1995) and updated in March 1999 by Advanced Engineering Acoustics. The noise studies assessed the impacts associated with constructing this development in close proximity to the freeway. The study recommended that a screen wall be constructed along the freeway and that certain construction elements be provided to mitigate the freeway noise to safe levels. 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TT 15711, CUP 99-30, DR 99-08 - Pacific Communities PaSte 9 Comments: c) The Etiwanda School District and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District submitted correspondence that indicates the existing schools that would serve this project are already at or above capacity and that the Districts will not be able to accommodate all of the students expected to be generated from the project. Both Districts state that mitigation beyond the state statutory fees will be needed. As a condition of approval, the developer shall execute an agreement with the Etiwanda School District and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District to provide full mitigation. Full mitigation may be accomplished by means of a requirement to form, or to participate in an existing, Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for school facilities. 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? ( ) (X) b) Communication systems? ( ) (X) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) (X) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ) (X) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) (X) ( ) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) (X) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: e) The project will increase demand upon storm drain systems due to increased runoff from new hardscape and roof tops proposed on the currently vacant site. With required mitigation, the impact is not considered significant. The developer will be required to construct those portions of the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Master Plan of storm drains necessary to serve and protect the development. In addition, the construction of an interim detention basin will be required to be constructed per the City's Engineering Division. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) J Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TT 15711, CUP 99-30, DR 99-08 - Pacific Communities Page 10 . b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ) (X) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ) (X) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ) (X) 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 project design includes a future 5-acre neighborhood park in conformance with the City's General Plan. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TT 15711, CUP 99-30, DR 99-08 - Pacific Communities Pacje 11 I PotentiaJly ~ n~N~ct I Significant issues and SuOpodlng Informalion Sources: S, t incM~t~gr~a~L3tned 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 Iong-~erm, 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 ) AUG-04-1999 15:48 PACIFIC COMMUNITIES P.02/~2 Initial Study for TI'__ 15711, CUP 99-30, DR 99-0_8.- Plcffic Communffies City of RanchO CuCamonga all~stef I~,~memal ~_~_,~_~er~ for the 1989 Gener'~ Plan UIxlate (SCH ~880201 ~ 5, certified Januaq 4. 1989) (X} Etiwanda Specific man ErR (SCH ~.82061801, cetttfied July 6. 1983) (X)Negative Declara~on for Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 96-01 (Adopted June 12, 1996) (X} Negorive Declaration for Tenterlive Tract 15/I 1 (Adopted August 14. 1996) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I COdify t~at I am the applicant for the project deBcn~oed in this Initial Study. | admoMeclge mat I havo read this Initl Study otto the prc,~,~d rn~gat~on moasumes, Further, I rm,~, revised ~he proiect plans or proporals and/or horel)y agree to the proposed intOorion measures to avoid me effects ot mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no signirt, ant environmenial effects would occur. 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 2f09f and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: ' Public Review Period Closes: August 11, 1999 Project Name: Conditional Use Permit 99-30, Development Review 99-08 and Time Extension for Tentative Tract 15711 Project Applicant: Pacific Communities ProjectLocation(alsoseeattachedmap): Locatedon80.39acresoflandintheLow-MediumResidential Distdct (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of Etiwanda Avenue, south of the Interstate 15 freeway, and west of East Avenue-APN: 1100-141-01 and 02, 1100-171-01 and 13, 1100-181-01 and 04, and 1100-201-01. Project Description: A request for a time extension for an approved residential subdivision of 283 lots. Related files: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 96-01 and Tree Removal Permit 96-17. 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 pul~lic review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where cJeady 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. Au.qust 11,1999 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-30 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-08 FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW OF PHASES I AND 2 OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT 15711 CONSISTING OF 191 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 45.3 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, EAST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, SOUTH OF THE INTERSTATE 15 FREEWAY, AND WEST OF EAST AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 1100-141-01 AND 02, 1100-171-01 AND 13, AND 1100-181-01. A. Recitals. 1. Pacific Communities has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit 99-30 and Development Review 99-08, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit and Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 11th day of August 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headrig on the application and concluded said headng on that date, 3, All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B.' Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2, Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above* referenced public headrig on August 11, 1999, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located north of Foothill Boulevard, south of Miller Avenue, east of Etiwanda Avenue, and west of East Avenue. The property has a street frontage of 620 feet on Miller Avenue, 660 feet on Etiwanda Avenue, 330 feet on East Avenue and is presently unimproved; and b. The properties to the north, south, and east of the subject site are vacant, the property to the west is single family residential and vacant land; and c. The application is for design review for Phases 1 and 2 of previously approved Tentative Tract 15711 consisting of 191 single family lots on 45.3 acres of land; and d. The entire site is within the Etiwanda South Oveday District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and is zoned Low-Medium Residential; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 99-30 & DR 99-08 - PACIFIC COMMUNITIES August 11, 1999 Page 2 e. The site contains five lots abutting Etiwanda Avenue (Lots 65, 66, 67, 77, and 78 of Tentative Tract 15711-2), which are also within the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District and are subject to the provisions of the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District; and f. The Etiwanda Avenue Oveday Distdct requires a Conditional Use Permit for residential developments in the Low-Medium District. g. The applicant has filed a Conditional Use Permit to be processed concurrently and in conjunction with the Development Review application to comply with the provisions of the Etiwanda Avenue Oveday Distdct and the Etiwanda South Oreday Distdct for design review of the proposed single family residences. h. The Conditional Use permit pertains to the five lots within the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District. i. The Design Review pertains to all 191 lots within the project site. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public headng and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: Conditional Use Permit 99-30: a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the Etiwanda Avenue Ovaday Distdct in which the site is located. The proposed use consists of five single family detached houses which are in compliance with the General Plan Land Use Plan, which designates the site as Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), and the goals, objectives, and development standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the Etiwanda Avenue Oveday District. b. 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. The proposed residences comply with the special setbacks, architectural treatment, and street scene character set forth in the Etiwanda Avenue Oveday District. The lots are designed to allow the lots access from the intedor cul-de-sac, but have creative massing and architectural detail comparable to front elevations. The Etiwanda Avenue street scape includes front porches, siding, shutters, pot shelves, brackets, and other distinguishing architectural features. A low (less than 4 feet high) wrought iron fence defines the homeowner-maintained landscape areas and stone pilasters with entry gates provide a pedestrian entrance from Etiwanda Avenue. Conditions of approval are necessary to ensure the architectural compatibility with the visual and historical character and quality of Etiwanda Avenue. c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The use complies with the special Etiwanda Avenue Overlay Distdct setback, building separation, front yard landscaping, garage orientation, and parking standards. Design Review 99-08: a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan Land Use Map designates the site as Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). The proposed project consists of 191 single family residences on 45.3 acres (4.2 dwelling units per acre), which is consistent with the density and design objectives of the General Plan Land Use Element; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 99-30 & DR 99-08 - PACIFIC COMMUNITIES August 11, 1999 Page 3 b. The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the purposes of the Low-Medium Distdct in which the site is located; and c. The proposed project is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The proposed project complies with the special building separation required in the Etiwanda South Oveday District by locating single story and single story edges with a minimum 15-foot building separation and adjacent two stodes with a minimum 20-foot building separation. The proposed project complies with the setback, front yard landscaping, garage orientation, and parking standards; and d. 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. Conditions of approval are necessary to ensure compliance with the architectural guidelines set forth in the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the environmental mitigation set forth in Tentative Tract 15711. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, 'the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration 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 9uidelines 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 im position 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 dudng 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 99-30 & DR 99-08 - PACIFIC COMMUNITIES August 11, 1999 Page 4 Planninq Division 1) The Eucalyptus windrows required pursuant to the conditions of approval of Tentative Tract 15711 shall be installed along the Miller Avenue frontage, pdor to final of building permits. Windrows shall be shown on Grading, Site and Landscape Plans submitted for plan check. 2) The developer shall provide porches for all four houses that side onto Etiwanda Avenue. Revisions shall be shown on plans submitted for plan check. 3) The developer shall provide continuous open wrought-iron fencing and gates with stone or dyer rock pilasters along Etiwanda Avenue to define homeowner maintained landscape areas. Wrought-iron fencing shall comply with the fence height limitations within the Etiwanda Avenue setback area (less than 4 feet). Hedgerows and mow strips may be used along property lines within the Etiwanda Avenue street scape setback area. 4) The developer shall eliminate the overhead trellis work for the portals for the houses along Etiwenda Avenue if the trellis work conflicts with the Etiwanda Avenue building setback standards. 5) The developer shall add stone or dyer rock wainscot at the west elevation for Plan 3 for lots within the Etiwanda Avenue Oveday Distdct. 6) The developer shall provide improvements to City maintained landscape areas to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director to comply with City Policies for publicly maintained landscape areas. The developer shall submit revised Landscape Maintenance Distdct (Low-Medium District) plans for review and approval by the Community Development Director, pdor to issuance of building permits. 7) The developer shall comply with all conditions of approval of Tentative Tract 15711 and its subsequent Time Extensions as contained in Planning Commission Resolutions 96-50, 98-53, and __. En,qineedn.q Division 1) All previously adopted conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 15711, as contained in Planning Commission Resolutions 96-50, 98-53, and __ shall apply. 2) The developer shall provide a fee credit calculation, pdor to the issuance of building permits, to determine how many permits can be issued without paying Drainage fees and/or Transportation Development fees. 3) Garcia Drive. Dolcetto Place, and Via Veneto Drive shall be constructed full width with Phase I development. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 99-30 & DR 99-08 - PACIFIC COMMUNITIES August 11, 1999 Page 5 4) The intedm detention basin and related system of storm drains shall be operational, pdor to occupancy. Miti,qation Measures 1 ) The developer shall comply with all mitigation measures for Tentative Tract 15711 and its subsequent Time Extensions as contained in Planning Commission Resolutions 96-50, 98-53, and __. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION QF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary I, Dan Coleman. Acting 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 11 th day of August 1999. by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: Tentative Tract 15711 (Time Extension), Conditional Use Permit 99-30, and Development Review 99-08 This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe above-listed project. This program has been prepared in compliance with State law to 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 covedng 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 significant 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 Ddve Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Mitigation Monitoring Program TT 15711 (Time Extension), CUP 99-30, and DR 99-08 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 department 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 adse 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 to 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. h\FINAL\PLNGCOMM~CUP99-30mmp,wpd COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: Conditional Use Permit 99-30 a~d Development Review 99-08 SUBJECT: 191 s n,q e family lots APPLICANT: Pacific Communities LOCATION: North of Foothill Boulevard, east of Etiwanda Avenue, south of I-15 Freeway ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A.. General Requirements 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, · to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2.Approval of Conditional Use Permit 99-30 and Development Review 99-08 is granted subject to the approval of Tentative Tract 15711 time extension. 3. 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 Specific Plan. Project NO CUP 99-30 & OR 99-08 Completion Date 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3. 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 approval 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. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 8. 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. 9. 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. 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-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. 14. For residential development, raturn walls and comer side walls shall be decorative masonry. 15. Where rock cobble is used. it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. Project NO CUP 99-30 & DR 99-08 Completion Date 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. 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 prier 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 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. ~. 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 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. 5. Front yard and comer side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code and/or Etiwanda Specific Plan. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 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.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.. 8. All wails shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. F. Environmental 1. 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 L Project No. CUP 99-30 & DR 99-08 Completion Date 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 developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: H, 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., '1'1' #, CUP #, DR #, etc.) cleady identified on the outside of all plans. 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. 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 Project No. CUP 99-30 & DR 99~8 Completion Date 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. 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. J. New Structures 1. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. __/__ K. 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. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. 4. 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: L. 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 1,500 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. Project NO CUP 99-30 & DR 99-08 Completion Date 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 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. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 6. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. 7. 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. 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. **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 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: M. Security Hardware 1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. 2. · One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. 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 secondary locking devices. N. Windows 1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted from frame or track in any manner. Project No. CUP 99-30 & DR 99~8 Completion Date O. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime __/ visibility. CITY OF RANCHO C'I]CAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 11, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer BY Henry Murakoshi, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: EMERGENCY ACCESS PLAN FORTENTATIVETRACT 15798, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, EAST OF EAST AVENUE, WEST OF 1-15 FEEWAY BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Tentative Tract No. 15798, located south of Highland Avenue, east of East Avenue, west of I-15 Freeway was approved by the Planning Commission on July 23, 1997, for a residential development of 45 single family homes on 19.26 acres of land in the Low Residential District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The developer is submitting the Emergency Access Plan providing continuous, 24 hours all weather secondary access (see attached) as required by the conditions of approval. Caltrans also reafFwtns to the City that its contractor will provide emergency access to all residences east of East Avenue to Mulberry and south of Highland Avenue on a 24 hour basis during construction. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the finding through minute action that the proposed Emergency Access Plan is acceptable. Respectfully submitted, Senior Civil Engineer DJ:HM:dlw Attachments: Vicinity Map (Exhibit "A') Emergency Access Plan (Exhibit "B") Item D VICINITY MAP HIGN,~D ~ Yg. ST. S~'. SITE VICT~I4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO · STATE OF CALIFORNIA J STArE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION ANO HOUSING AGENCY GRAY OAVIS. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION July 2t, ~999 08-SBd-15/210 7.2/10.0 RI0.0/R. 13.2 Construct Freeway to Freeway 1C 08-204304 Mr. Dan James City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Dear Mr. James: Emergency Access at East Avenue/Highland Avenue Intersection This letter is to reaffirm to the C~ty of Rancho Cucamonga that Cultruns and its contractor, EL Yeaget, will provide emergency access to all residences in the City of Rancho Cucamonga east o~ East Avenue and south of Highland Avenue through the East Avenue/Highland Avenue intersection on a 24-hour basis during construction of the intersection. This includes all residences east of Mulberry Lane and south of Highland AvenUe. The City should be made aware of an 80-day window during which utilities will be installed or adjusted in East Avenue south of Highland Avenue in which the contractor will have no control of the area. The utilities include water, telephone and electrical service to the citizens that live in the surrounding neighborhood. There is a possibility of working with the utility agencies and their contractors so that access will not be hindered by their operations. If I can be of any further assistance in this matter, or if you have any questions, please call me at (909) 383-4272. Sincerely, M.-M~C LANCASTER, Office Chief Design A ML:Id cc: DPeterson, Ryland Homes RRenslow, EL Yeager NFraywat, Construction C, MS 1 l-04 'IT #15798 Emergency Egress to Public Right-of-Way: 1. Catalpa Street intersection with East Ave. via Smokestone Place 2. Mulberry Street intersection with Highland Ave. a) Prior to Route 30 construction, Highland Ave. remains open in east/west directions. b) During Route 30 construction (shut down of East Ave. intersection at Highland) Highland Ave. is replaced with emergency vehicle access only. c) After completion of Route 30, Highland will be re-opened to normal traffic from Mulberry to East Ave. Highland Ave./Mulberry intersection improvements are a required improvement of the subject property. Ryland is also required to restore the full intersection of Highland and East Ave. after construction of Route 30 freeway. 3. Existing emergency access to Highland Ave. via Starstone Place. 4/5. Access to flood control channels/Victoria Basin maintenance roads which allow access to Victoria Street to the south. Would require car to breakthrough chain link fence/gate. There are other oppormmties for emergency egress, but they end on private property. and not to a public right-of-way. See attached letter from California Department of Transportation regarding maintenance of access during freeway construction. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 11, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner BY: Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary SUBJECT: ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission Administrative Regulations provide for election of Chairman and Vice Chairman each year. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should elect a Chairman and Vice Chairman. Respectfull submit , BB:GS:gs Item E