HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/10/09 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 9, 1996 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 Barker Vice Chairman McNiel
Commissioner Bethel Commissioner Macias Commissioner Tolstoy
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 25, 1996
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial.
They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has
concern over any item, it shouM be removed for discussion.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW 96-18 - MEEDER EQUIPMENT - A request to build two
warehouse/office buildings (25,000 square feet and 9,500 square feet)
and a propane tank storage area on 11 acres of land in the Heavy
Industrial district (Subarea 15) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan,
located on the south side of Sixth Street between the I- 15 Freeway and
EtiwandaAvenue-APN: 229-283-71. StaffhaspreparedaNegative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
B. yACATION OF AGATE STREET - A request to vacate Agate Street
located between Hamilton Street and Tentative Tract 15730 and the
quit-claiming of Lot "C" of Tract 6846.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their
opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address
the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5
minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT 14534 - WILLIAM LYON HOMES - A residential
subdivision and design review of detailed site plan and elevations for
a proposed 121 home subdivision on 23 acres of land in the Low
Medium Residential designation (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the
Victoria Community Plan located at the southeast comer of Victoria
Park Lane and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-091-31. Staff has
prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for
consideration.
D. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 88-02 - STANDARD PACIFIC - A
request to amend the termination date of the Agreement for Etiwanda
Highlands (Tentative Tract 13564 and Tract 13565) for approximately
282 acres located at the northeast comer of Wilson Avenue and
Wardman Bullock Road.
E. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 96-01 CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the antenna
regulations in all zones to be consistent with Federal Communications
Commission recent regulations.
F. INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-04 -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the antenna
regulations in all zones to be consistent with Federal Communications
Commission recent regulations.
G. SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01 - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the antenna
regulations to be consistent with Federal Communications Commission
recent regulations.
Page 2
H. INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 16
REDESIGNATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) o
CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC - A public hearing on a draft
Final EIR prepared for General Plan Amendment 95-03A, Industrial
Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04, Development District
Amendment 95-02, and Tentative Tract 15727 to authorize the
development of 351 single family dwelling units and a neighborhood
park by the reclassification of approximately 82 acres from Industrial
Park to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), and the
consideration by the City of alternative land use and zoning
designations of Office, Commercial, Low Medium Residential (4-8
dwelling units per acre), and Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per
acre) for the remaining 60 acres of land within the area bounded by
Sixth Street on the noah, Archibald Avenue on the east, Fourth Street
on the south, and Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek on the
west. APN: 210-062-02, 05, 06, 08, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26., 28, 3 I,
32, 33, 34, and 39.
I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 95-03A - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC -
A request to amend the General Plan Land Use designation from
Industrial Park to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per
acre) for 77 acres of land at the intersection of Fourth Street and the
Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel bordered by Sixth Street on
the north, and the City will also consider an alternative designation of
Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). APN: 210-062-02, 11,
13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33.
With this application the City will also consider amending the
Industrial Park designation to alternative land uses for the remaining
land bounded by Sixth Street on the north, Archibald Avenue on the
east, Fourth Street on the south, and Hellman Avenue and the
Cucamonga Creek on the west as follows:
1. For approximately 15 acres of land located at the southeast comer
of Sixth street and Hellman Avenue and bordered on the west by
the Cucamonga Creek Fiood Control Channel the City will
consider Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre)
and Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as alternative
land uses. APN: 210-062-05, 06, and 39.
Page 3
2. For approximately 45 acres of land bordered by Sixth Street on
the north, Archibald Avenue on the east, and Fourth Street on the
south the City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units
per acre), Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre),
Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, and Office as
alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-08, 10, 11, 13, 28, 31, and
34.
J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 95-04 CUCAMONGA
CORNERPOINTE LLC - A request to remove 82 acres of land at the
intersection of Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control
Channel bordered by Sixth Street on the north, from the Industrial Area
Specific Plan for the purposes of rezoning the land to Development
Code Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre).
APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19,26,32, and33.
With this application the City will also consider amending the
Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 16 to alternative land uses and
amending development standards for the remaining land bounded by
Sixth Slxeet on the noah, Archibald Avenue on the east, Fourth Street
on the south, and Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek on the
west as follows:
1. Removing approximately 15 acres of land located at the southeast
comer of Sixth Street and Hellman Avenue and bordered on the
west by the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Charmel from the
Industrial Area Specific Plan for the purposes of rezoning the
land to Development Code Low Medium Residential (4-8
dwelling units per acre) or Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units
per acre) as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-05, 06, and 39.
2. Removing approximately 45 acres of land bordered by Sixth
Street on the noah, Archibald Avenue on the east and Fourth
Street on the south from the Industrial Area Specific Plan for the
purpose of considering Development Code Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre), Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling
units per acre), Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, and
Office as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-08, 10, 11, 13,
28, 31, and 34.
3. Consider changing the development standards and land use
activities for Subarea 16 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
Page 4
K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT AMENDMENT 95-02 CUCAMONGA
CORNERPOINTE LLC - A request to amend the Development District
Map designation from Industrial Area Specific Plan to Low Medium
Residential (4-8 dwelling tunits per acre) for 82 acres of land at the
intersection of Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control
Channel bordered by Sixth Street on the north, and the City will also
consider an altemative designation of Low Residential (2-4 dwelling
units per acre). APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33.
With this application the City will also consider amending the
Industrial Area Specific Plan designation to altemative land uses for the
remaining land bounded by Sixth Street on the north, Archibald
Avenue on the east, Fourth Street on the south, and Hellman Avenue
and the Cucamonga Creek on the west as follows:
1. For approximately 15 acres of land located at the southeast comer
of Sixth street and Hellman Avenue and bordered on the west by
the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel the City will
consider Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre)
or Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as alternative
land uses. APN: 210-062-05, 06, and 39.
2. For approximately 45 acres of land bordered by Sixth Street on
the north, Archibald Avenue on the east, and Fourth Street on the
south the City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units
per acre), Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre),
Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial and Office as
altemative land uses. APN: 210-062-08, 10, 1 I, 13, 28, 31, and
34.
L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT
15727 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC - A total residential
development of 342 single family lots and a 5 acre neighborhood park
on a total of 82 acres on land to be rezoned to the Low Medium
Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located at the intersection of
Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel
bordered by Sixth Street on the north. APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17,
18, 19, 26, 32, and 33.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time andplace for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be
discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda.
Page 5
VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS
M. COMMERCIAL LAND USE STUDY DISCUSSION - (No report)
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an l I:00 p.m.
adjournment time. lf items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent
of the Commission.
I, Gail Sanchez. Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
or my designee. hereby certi. D that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was
posted on October 3, 1996, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government
Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga.
/
Page 6
VICINITY MAP
rF
*'"~ ~.. liii!~!iii::~::~::i::i::::::::ii~ii i~::-~:~ iiiii!~!~!~iiii!!!!~iiI I~::~::?:~
I I~::~::~::~::~::~ I::~::~::~::~ ~1 ' I~::~::~::~
I ~ ~':~" :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: O I::::::::::'
~I ·~.~:5~: ............ ..: ........ ~ ....... ~..~
.... ; ..... ......
, ) C
CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 9, 1996
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-18 -
MEEDER EQUIPMENT - A request to build two warehouse/office buildings
(25,000 square feet and 9,500 square feet) and a propane tank storage area on
11 acres of land in the Heavy Industrial district (Subarea 15) of the Industrial
Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Sixth Street between the 1-15
Freeway and Etiwanda Avenue- APN: 229-283-71.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning:
North Vacant (proposed Northstar Steel transfer facility); Heavy Industrial (Subarea
15)
South - Vacant (proposed Heritage Bag); General Industrial (Subarea 14)
East Pic and Save warehouse and Vacant; Heavy Industrial (Subarea 15)
West Warehouse and Vacant; Heavy Industrial (Subarea 15)
B. General Plan Desiqnations:
Project Site - Heavy Industrial
North Heavy Industrial
South - General Industrial
East Heavy Industrial
West Heavy Industrial
C. Site Characteristics: The narrow, deep site is a former Southern California Edison corridor
and is vacant. There are no significant trees or other natural features on the site. Access
is off Sixth Street to the north and the site has rail road track and power lines running
along the west side. The existing and proposed rail lines present a major site constraint.
ITEM A
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 96-18 - MEEDER EQUIPMENT
October 9, 1996
Page 2
D. Parkinq Calculations:
Number of Number of
Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces
of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided
Office 7,000 1 space/250 sq.~. 28.00 28
Warehouse 27,500 I space/1.000 sq.ft. 23.75 2.~5
1st 20,000 sq.~.), and
1 space/2,000 sq.~.
(2nd 20,000 sq.~.)
TOTAL 34,500 51.75 53
ANALYSIS:
A. General: The applicant is proposing to develop two warehouse/office buildings and propane
storage tanks for the storage, distribution, and minor repair of propane tanks and related
equipment. New rail service will be constructed along the west side of the site to augment
the existing rail spur. The project also includes a retention/clarification basin at the south end
of the site. The project includes three primary building materials (painted concrete, split face
block, and smooth block) consistent with Planning Commission Policy Resolution No. 89-158.
B. Desicon Review Committee: The Committee (Macias. McNiel, Buller) reviewed the project on
September 3, 1996, and recommended approval subject to the revisions listed in the attached
action comments (Exhibit "F").
C. Technical Review/Gradinq Committees: The Committees have reviewed the project and
recommend approval subject to the conditions contained in the attached resolution.
D. Environmental Assessment: In completing the Initial Study, staff identified the potential for
the project to create surface run off over the Hedtage Bag site to the south. The method for
handling drainage over the Heritage Bag site will be subject to Building and Safety review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits. The Engineering Division has determined that
4th Street improvements can accommodate increased run off from the site.
There is also the potential for the release of propane gas leading to objectionable odors or
fire/explosion. The Industrial Area Specific Plan contains performance criteria which prohibit
the emission of unpleasant odors and special permits will be required by the Fire District to
minimize potential hazards due to accidental release of propane. Fire monitors are
incorporated into the liquid propane gas tank area and railroad unloading station.
Staff has therefore determined that there would not be a significant adverse impact upon the
environment from this project and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
FACTS FOR FINDING: The project is consistent with the Industrial Area Specific Plan,
Development Code, and the General Plan. This project will not be detrimental to the adjacent
properties or cause significant environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed use and Site Plan
with the recommended Conditions of Approval, are in compliance with the applicable provisions of
the Development Code and City Standards.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 96-18 - MEEDER EQUIPMENT
October 9, 1996
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conditional approval through adoption of the attached
Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration.
BB:BL:gs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" Location Map
Exhibit "B" Site Plan
Exhibit "C" Grading Plan
Exhibit "D" Landscape Plan
Exhibit "E" Elevations
Exhibit "F" Design Review Action Agenda September 3, 1996
Initial Study Pad II
Resolution of Approval
SITE UTILIZATION MAP
......
. ~ ..,~ 'i ..
.~
~ ~ ......
MAP 1~8-~6- ~-- ~".
156 PAR. I I
~ ,,~ ,E ,, ~ /
__' ~ /
~ ~ /
~' ~:' '~ :'~: .......:~C7,,~i'/~'~:LI.I
'
PROJECT DATA
SITE PLAN ,o.,,) ................
WEST- P.~RTS~,L NORTH
SOUTH
WEST
EAST
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS- BUILDING
NORTH "\
SOUTH
-:-:~-~[~: :'.~:~ '~
................
EAST
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS -BUILDING
DESIGN REVIEW COM~MENTS
5:00 p.m. Brent Le Count September 3, 1996
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-18 - MEEDER EQUIPMENT - A request to build two
warehouse/office buildings (25,000 square feet and 9,500 square feet) and a propane tank storage
area on I 1 acres of land in the Heavy Industrial district (Subarea 15) of the Industrial Area Specific
Plan, located on the south side of 6th Street between the 1-15 Freeway and Etiwanda Avenue - APN:
229-283-71.
Desin Parameters: The site is a former Southern California Edison corridor and is vacant. The site
is surrounded by the Pic and Say warehouse facili~' to the east, vacant land to the south proposed
to be developed with the recently approved Heritage Bag project, vacant land to the east and west,
and vacant land to the north proposed to be developed with the Northstar Steel transfer facility,. The
site slopes gently downward from north to south. Access is off 6th Street to the north and the site
has rail road track and power lines running along the west side. The existing and proposed rail lines
are a major site constraint. The proposed devalopment includes two warehouse/office buildings,
propane storage tan.ks and a retention/clarification basin at the south end of the site.
The project includes three primary building materials (painted concrete, split face block, and smooth
block) consistent with Planning Commission Policy Resolution No. 89-158.
Staff Comments:
The follow.lag comments are intended to provide an outline for Comminee discussion
,Ma/or Issues: The follo',~.ing broad design issues v-ill be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project.
I. Prodfide substantially more landscaping within the main parking area west of Building I and
around the proposed buildings.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee ,,,,'ill discuss the following secondary design issues.
1. Provide adequate parapet height to screen roof equipment (i.e., HVAC).
2. Screen the propane tank storage area, as much as possible from the south, with landscaping.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Committee approve the project subject to the above recommended comments.
Design Review Commit'~ee Action:
Mfmbers Present: Pdch Macias, Larry, McNiel, Brad Bullet
Staff Planner: Dan Coleman
DRC AGENDA
DR 96-18 - MEEDER EQUIPMENT
September 3, 1996
Page 2
The Committee recommended approval subject to the following:
I. Any security fencing and gate along 6th Street shall comply with Industrial Area Specific Plan
setbacks. Gates should be located south of railroad track to prevent vehicles from blocking
traffic on 6th Street.
2. Any security fencing along 6th Street should comply with Industrial Area Specific Plan design
requirements. A solid wall or decorative metal fence with pilasters is preferred.
3. All roof-mounted equipment shall be completely screened by roof parapet.
4. Provide dense evergreen landscaping materials along south propera; line to screen propane
tank storage area.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY - PART II
BACKGROUND
1) Project File #/Name: '}~z-~I~_--6DFI-4E_.4L~'t'/i~-,.F:~,~l~J,..J '~/.-,--[~
2) Related File(s): ~ ~ -{~
3) Applicant: ~~ ~Ol~~
Address: ~ ~~/~A~ ~ ~
5) Project Accepted as Complete (date):
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15063 of t~e California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, explanation
potential impacts identified as "Yes" or "Maybe" answers are required on attached sheets. An explanation
shall also be provided'~ each instance where a potentially significant effect has been determined not to
be significant and is marked "No."
Yes Maybe No
I. EARTH. Will the proposal result in.'
a) Unstable eadh conditions or in changes in the geologic structure? Q Q ~
b) Disruptions, displacement, compaction or over covering of the
soil? Q Q ~
c) Change in the topography or ground surface relief features? Q Q ~
d) The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic
or physical features? Q Q ~
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the
site? Q Q ~
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sand, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of
a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Q Q ~
g) Exposure of people or properly to geologic hazards, such as
eaChquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar
hazards? Q D
Yes Maybe
AIR. Will the proposal result in:
a) Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? Q El
b) The creation of objectionable odors? Q
c) Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, either locally or regionally? Q Q
III. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changesincurrents, orthecourseofdirectionofwatermovements,
in either marine or fresh waters? Q Q
b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff? El E("
c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Q Q
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any body? Q El
e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface
wateF quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity? El El
f) Alteration of the direction or rate of ground waters?
g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by
cuts or excavations? Q
h) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available
for public-water supplies?
i) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as
flooding or tidal pools?
IV. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of
plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare, or endangered :
species of plants?
c) Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier
to the normal replenishment of existing species?
d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? El
V. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of
animals (birds; land animals, including reptiles; fish and shellfish;
benthic organisms or insects)? El
b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare, or endangered
species or animals?
Yes Maybe No
c) introduction of new species of animals into the area, or result in
a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? Q Q
d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Q El
VI. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels? El
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? El El [:9/'
VII. LIGHT AND GLARE. Willtheproposal:
a) Produce new light and glare? El
VIII. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an
area?
IX. ' NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: ' '
a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? El El
X. RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve:
a) A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)
in the event of an accident or upset conditions? El
b) ' Possible'interference with an emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan? El El GF'/'
XI. POPULATION. Will the proposah
a) Alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the
human population of an area? El El
XII. HOUSING. Will the proposah
a) Affect existing housing, orcreate a demand for additional housing? El El
Xlll. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in:
a) Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? El Q Q--'/
b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? El El
c) Substantial impact upon existing transpodation systems?
d) Alterations to the present patterns of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods? El
e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? El ~ Q
f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or
Yes Maybe No
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in
a need for new or altered govemment services in any of the following
areas:
a) Fire protection? Q
b) Police protection? Q Q
c) Schools? El El
d) Parks and other recreational facilities? Q Q
e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
f) Other governmental services? El [3 E)-/'
XV. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in:
a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? El El
b) Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new sources of energy? El El
XVI. UTILITIES and SERVICE SYSTEMS. Will theproposalresult in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? El El
b) Communications systems? El
c) · Water? :.- El Q
d) Sewer or septic tanks? El E3
e) Storm water drainage? Q El
f) Solid waste disposal? El El
XVll. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in:
a) Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (exclud-
ing mental health)? El El Eh'/'
b) Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Q El
XVIII. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in:
a) The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? El
b) Creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? El Q
XIX. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in:
a) Impact upon the quality of existing recreational opportunities? Q El
b) Restrict the religious or sacred uses within the potential impact
area? El El
Yes Maybe No
XX. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal:
a) Result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archeological site? El m IZ.P
b) Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? Q El
c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? El Q
XXl. 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? Q D
b) Short-term: Does the project have the potential to achieve shod-
term, to the advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A
short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definite period of time. Long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.) Q El GY/
c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts which are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on
two or more separate resources where the impact on each
resource is relatively small, but where the effect on the total of
those impacts on the environment is significant.) El [::3
d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly? m Eb
XXII. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION.
(Attach additional sheets with narrative description of the environmental impacts.)
DISCUSSION OF LAND USE IMPACTS.
(Attach additional sheets examining whether the project would be consistent with existing zoning,
plans, and other applicable land use controls.)
XXIV, EARLIER ANALYSES, Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program El R,
or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier El R or Negative
Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached
sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within
the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based
on th~ ea'rlier analysis. '
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "less than Significant with Mitigation Incorpo-
rated ," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
XXV. DETERMINATION. (To be completed by Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
a) I find that the proposed project couZcl not have a significant effect on the environment, and
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared ..............................
b) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the ~gnvironment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because ~zi~i~ztion rneasz~res described on
an attached sheet have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared .............................. El
c) I find the proposed project m,Ty have a significant effect on the environment, and
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required ......................... El
Da~e Preparer's Signature
X × Vl. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION (To be completed by applicant.)
} certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have
mad this: Initial Study and proposed mitigation measures. Fu~her, I have, revised the project plans or
proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or rnitigate
tl ,e effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects woCd.pccur.
' /r ...
Z'zl;ml NHr~e and Title
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Initial Study - Part II
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Project Description: DR 96-18 - Meeder Equipment - Construction of two xvarehouse/office buildings
(25,000 sq.ft. and 9,500 sq.t~.) and a propane tank storage area on 11 acres of land
in Subarea 15 ffIeavy Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan on the south
side of 6th Street.
I. Earth:
a) The site is not within any known unstable earth condition area.
b) The site will be graded to accommodate building pads for the proposed buildings. The
grading will be conducted under the supervision of licensed surveyor or registered
geologist.
c) The topography of the site will be altered slightly to accommodate the building pads and
parking. The grading will be supervised by a licensed soils engineer or registered geologist
to ensure compliance with Building Code requirements.
d) No known or unique geologic or physical features exist on this site.
e) Upon completion, the site will be landscaped and/or paved to prevent soil erosion.
f) The project will not change the deposition or erosion of beach sand, or change siltation,
deposition, or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet, or lake.
g) The majority of Califomia is susceptible to earthquakes. The project is not within any
known special study zone that will require additional studies or that poses a unique hazard.
II. Air:
a) The proposed project will not generate substantial air emissions or deteriorate the ambient
air quality.
b) The proposed project could create objectionable odors if propane gas was released as a
bleed-off procedure or due to accident. Fire monitors are incorporated into the liquid
propane gas tank area and railroad unloading station. Special permits will be required by
the Fire District to minimize the potential for haTards due to accidental release of propane.
The propane tanks have been sited in an area which is remote from other structures. This
impact is not considered significant.
c) The proposed project will not result in alteration to the climate or air movement.
III. Water:
a) The development will not affect the currents or course of water movement.
b) The absorption rate will be altered because of the paving and hard scape proposed leading
to potential drainage related impacts upon properties to the south of the site. The method
for handling drainage of the site across other properties will be subject to review and
approval by the Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of building permits. The
Engineering Division has indicated that drainage from the site can be accommodated by
existing public improvements in 4th Street. This impact is not considered significant.
c) The project will not alter the course or flow of flood waters.
d) The development will not affect the amount of surface water in any body.
e) The project will not be discharging into any surface waters.
f) No alteration of groundwater is expected to occur with this project.
g) No direct additions or withdrawals of ground water are proposed.
h) The project is anticipated to use 1,500 gallons per day per acre. The amount of water usage
is not significant or in excess of that anticipated for this type of land use activity.
i) The project is outside of the established flood plain.
IV. Plant Life:
a) No significant vegetation exists on-site other than remnant grape vines.
b) There are no known rare, unique, or endangered species on-site.
c) Landscaping introduced to the site will be compatible with existing landscaping material.
d) No agricultural crops exist on-site. No trees exist on-site that will be affected by the
application but there are remnant grape vines that will be removed to accommodate the
project.
V. Animal Life:
a) There are no known animals that currently occupy the site on a regular basis.
b) There are no known rare, unique, or endangered species on-site.
c) No new species will be introduced as a result of the project.
d) The project is located within the interior of the City, surrounded by development. In that
no animals currently use the site on a regular basis, the development will have no impact
on fish or wildlife habitat.
VI. Noise:
a) The development will increase the noise level by the mere fact that the property is currently
vacant; however, the project site is located in a heavy industrial area approximately '/2 mile
from Interstate 15. The development will not create noise in excess of City standards and
will not be noticeable above the ambient noise levels from freeway traffic and surrounding
uses.
b) The noise levels will be no greater than the existing noise levels. The site is surrounded by
vacant and developed properties in the Heavy Industrial district which are not noise
sensitive.
VII. Light and Glare:
a) New light and glare will be created because the property is currently vacant. A condition
of approval requires the applicant to submit a lighting plan for review and approval to
ensure the light does not spill over onto adjacent properties.
VIII. Land Use:
a) No land use alteration is proposed with the application. Warehousing (wholesale storage
and distribution) is a permitted use in the Heavy Industrial district.
IX. Natural Resources:
a) The installation of a propane gas facility will result in the added consumption of petroleum
byproducts. The increased usage is not considered significant.
X. Risk of Upset:
a) The use and storage ofpropane does pose the potential for explosion or release of propane
gas in the event of an accident or upset conditions. Special permits will be required by the
Fire District to minimize the potential. The impact is not considered significant. The
propane tanks have been sited in an area which is remote from other structures. Fire
monitors are incorporated into the liquid propane gas tank area and railroad unloading
station.
b) The project will not interfere with emergency response.
XI. Population:
a) The project will have no impact on the population of the City.
XII. Housing:
a) The project will not create the need for additional housing.
XIII. Transportation:
a) The project will generate additional track and rail trips because of the new construction and
the type of business. The number of trips, however, is insignificant.
b) Additional parking will be necessary to handle the patrons and staffof the facility. The site
is sufficient in size to provide the additional parking spaces to meet the parking
requirements.
c) The proposal is consistent with the Industrial Area Specific Plan and General Plan for
which the street widths were evaluated at a build-out condition. The project will be
conditioned to widen 6th Street to its ultimate width.
d) The project will maintain the existing circulation patterns for the movement of goods.
e) The project will not affect air or water traffic but could result in a less than significant
increase in rail traffic.
f) The application is expected to increase the risk of traffic hazards because of the new
construction. The project will be conditioned to utilize a single driveway aligned with a
planned driveway on the north side of 6th Street. The impact is not significant.
XIV. Public Services:
a) The project will require additional permitting and inspection by the Fire District to ensure
Code compliance. The impact is not significant.
b) No substantial new services are expected with the project.
c) The school districts having jurisdiction have notified the City of the current impaction
problems. The project, however, will not increase the number of students.
d) The project will have no impact on existing park facilities or result in the need for
additional facilities.
e) The site abuts a road that is being maintained by the City and will be upgraded as part of
the project. No additional impacts on public facilities are expected.
f') No other government services are expected to be affected by this proposal.
3
XV. Energy
a) The project is not expected to use substantial amounts of fuel or energy.
b) The development is not expected to result in substantial inci'ease on the demand of existing
energy sources or the need for new energy sources.
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems:
a) The facility will not result in the need for new power or natural gas systems.
b) The facility will not result in the need for new communication systems.
c) The facility will use water readily available in Foothill Boulevard.
d) The discharge from the site will be handled by the existing sewer facilities.
e) No additional storm water drainage will occur with the project.
f) No significant solid waste disposal will be necessary to serve the site.
XVII. Human Health:
a) The development is not expected to create any health hazard.
b) No exposure of people to potential health hazards is expected.
XVIII. Aesthetics:
a) The project will not obstruct any view or vista currently available to the public.
b) The project will conform to the strict design guidelines of the City thereby eliminating any
offensive site visible to the public.
XIX. Recreation:
a) No existing recreational facilities will be impacted by the facility.
b) No known religious or sacred uses are presently conducted on-site.
XX. Cultural ReSOurces:
a) No known prehistoric or historic site exists within the project boundaries.
b) No known prehistoric or historic site exists within the project boundaries.
c) The project should not impact any unique ethnic cultural values.
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance:
a) No known animal or wildlife species are expected to be substantially adversely impacted
by the project.
b) There are no known long-term environmental impacts that are expected to occur as a result
of the project.
c) It is not anticipated that the cumulative impacts of the project will have a substantial impact
as a result of the project.
d) It is not anticipated that the project will have any adverse impacts on human beings.
XXIII. Land Use Impacts:
The proposed warehousing activity is consistent with the Heavy Impact district which permits
wholesale storage and distribution.
4
City of Rancho Cucamonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the
California Environmental Qua~ty Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: DR 96-18 Public Review Period Closes: October 9, 1996
Project Name: Project Applicant: Meeder Equipment
Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the south side of Sixth Street between the 1-15
Freeway and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-283-71.
Project Description: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-18 -
MEEDER EQUIPMENT - A request to build two warehouse/office buildings (25,000 square feet and 9,500
square feet) and a propane tank storage area on 11 acres of land in the Heavy Industrial district (Subarea
15) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an
Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is
proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
[] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment.
[] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this
proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or
mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be
required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study, The project file
and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847.
NOTICE
The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period.
October 9, 1996
Date of Determination Adopted By
A25
RESOLUTION NO,
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW NO. 96-18, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SIXTH STREET
BETWEEN ETIWANDAAVENUE AND THE 1-15 FREEWAY IN THE HEAVY
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 15) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
APN: 229-283-71.
A. Recitals.
1. Meeder Equipment has filed an application for the approval of Development Review
No. 96-18, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Development Review request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 9th day of October 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part
A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting on October 9, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission
hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located on the south side of Sixth Street bet~qeen
Etiwanda Avenue and the 1-15 Freeway with a street frontage of 355 feet and lot depth of 1,461 feet.
The subject property is a former utility corridor and is presently vacant; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant and propose to be developed
with the North Star Steel transfer facility, the property to the south is vacant and proposed to be
developed with the Heritage Bag project, the property to the east is partly vacant and occupied by the
Pic and Save warehouse, and the properties to the west are partly vacant and occupied by a
warehouse; and
c. The project includes three primary building materials (painted concrete, split face
block, and smooth face block) consistent with Planning Commission Policy Resolution No. 89-158.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this
Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and
b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and
the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and
c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code; and ,/Z/-~/,7/
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 96-18 - MEEDER EQUIPMENT
October 9, 1996
Page 2
d. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration,
together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the
application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the
findings as follows:
a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated
thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the
independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and
considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application.
b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into
the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project
will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife
depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff
reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public
hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in
Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this
Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and
in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Planning Division:
1) Any security fencing and gate along Sixth Street shall comply with
Industrial Area Specific Plan setbacks. Gates shall be located south of
new railroad track to prevent vehicles from blocking traffic on Sixth
Street.
2) Any security fencing along Sixth Street shall comply with Industrial Area
Specific Plan .design requirements. A solid wall or decorative metal
fence with pilasters is preferred.
3) All roof mounted equipment shall be completely screened by roof
parapet.
4)Provide dense evergreen landscaping materials along south property
line to screen propane tank storage area.
5) The facility shall be operated in conformance with the performance
standards as defined in the Industrial Area Specific Plan including, but
not limited to, odor emissions.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 96-18 - MEEDER EQUIPMENT
October 9, 1996
Page 3
Enqineerinq Division:
1) An access for emergency purposes shall be provided through the
subject site and the site to the south to Fourth Street and constructed
at a minimum of decomposed granite over compacted soil to the
satisfaction of the Fire Marshall and the City Engineer.
2) The Sixth Street frontage shall be posted "No Parking Anytime."
3) Complete the south half of Sixth Street fronting the site. New AC
pavement shall join the existing pavement and extend west of the
current terminus to the railroad spur to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. The developer shall receive credit against, and
reimbursement for costs in excess of the Transportation Development
Fee in conformance with City policy. If the developer fails to submit for
said reimbursement agreement within six months of the public
improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to
reimbursement shall terminate.
4) The project driveway shall align with the proposed driveway for the
Northstar Steel transfer facility (CUP 95-37) on the north side of Sixth
Street.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall cedify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1996.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker. Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller. Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 9th day of October 1996, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT#: Development Review 96-18
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT: Meeder Equipment
LOCATION: South side of Sixth Street between 1-15 Freeway and Etiwanda Avenue
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
Time Limits completion Date
1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not
issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval.
B. Site Development
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include
site pans, 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 Industrial Area. Specific Plan.
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. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and
State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be
submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division
to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy.
4. 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.
5. 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.
Project No. DR96-18
Completion Date
6. 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.
7. A detailed on-site lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Police
Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style.
illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent
properties.
8. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and
the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits.
9. 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.
10. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner,
including proper illumination.
C. Building Design
1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated
with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be
included in building plans.
D. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans)
1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall
contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb).
2. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances,
and exits shall be striped per City standards.
3. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
4. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more
parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall, whichever is greater, of the total number of
stalls for use by the handicapped.
5. Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more
parking stalls. Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the
rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feet.
6. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily
residential projects or more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required
automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first
50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of the
required automobile parking spaces. Warehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle storage
spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent on the required automobile parking spaces with a minimum of a
Project No. DR96-18
Completion Date
3-bike rack. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed 100.
Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater, the number shall be rounded off to the higher
whole number.
7. Carpool and vanpool designated off-street parking close to the building shall be provided for
commercial, office, and industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking area. If
covered, the vertical clearance shall be no less than 9 feet.
E. Landscaping
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping
in this case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior
final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2. A minimum of 30 % of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch
box or larger.
3. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of on 15-gallon tree for every three parking
stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21.
4. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one
tree per 30 linear feet of building.
5. All private slopes in 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1
slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion
control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be
installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
6. 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 si:,e
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 srope shall also include one 5-gallon or
larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered
clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a
permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
7. Property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site,
as well as contiguous planted areas within the public dght--of-way. All landscaped areas shall be
kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall
receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or
decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage.
8. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included
in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and
coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the
Engineering Division.
9. 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.
Project No. DR 96-18
Comoletion Date
10.All wails shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in pubiic maintenance areas, the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
11. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
F. Signs
1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval.
Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require
separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs.
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 Ptanner review and approval prior to the issuance of
building permits.
APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
H. Site Development
1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical
Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes,
ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact
the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable
handouts.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition
to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate.
Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee,
School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees.
3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and
prior to issuance of building permits.
I. 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.
Project No. DR 96-18
Completion Date
J. Dedication and Vehicular Access
1. Dedi~tion shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from
street centerline):
44 total feet on Sixth Street
K. Street Improvemen~
1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
Street Name Gu~er P t ~ w~k A r b~ts Tr:es Trail Island Trad
' Sigh Street
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and overlays will be dete~ined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall
be cu~ilinear per STD. 114. (d) If so mated, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for
this item.
2. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street tr~s, street lights, and intersection safeW lights ~ __ /
on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and shall be submi~ed to and approved by the Ci~ Engineer. Securi~ shall be
posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the Ci~ Engineer and the Ci~
A~orney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements. prior
to final map approvar or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being pedormed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a /
construction permit shall be obtained from the Ci~ Engineers Office in addition to any
other permits required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and /
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Ci~ Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new ~nstmction or reconstruction /
project along major or seconda~ streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and
interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside
of BCR, ECR or any other locations approved by the Ci~ Engineer.
Notes:
(1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intemections and No. 5 along streets. a maximum of 200
feet apa~, unless othe~ise specified by the Ci~ Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel
with pull rope or as specified.
Project No. DR 96-18
Completion Date
e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with
adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded
upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be
installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots.
h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check.
3.Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in
accordance with the City's street tree program.
4. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with
adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project
intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or
industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required.
L. Public Maintenance Areas
1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
M. Utilities
1. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.
2. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bemardino. A letter of compliance from
the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first.
N, General Requirements and Approvals
1. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the
estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District 84-1 among the
newly created parcels.
2. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all
new street lights for the first six months of operation. prior to final map approval or prior to building
permit issuance if no map is involved.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
O. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Fire flow requirement shall be 3.000 gallons per minute.
Project NO. DR 96-18
Completion Date
a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department
personnel prior to water plan approval.
2. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed
and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing
materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel.
3. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants,
if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a 4"
and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the
Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers.
4. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final
inspection.
5. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below:
X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15.
X Other: 1994 Uniform Buildinq and Fire Codes
Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as
woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, ~ammable liquids storage, high piled
stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if sprinkler system is adequate
for proposed operations.
6. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below:
X California Cede Regulations Title 24.
7. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted:
X All roadways.
X Other: Rancho Cucamonqa Fire District Ordinance No. 22
8. Fire department access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apparatus.
9. Emergency secondary access shall be provided in accordance with Fire District standards.
10. Emergency access, a minimum of 26 feet wide, shall be provided, and maintained free and clear
of obstructions at all times, during construction in accordance with Fire District requirements.
11. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall
be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific
details and ordering information.
12. Gated/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire /
Safety Division for specific details and ordering information.
13. A tenant use letter shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety /
Division for the proper form letter.
Project No. DR 96-18
Completion Date
14. Plan check fees in the amount of ~; 0 have been paid. An additional $645.00 shall be paid:
X Prior to water plan approval.
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.
15. Plans shall be submitted and appmved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC,
UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15.
P. Special Permits
1. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use, as noted below:
a. General Use Permit shall be required for any activity or operation not specifically described
below, which in the judgemerit of the Fire Chief is likely to produce conditions hazardous
to life or property.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
Q. Security Lighting
1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. ./__
These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell.
2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with
direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire
development.
3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures.
R. Security Hardware
1. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doom. If windows are within
40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used.
2. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices.
3. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal gates,
or alarmed.
S. Security Fencing
1. When utilizing security gates, a Knox box sub-master system secudty device shall be used since
fire and law enforcement can access these devices.
T. 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 DR96-18
Completion Date
Building Numbering
1,Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime
visibility.
2. Developer shall paint roof top numbers on one or more roofs of this development. They shall be
a minimum of three feet in length and two feet in width and of contrasting color to background.
The stencils for this purpose are on loan at the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department.
V. Alarm Systems
1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and
employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in
turn save dollars and lives,
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 9, 1996
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer
BY: Jerry A. Dyer, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT: VACATION OF AGATE STREET - A request to vacate Agate Street located
between Hamilton Street and Tentative Tract 15730, and the quit-claiming of Lot "C"
of Tract 6846
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
On July 24, 1996, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 96-47, and approved
Tentative Tract 15730. Dudng the review process forthe tentative tract it was determined that the
necessity forthe extention of Agate Street, between Hamiton Street and Mignonette Street, is not
needed. A condition was placed upon the development of Tentative Tract 15730 for the vacation.
Tract 6846, recorded October 4, 1967, located to the north of Tentative Tract 15730, dedicated the
right-of-way for Agate Street, as well as creating Lot "C" of Tract 6846, a 1 foot wide strip along the
southerly boundary of Agate Street, for the purposes of dedicating ingress to and egress from Lot
"C." Said ingress and egress dedication rights will be vacated along with the quit-claiming of Lot
The vacation of Agate Street and the quit-claiming of Lot "C" of Tract 6846, along with the vacation
of the ingress to and egress from rights across Lot "C," is consistent with the General Plan and the
Development Code.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the finding that the street vacation and the
quit claim of Lot "C," along with the vacation of the ingress to and egress from rights across Lot "C,"
conforms with the General Plan. This finding will be forwarded to the City Council Council for
further processing and final appreval.
Respectfully submitted,
Dan James
Senior Civil Engineer
DJ:JAD:
Attachments: Vicinity Map (Exhibit "A")
Agate Street to be vacated and Lot "C" to be quit-claimed (Exhibit "B")
ITEM B
VICINITY MAP
EX~.IB~'F "A"
T ,~: ,..,o. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15780
EXHIBIT "B"
SCALD 1' = 50'
~ ~ HAMILTON STREET
~ B = 90'gO'g0'
L = 31.4~'
L = 31,4~' ~ Z~ T = eO,O0'
43 ; X~ .42 41
70.00'
70,00'
gS9'40'58'v } T S8~'40'58'~ 594,c~
LBT 'C'~ 60.00' X P.O.B.
TRACT NO. 6846 TRACT
ALLARD ENGINEERING
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA ' ~
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 9, 1996
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Brent Le Count, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14534 -
WILLIAM LYON HOMES - A residential subdivision and design review of detailed
site plan and elevations for a proposed 121 home subdivision on 23 acres of land
in the Low-Medium Residential designation (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre) of the
Victoria Community Plan located at the southeast corner of Victoria Park Lane and
Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-091-31.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Project Density: 5.3 dwelling units per acre.
B. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq:
North Flood control basin; Flood Control
South - Abandoned rail line, abandoned lumber yard, and vacant; Low-Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre).
East Southern California Edison corridor and Day Creek Channel; Utility Corridor and
Flood Control.
West Existing single family homes; Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per
acre).
C. General Plan Desiqnations:
Project Site - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre)
North Flood Control/Utility Corridor
South - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre)
East Flood Control/Utility Corridor
West Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre)
D. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and slopes gradually from north to south with an
average slope of 2 to 4 percent. There is no significant vegetation or other natural features
on the property.
ANALYSIS:
A. General: The applicant is proposing to develop 121 single family lots consistent with the
Victoria Community Plan. The lots would range in size from 5,000 square feet to 10,635
square feet with an average lot size of 6,420 square feet. Two landscaped pedestrian
"paseos" are proposed to connect internal streets with Victoria Park Lane and there is
provision for future access to an eventual regional trail within Edison/Day Creek right-of-way.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
VTT 14534 - WILLIAM LYON HOMES
October 9, 1996
Page 2
Three floor plans are proposed ranging in size from 1,333 square feet to 1,811 square feet,
each with three elevation styles. All corner lots are plotted with one-story homes, except for
Lot 43. The homes will have almost 6-foot deep porches/courtyards adjacent to the front
door. Consistent with the Victoria Community Plan, 40 of the 121 lots (33 percent) will be
recreational vehicle accessible.
The project is proposed with one access to Victoria Park Lane, and two on Rochester
Avenue. The Engineering Division recommends a single access to Rochester as shown in
"Alternate Access Street A" on the plans. As a result, Street A will exceed the 600 foot length
and requires a fire access gate across the opening to Rochester.
The project has been filed as a Vesting Tentative Tract Map; therefore, the applicant would
have the vested right to develop under the codes, regulations, and policies, including fees,
applicable at the date the application was found to be complete (August 21, 1996) should the
project be approved.
B. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee
(Macins. Fong) on September 17, 1996, and the Committee requested that the project be
brought back to the Committee with changes. The revised project was reviewed by the
Committee on October 1, 1996, and the Committee (McNiel, Macins, and Fong)
recommended approval with conditions. Refer to the attached Design Review Committee
Action comments (Exhibit "J").
C. Technical Review Committee/Gradinq Committee: The project was reviewed by both
Committees and determined, with recommended conditions of approval, to be in conformance
with applicable standards and ordinances. The applicant is proposing slopes within the
adjoining Southern California Edison corridor. The project has been conditioned to obtain
permission for said grading from SCE or eliminate slopes by constructing a retaining wall
along the east project boundary.
D. Neiqhborhood Meeting' The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on August 7, 1996.
Residents expressed a desire for installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Victoria
Park Lane and Rochester Avenue. The residents felt that given the proximity to Rancho
Cucamonga High School, the traffic signal would help reduce the chances for a traffic
accident. The Engineering Division is recommending that the traffic signal not be installed
at this time because Rochester Avenue, including the proposed project, does not have
enough traffic to justify signalization. Street lights are required at the intersections.
E. Environmental Assessment: In completing the Initial Study, staff determined that the site falls
withing the 65 Ldn noise contour due to traffic along Rochester Avenue and that a detailed
analysis of noise reduction requirements and noise insulation mitigation measures is needed.
The noise analysis recommends 4 to 6 foot high noise barriers (walls) be provided along
Rochester Avenue to bring the maximum exterior noise level down to an acceptable level.
Since the project is designed with 6 foot high perimeter walls along the Rochester Avenue
frontage, it conforms to this mitigation technique. The study also determined that standard
home construction as proposed will mitigate interior noise levels to an acceptable level.
Therefore, staff has determined that the project would not have a significant adverse impact
upon the environment. Issuance of a Negative Declaration is recommended.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
VTT 14534 - WILLIAM LYON HOMES
October 9, 1996
Page 3
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within
a 300 foot radius of the project site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Vesting Tentative
Tract 14534, and the design review thereof, through adoption of the attached Resolution of
Approval and issuance of a Negative Declaration.
City Planner
BB:
Attachments: Exhibit "A" Site Utilization/Location Map
Exhibit "B" Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Tentative Tract Map
Exhibit "D" Grading Plan
Exhibit "E" Sections
Exhibit "F" Landscape Plan
Exhibit "G" Floor Plans
Exhibit "H" Elevations
Exhibit 'T' Noise Contours
Exhibit "J" Design Review Action Comments dated October 1, 1996
Initial Study Part II
Resolution of Approval for VTT 14534
Resolution of Approval for Design Review of V'I'T 14534
DESIGn/GROUP, INC.
14534
~P
I
W.~.-b~.,o.~
"::'::i":""'~ MDS ~""":":""'~:~:'
...... :-,, . :....:-.. .. .
.... . Tl~rr,4 T/rE
......... TRACT
0~. TL1B / SHOV~rER
PLAN 1
1333 SO.FT.
PLANNING AREA X
VICTORIA VINEYARDS NORTH
w I L L I ^ M L Y O N H O M E S . ~ N C.
T R A C T ~ I 4 5 3 4
PLAN 2
1563 SO.FT.
PLANNING AREA X
VICTORIA VINEYARDS NORTH
WILLIAM LYON HOMES. INC.
TRACT ~14534
PLAN 3
1811 SO,FT.
PLANNING AREA X
~ VICTORIA VINEYARDS NORTH
WILLIAM LYON HOMES, INC. --._~,~
T R A C T # I 4 5 3 4 .......
ELEV~ON C
PLAN 1
PLANNING AREA X
VICTORIA VINEYARDS NORTH
WILLIAM LYON HOMES, INC.
T R A C T ~ 1 4 5 3 4
~ RIGHT I'A' ELEV. SHOWN) LEFT ('A' ELEV, SHOWN)
i~..~REAR 'A' . REAR 'B' REAR 'C'
pLANNING AREA X ~
VICTORIA VINEYARDS NORTH
WILLIAM LYON HOMES, INC.
T R A C T # I 4 '~ 3 4 ...........
ELEVATION A
PLAN 2 ELEVATION C
PLANNING AREA X
VICTORIA VINEYARDS NORTH
WILLIAM LYON HOMES, INC.
T R A C T ~ ~ 4 S 3 4
RIGHT ('B' ELEV. SHOWN) LEFT ('B' ELEV. SHOWN)
REAR 'A' REAR 'B# REAR 'C'
PLAN 2
PLANNING AREA X ..... ,
VICTORIA VINEYARDS NORTH
WILLIAM LYON HOMES. INC.
T R A C T # I 4 5 3 4
1 I'I
RIGHT ('A' ELEV. SHOWN) LEFT (PARTIAL 'B' ELEV. SHOWN) LEFT ('C' ELEV. SHOWN)
~ ,.,:...: ..... ;.. :,. :,, ,. :; ..i,L.,: !,!..~, ... ,.,, ,: .. i.,'~
~-L! ". ".'~?~. :,' '..,': ,'_.','.',_.
REAR 'A' REAR 'B' REAR
PLAN 3
PLANNING AREA X
VICTORIA VINEYARDS NORTH
WILLIAM LYON HOMES. INC. ~.
T R A C T # I 4 5 3 4
"' ,EXISTING NOISE CONTOURS"
" ?TM_~'14534 :
'= .. .... .,~ . · . ,, ,
CONSENT CALENDAR
ACTION COMMENTS
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14534 - WILLIAM LYON HOMES - The
design review of detailed site plan and elevations for a proposed 121 home subdivision on 23 acres of
land in the Low-Medium Residential designation of the Victoria Community Plan located at the
southeast corner of Victoria Park Lane and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-091-31
Desiqn Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
The Committee recommended approval of the project with the following conditions:
1. Provide surrounds on all windows and doors on all elevations of all home plans.
2. All corner side yard walls and connecting wails between homes shall be slump stone.
3. Provide slump stone block (as opposed to smooth face precision block) on north and south ends
of the wall along the east boundary of the project. Slump stone should extend approximately one
lot width or 60 feet along east wall from north and south ends.
4. Provide vine pockets along base of south and east boundary line walls and specify vine planting
in pockets to climb both sides of these walls.
5. Provide a minimum 3- to 4-foot variation in front yard setbacks.
6. Provide open beam, trellis like covers over exposed portion of porches proposed along sides of
Plan I homes.
7. Provide retaining walls to minimize corner side yard slopes.
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.: VTT 14534 Public Review Period Closes: October 9, 1996
Project Name: Project Applicant: William Lyon Homes, Inc.
Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the southeast corner of Victoria Park Lane and
RochesterAvenue-APN: 227-091-31.
Project Description: The design review of detailed site plan and elevations for a proposed 121 home
subdMsion on 23 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential designation (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the
Victoria Community Plan.
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an
Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is
proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
[] The Initia~ Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment.
[] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this
proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate
the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required.
Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related
documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic
Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847.
NOTICE
The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period.
October 9, 1996
Date of Determination Adopted By
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1 ) Project File #/Name: Tentative Tract 14534
2) Related Files:
3) Applicant: William Lyon Homes, Inc.
Address: 4490 Von Karman, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone #: (714) 476-5415
4) Project Description: 121 Sin.qle Family, Center Plot Lots
5) Project Accepted as Complete (date):
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for
all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers on attached sheets, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects
identified.
Yes Maybe N,_9o
1. EARTH - Will the proposal result in:
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in the geologic structure? ( ) ( (X)
b) Disruptions, displacement, compaction, or over covering of the soil? ( ) ( ('X)
c) Change in the topography or ground surface relief features? ( ) (X)
d) The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical
features? ( ) (X)
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? ( ) (X)
f ) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sand, or changes in siltation,
deposition, or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or
the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet, or lake? ( ) (X)
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards, such as earthquakes,
landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ( ) ) (X)
II. AIR - Will the proposal result in:
a) Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? ( ) ) (X)
b) The creation of objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) (X)
1
c) Alteration of air movement moisture, or temperature, or any change in
climate, either locally or regionally? ( ) ( ) (X)
Ill. WATER - Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in
either marine or fresh waters? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Changes in the absorption rate, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount
of surface runoff? ( ) (X) ( )
c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any body? ( ) ( (X)
e) Discharge into surface waters, or in alteration of surface water quality,
including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity? ( ) ( iX)
f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? ( ) ( (X)
g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or
withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ( ) ( (X)
h) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public
water supplies? ( ) ( (X)
i) Exposure of people or proper~y to water related hazards such as flooding
or tidal waves? ( ) ( ) (X)
PLANT LIFE - Will the proposal result in:
a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? ( ) ( (X)
b) Reduction in the number of any unique, rare, or endangered species of ( ) (X)
plants?
c) Introduction of new species of plants into an area or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing species? ( ) (X)
d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ( (X)
V. ANIMAL LIFE - Will the proposal result in:
a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of animals
(birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish, and shellfish benthic organisms
or insects)? ( (X)
b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare, or endangered species of
animals? ( ( (X)
c) Introduction of any new species of animals into the area or result in a barrier
to the migration or movement of animals? ( ) ( (X)
d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? [ ) ( ) (X)
2
VI. NOISE - Will the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels? ( ) (X) ( )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) [X) ( )
VII. LIGHT AND GLARE - Will the proposal.'
a) Produce new light and glare? ( ) ( ) (X)
VIII. LAND USE - Will the proposal result in:
a) Substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? ( ) ( ) (X)
IX. NATURAL RESOURCES - Will the proposal result in:
a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? ( ) ( ) (X)
X. RISK OF UPSET - Will the proposal involve:
a) A risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but
not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an
accident or upset conditions? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) (X)
Xl. POPULATION - Will the proposal:
a) Alter the location. distribution, density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? ( ) ( ) (X)
Xll. HOUSING - Will the proposal:
a) Affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? ( ) ) (X)
XIII. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION - Will the proposal result in:
a) Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ( ) ) (X)
b) Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? ( ) ) (X)
c) Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? ( ) ) (X)
d) Alterations to the present patterns of circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Alterations to waterborne, rail, or air traffic? ( ) ) (X)
f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? ( ) ) (X)
3
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES - Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need
for, new or altered government sen/ices in any of the fo~owing areas:
a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Schools? ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Parks and other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) (X)
0 Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) (X)
XV. ENERGY - Will the proposal result in:
a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy or require
the development of new sources of energy? ( ) ( ) (X)
XVI. UTILITIES and SERVICE SYSTEMS - Will the proposal result in a need for new
systems or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Communications systems? ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Water? ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Storm water drainage? ( ) (X) ( )
0 Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) (X)
XVII. HUMAN HEALTH - Will the proposal result in:
a) Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental
health)? ( ) (X)
b) Exposure of people to potential health hazards? ( ) (X)
XVIII. AESTHETICS - Will the proposal result in.'
a) The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? ( ) (X)
b) Creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ) (X)
XIX. RECREATION - Will the proposal result in:
a) Impact upon the quality of existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ) (X)
b) Restrict the religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ) (X)
4
XX. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Will the proposal:
a) Result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic
archeological site? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure, or object? ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) (X)
XXI. 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 major periods of California history or ( ) ( ) (X)
prehistory?
b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to
the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact
on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period
of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts which are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more
separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small,
but where the effect on the total of those impacts on the environment is ( ) ( ) (X)
significant.)
d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? ( ) ( ) (X)
XXII. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Narrative description of environmental impacts) -
See attached.
XXIII. DISCUSSION OF LAND USE IMPACTS (Examine whether the project would be consistent with existing
zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls) - See attached.
XXIV. 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):
"Z General Plan EIR
z~_ Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 Update of the General Plan
__ Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR
5
Z~'Victoria Planned Community EIR
B Terra Vista Planned Community EIR
m Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR
B Etiwanda North Specific Plan EIR
__ Other:
m Other:
XXV. DETI~RMINATION - On the basis of this initial evaluation:
a) I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared ...........................................................................(X)
b) 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 mitigation measures described on the attached sheets
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared .........................................................................)
c) I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment.
AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required ...............................................................
Preparer's Signature
Brent Le Count
Print Name and Title
July 8, 1996
Date
XXVI. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION (To be completed by applicant) -
I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this
Initial Study and the propp, sed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or
hereby agree to the prop sed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where
clearly no significant er~nmental effects would occur.
6
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKI,IST
Initial Study - Part II
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Project Description: TENTATIVE TRACT 14534 - William Lyon Homes - A request to construct
121 single family homes on 23 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential
designation of the Victoria Community Plan located at the southeast corner
of Victoria Park Lane and Rochester Avenue, APN: 227-091-31.
III. Water:
b) The absorption rate will be altered because of the paving and hard scape proposed.
All waters will be conveyed to approved drainage facilities which have been
designed to handle the flows. The project design includes storm drain improvements
to connect with existing storm drain system installed per the Victoria Planned
Community Drainage Implementation Policy.
VI. Noise:
a) The development of the project will increase the noise level by the mere fact that the
property is currently vacant. The level of noise increase that can be expected from
single family homes is not significant and is consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood.
b) According to the City's General Plan Figure V-9 the project site falls within a
projected 65 Ldn noise contour due to traffic along Rochester Avenue. A detailed
analysis of noise reduction requirements and noise insulation mitigation features has
been completed for the project. The study determined that the project design will
mitigate interior and exterior noise to acceptable levels.
VII. Light and Glare:
a) New light and glare will be created because the property is currently vacant. A
condition of approval requires the applicant to submit a lighting plan for review and
approval to ensure the light does not spill over onto adjacent properties.
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems:
e) The project will increase the amount of impervious surface thereby increasing runoff
from the site. The project design includes storm drain improvements to connect with
existing storm drain system installed per the Victoria Planned Community Drainage
Implementation Policy.
1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 14534, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 121 LOTS ON
23 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
(4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF VICTORIA PARK LANE AND ROCHESTER AVENUE, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-091-31.
A. Recitals.
1. William Lyon Homes has filed an application for the approval of Vesting Tentalive Tract
Map No. 14534, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject
Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application."
2. On lhe 9th day of October 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing
on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds lhat all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Pad A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented' to this Commission during the above-
referenced public headng on October 9, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at the southeast corner of Victoria Park
Lane and Rochester Avenue with a street frontage of 860 feet on Victoria Park Lane and 1,160 feet
on Rochester Avenue feet and an average lot depth of 880 feet from east to west, and is presently
vacant; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is improved with lhe Day Creek flood
control basin, the properly to the south consists of an abandoned Southern Pacific rail line and an
abandoned lumber yard, the properly to the east is Edison right-of-way and the Day Creek flood
control channel, and the property to the west is developed with single family homes.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and
any applicable specific plans; and
b. The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General
Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and
c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
V~ ~ 14534- WILLIAM LYON HOMES
October 9, 1996
Page 2
d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and
e. The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and
f. The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the
public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed
subdivision.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative
Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for
the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon
the findings as follows:
a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated
thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the
independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and. furlher, this Commission has reviewed and
considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application.
b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into
the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project. there is no evidence that the proposed project
will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife
depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff
reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public
hearing. the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in
Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below
and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Planninq Division:
1) Obtain permission from Southern California Edison for grading of
slopes within their property to the east or eliminate slopes by
constructing a decorative slump stone retaining wall.
2)Lot A shall be constructed as a greenbelt trail to the satisfaction of the
City Planner and City Engineer.
3) Developer shall submit documentation of disclosure to buyer(s) of Lots
15 & 16, prior to occupancy release, that Lot A is planned as a
pedestrian greenbelt trail connection to the future Community Trail
within the railroad corridor to the south.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
V'I'T 14534 - WILLIAM LYON HOMES
October 9, 1996
Page 3
Engineerinq Division:
1 ) The Developer shall provide street right-of-way within the William Lyon
Homes' current ownership for Victoria park Lane from Rochester
Avenue easterly to join existing Victoria Park Lane east of Day Creek
Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard from Victoria Park Lane to
Highland Avenue prior to final map recordation.
2) Victoda Park Lane shall be constructed from Rochester Avenue to Day
Creek Channel, including full median island landscaping and full
parkway improvements across the SCE easements and fronting the
Day Creek Basin
3) Install traffic signal luminaires, but not the traffic signal heads, in-lieu of
standard street lights at the intersection of Rochester Avenue and
Victoria Park Lane.
4) Install the master plan storm drain in Victoda Park Lane from Day Creek
Channel easterly to Day Creek Boulevard prior to January 1999.
5) Street "A" shall not intersect with Rochester Avenue (refer to Alternate
Access shown on Conceptual Grading Plan). Provide a numbered lot
to the City at the end of the cul-de-sac for emergency access to
Rochester Avenue.
6) Driveways on Corner Lots 20, 33, 43, 46, 49, 65, 78, 88, 98, and 111
shall be located the maximum distance allowed by the lot size from the
intersection BCR, to minimize conflicts between vehicles turning right
and those backing out of driveways. Perimeter walls shall not extend
past a projection of unit entry on Lots 1, 46, and 98, to allow visibility for
vehicles entering the tract.
7) A catch basin shall be provided at the southwest corner of Victoria Park
Lane and Street "L" and shall be installed at the BCR on Victoria Park
Lane.
8) Catch Basins shall be provided at the southwest and southeast corners
of Streets "B" and "C" and both shall be installed on the south side of
Street "C" to reduce the flows at the sumps on Streets "A" and "B" or as
othervise approved by the City Engineer. The catch basins' capacities
at the sump locations shall be designed for Q100 for the entire site.
9) The Developer shall make a good faith effort to contact SANBAG
regarding the possibility of acquiring excess railroad right-of-way along
the south tract boundary so it can be incorporated into the proposed
tract.
Fire Safety Division:
1) Provide Fire Department emergency access gate at the west end of "A"
Street at Rochester Avenue to the satisfaction of the Fire Safety
Division.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VTT 14534 - WILLIAM LYON HOMES
October 9, 1996
Page 4
..... ' 6. The Secretan/to this Commission shall cedify to the adoption of this R
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1996.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buffer, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamc
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passe
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular
Commission held on the 9th day of October 1996, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT#: Vestin,g Tentative Tract 14534 and Development Review thereof
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT: William Lyon Homes
LOCATION: Southeast corner of Victoria Park Lane and Rochester Avenue
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
Time Limits completion Date
1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not
issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval
2. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first,
the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community
Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However,
if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant
shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such
existing District prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and
prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this
condition shall be deemed null and void.
This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school
districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts
as a result of this project.
B. Site Development
1. The site shah 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 Victoria Community Plan.
e 2. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating aU Conditions of Approval shall be
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
Project NO. VTT 14534 & DR
Completion Date
3. AH site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for /
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removaJ, encroachment,
building, etc.) or prior to final map approva~ in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved
use has commenced, whichever comes first.
4. Approva~ of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, __/
all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
5. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the /
adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map.
6. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) and Articles of Incorporation of the /
Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions
and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shah be provided to the
City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the
name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever
said information changes.
7. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property / /
owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape
maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to
the issuance of building permits.
8. 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 pro.~ect's
perimeter.
C. 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.
D. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans)
1. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho /
Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
E. Landscaping
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping __ __/__
in this case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior
final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2. All private slopes in 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 /
slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion
control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be
installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
Project No. ',rFF 14534 & DR
Completion Date
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. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered
clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a
permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
4. For single 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 corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development
Code and/or Victoria Community 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. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
8. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and approval
prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth
characteristics of the selected tree species.
9. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
F. Environmental
1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock
Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash
deposit on any property.
2. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation
to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if
appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked
for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final repo.rt.
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.
SC - 3r96 3
Project No. V'FT 14534 & DR
Completion Date
APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
H. Site Development
1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical
Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes,
ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact
the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable
handouts.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to
existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may
include, but are not limited to: City Beauti~cation Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation
Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees.
3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and
prior to issuance of building permits.
I. 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 gradin9 plan.
2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to
perform such work.
3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the
time of application for grading plan check.
4, The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
J. Dedication and Vehicular Access
1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets,
community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment
and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map.
Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be
reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map.
2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from
street centerline):
85 variable total feet on Victoria Park Lane /
3. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. /
4. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for ____/
approved openings: Rochester Avenue and Victoria Park Lane .
Project NO, VTT 14534 & DR
Completion Date
5. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quitclaimed or delineated on the /
final map.
6. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall __/___
be dedicated to the City.
K. Street Improvements
1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped __/__ __
areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards.
Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement,
drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees.
2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: /
Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail island Trail
Rochester Avenue C X X e
victoria Park Lane X X c X X X a e
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and ovedays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall
be curvilinear per STD. 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for
this item. (e) Class II Bike Lane.
3. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights
on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be
posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City
Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior
to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a
construction permit sharl be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any
other permits required.
c.Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction
project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and
interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside
of BCR, ECR or any other locations approved by the City Engineer.
Notes:
(1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200
feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized stee~
with pull rope or as specified.
Project No. V'FT 14534 & DR
Completion Date
e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City __/__
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with /__ __
adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded
upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be
installed to City Standards. except for single family residential lots.
h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check.
4.Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in
accordance with the City's street tree program.
5. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with
adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project
intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or
industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required.
L. Public Maintenance Areas
1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall
be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance
of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians,
paseos, easements. trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance
District: Victoria Park Lane, Rochester Avenue, Lots B, C, and D, Lot off southwest corner for
emerqency access, Lot A.
2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
3. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the
developer until accepted by the City.
M. Drainage and Flood Control
1. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map
approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall
be installed as required by the City Engineer.
2. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured
from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk.
N. Utilities
1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas.
electric power, telephone, and cable 'I'V (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
2, The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.
Project NO. VTT 14534 & DR
Completion Date
3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucamonga County Water District (CCVVD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from
the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first.
O, General Requirements and Approvals
1. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way: __/____
SANBAG, Southern California Edison Company .
2. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City. covering the estimated operating costs for all __/__
new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building
permit issuance if no map is involved.
3. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed __/__
beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the
approved tentative map.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
P. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. .. __/__
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.
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 the fire department personnel
after construction and prior to occupancy.
3. Fire hydrants are required. AII required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed
and operahie prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing
materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel.
4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants,
if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a 4"
and a 2-1/2" 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.
X Other: Per Rancho Cucamonqa Fire District Ordinance No. 22
Projecl NO. V~T 14534 & ~)R
Completion Date
7. Plan check fees in the amount of $ 0 have been paid. An additional $125.00 shall be paid:
X Prior to water plan approval.
X Prior to final plan approval.
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.
8. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC,
UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14534, A RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION OF 121 LOTS ON 23 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW-MEDIUM
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF VICTORIA PARK LANE AND ROCHESTER
AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
APN: 227-091-31.
A. Recitals.
1. William Lyon Homes has filed an application for the approval of Development Review for
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 14534, as described in the title of this Resolution. Heroinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 9th day of October 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set f~dh in the Recitals,
Pad A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public headng on October 9, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at the southeast corner of Victoria Park
Lane and Rochester Avenue with a street frontage of 860 feet on Victoria Park Lane and 1,160 feet
on Rochester Avenue feet and an average lot depth of 880 feet from east to west, and is presently
vacant; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is improved with the Day Creek flood
control basin, the property to the south consists of an abandoned Southern Pacific rail line and an
abandoned lumber yard, the property to the east is Edison right-of-way and the Day Creek flood
control channel, and the property to the west is developed with single family homes.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above,
this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and
b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code
and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR FOR V t I 14534 - WILLIAM LYON HOMES
October 9, 1996
Page 2
c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of
the Development Code; and
d. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration,
together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the
application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the
findings as follows:
a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated
thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the
independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and
considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application.
b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into
the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project
will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife
depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff
reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public
hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in
Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set fodh below
and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Planninq Division:
1 ) Lot A shall be constructed as a greenbelt trail to the satisfaction of the
City Planner and City Engineer.
2) Provide surrounds on all windows and doors on all elevations of all
home plans.
3)All comer side yard walls and connecting walls between homes shall be
slump stone.
4) Provide slump stone block (as opposed to smooth face precision block)
on north and south ends of the wall along the east boundary of the
project. Slump stone shall extend approximately one lot width or 60
feet along east wall form nodh and south ends.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR FOR VTT 14534 - WILLIAM LYON HOMES
October 9, 1996
Page 3
5) Provide vine pockets along base of south and east boundary line walls
and specify vine planting in pockets to climb both sides of these walls.
6) Provide a minimum 3 to 4-foot variation in front yard setbacks.
7) Provide open beam, trellis like covers over exposed portion of porches
proposed along sides of Plan I homes.
8) Provide retaining wails to minimize corner side yard slopes.
Engineerinq Division:
1 ) The Developer shall provide street right-of-way within the William Lyon
Homes' current ownership for Victoria park Lane from Rochester
Avenue easterly to join existing Victoria Park Lane east of Day Creek
Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard from Victoria Park Lane to
Highland Avenue prior to final map recordation.
2) Victoda Park Lane shall be constructed from Rochester Avenue to Day
Creek Channel, including full median island landscaping and full
parkway improvements across the SCE easements and fronting the
Day Creek Basin
3) Install traffic signal luminaries. but not the traffic signal heads, in-lieu of
standard street lights at the intersection of Rochester Avenue and
Victoria Park Lane.
4) Install the master plan storm drain in Victoria Park Lane from Day Creek
Channel easterly to Day Creek Boulevard prior to January 1999.
5) Street "A" shall not intersect with Rochester Avenue (refer to Alternate
Access shown on Conceptual Grading Plan). Provide a numbered lot
to the City at the end of the cul-de-sac for emergency access to
Rochester Avenue.
6) Driveways on Corner Lots 20, 33, 43.46, 49, 65, 78, 88, 98, and 111
shall be located the maximum distance allowed by the lot size from the
intersection BCR, to minimize conflicts between vehicles turning right
and those backing out of driveways. Perimeter walls shall not extend
past a projection of unit entry on Lots 1, 46, and 98, to allow visibility for
vehicles entering the tract.
7) A catch basin shall be provided at the southwest corner of Victoria Park
Lane and Street "L" and shall be installed at the BCR on Victoria Park
Lane.
8) Catch Basins shall be provided at the southwest and southeast corners
of Streets "B" and "C" and both shall be installed on the south side of
Street "C" to reduce the flows at the sumps on Streets "A" and "B" or as
otherwise appmved by the City Engineer. The catch basins' capacities
at the sump locations shall be designed for Q100 for the entire site.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR FOR V'I'T 14534 - WILLIAM LYON HOMES
October 9, 1996
Page 4
9) The Developer shall make a good faith effort to contact SANBAG
...... regarding the possibility of acquiring excess railroad right-of-way along
the south tract boundary so it can be incorporated into the proposed
tract.
Fire Safety Division:
1) Provide Fire Department emergency access gate at the west end of "A"
Street at Rochester Avenue to the satisfaction of the Fire Safety
Division.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolutio~
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1996.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Bullet, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do
cedify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced. passed, and adoptel
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the F
Commission held on the 9th day of October 1996, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT#: Vestin9 Tentative Tract 14534 and Development Review thereof
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT: William Lyon Homes
LOCATION: Southeast corner of Victoria Park Lane and Rochester Avenue
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
Time Limits completion Date
1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not
issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval.
2. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first,
the appiicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community
Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However,
if any school district has previousiy established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant
shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such
existing District prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and
prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this
condition shall be deemed null and void.
This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school
districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts
as a result of this project.
B. Site Development
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include
site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and
grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code
regulations, and the Victoria Community Plan.
2. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
Project No. ',q"F 14534 & DR
Cornpier)on Date
3. All site, grading, landscape, Erdgation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for __/___
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.} or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved
use has commenced, whichever comes first.
4, Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, __/__
all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
5. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the __/__ __
adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map.
6. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) and Articles of Incorporation of the __/__
Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions
and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the
issuance of building perm)ts, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the
City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the
name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever
said information changes.
7. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property
owner. homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape
maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to
the issuance of building permits.
8. 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 wails/fences along the project's
perimeter.
C. 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.
D. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans)
1. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner. City Engineer, and Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
E. Landscaping
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping
in this case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior
final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2. All private slopes in 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1
slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion
control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be
installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
Project NO VTT 14534 & DR
COmpletiOn Date
3. All pdvate slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger size
shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks
in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or
larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered
clusters to so~en 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 corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development
Code and/or Victoria Community 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. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
8. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and approval
prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth
characteristics of the selected tree species.
9. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
F. Environmental
1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock
Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner. prior to accepting a cash
deposit on any property.
2. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation
to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if
appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked
for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report.
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.
sc-3~ss
Prolect No. V'T"r 14534 & DR
Completion Date
APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
H. Site Development
1. The applicant shall Comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical
Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes.
ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact
the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable
handouts.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to
existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may
include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee. Transportation
Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. and School Fees.
3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/pamel map recordation and
prior to issuance of building permits.
L Grading
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved grading plan.
2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to
perform such work.
3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the
time of application for grading plan check.
4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. __/__/__
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
J. Dedication and Vehicular Access
1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, / /__
community trails. public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment
and maintenance. and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map.
Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be
reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map.
2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from / /
street centerline):
85 variable total feet on Victoria Park Lane __/ /
3. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. __/__/
4. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for __1__1__
approved openings: Rochester Avenue and Victoria Park Lane .
so- ~9~ 4 ~.,/7/27
Proiect No. V'TT 14534 & DR
Completion Date
5. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quitclaimed or delineated on the
final map.
6. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall
be dedicated to the City.
K. Street Improvements
1. All public improvements (intedor streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos. landscaped
areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards.
Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement,
drive approaches. sidewalks. street lights, and street trees.
2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
Curb & A,C. Side- Drive Street Street Cornm Median Bike Other
Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail island Trail
Rochester Avenue C X X e
Victoria Park Lane X X c X X X a e
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall
be curvilinear per STD. 114. (d) If so marked. an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for
this item. (e) Class II Bike'Lane.
3. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights
on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be
posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City
Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior
to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any
other permits required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction
project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and
interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside
of BCR, ECR or any other locations approved by the City Engineer.
Notes:
(1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200
feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel
with pull rope or as specified.
Project NO, V'T'T 14534 & DR
Completion Date
e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with
adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded
upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g.Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be
installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots.
h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check.
4.Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in
accordance with the City's street tree program.
5. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with
adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project
intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or
industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required.
L. Public Maintenance Areas
1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall
be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance
of building permits. whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians,
paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance
District: Victoria Park Lane, Rochester Avenue, Lots B, C, and D, Lot off southwest corner for
emeraencv access. Lot A.
2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
3. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the
developer until accepted by the City.
M. Drainage and Flood Control
1. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map
approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall
be installed as required by the City Engineer.
2. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured
from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk.
N. Utilities
1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas.
electric power, telephone, and cable 'IV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.
Project No. VTF 14534 & DR
Completion Date
3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the __/ __
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD). Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from
the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first.
O. General Requirements and Approvals
1. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way:
SANBAG, Southern California Edison Company .
2. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all
new street lights for the first six months of operation. prior to final map approval or prior to building
permit issuance if no map is involved.
3. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed
beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the
approved tentative map.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
P. General Fire Protection Conditions
I 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project.
2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,500 gallons per minute.
a.A fire flow shall be conducted by the builde~developer and witnessed by fire department
personnel prior to water plan approval.
b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the onLsite hydrants shall__/__ __
be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the 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 __1__1 __
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" riser with a 4"
and a 2-1/2" 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 Districrs fire lane standards, as noted:
X All roadways. __/ /
O X Other: Per Rancho Cucamonqa Fire District Ordinance No. 22 . I__1__
Project NO. V'r'T 14534 & DR
Compretion Date
7. Plan check fees in the amount of $ 0 have been paid. An additional $125.00 shall be paid:
X Prior to water plan approval /
X Prior to final plan approval. /
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.
8. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC. /
UPC. UMC, NEC. and RCFD Standards 22 and 15.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' ~
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 9, 1996
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 88-02 - STANDARD PACIFIC - A request to amend
the termination date of the Agreement for Etiwanda Highlands (Tentative Tract
13564 and Tract 13565) for approximately 282 acres located at the northeast corner
of Wilson Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road.
BACKGROUND: These two Tentative Tracts were approved by the County of San Bernardino in
1987. This Development Agreement was approved by the City Council and entered into as of
January 7, 1989. The Development Agreement terminates on October 5, 1996 (eight years after
recordation of the first final map for Phase I) per Section 2.2. The first map was recorded on
October 5, 1988.
ANALYSIS: Staff has analyzed the proposed amendment. The applicant is requesting a ten-year
extension. Standard Pacific has been diligently pursuing completion of the tracts; however, build
out was delayed because of the slowdown of the housing market in the early '90s. Based upon
their continuing efforts to complete the project, staff believes the amendment is appropriate.
In 1992, the City adopted the Etiwanda North Specific Plan which established detailed architectural
and design guidelines. Standard Pacific has been voluntarily complying with these guidelines.
Staff believes it would be appropriate to add a condition to the development Agreement requiring
compliance with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valle Dail
Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners
within a 300 foot radius of the project site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the attached Resolution
recommending approval of the amendment to the City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
ity Planner
BB:DC:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Approved Master Plan
Exhibit "B" - Letter from Applicant
Resolution Recommending Approval
Development Agreement 88 02
ITEM D
·
~ -.~ ~ ~i! TRACT 13564.
TOTAL LOTS
· ,-, 182
TRACT 13565
TOTAL LOTS
364
EXHIBIT:
p~NNING ~:
THE CA~YN COMPANY
>~ REV. 6/88 R~. 9/88
STANDARD PACIFIC OF
ORANGE COUNTY
August 28, 1996 R E C E I IIE D
/IUG 2 9 1996
Dan Coleman
Principal Planner City ot Rancho C
City Of Rancho Cucamoga Plannin~ Divy~amonga
10500 Civic Center Drive on
Rancho Cucamoga, CA 91730
RE: Development Agreement Extension Tract 13564 & 13565
Dear Dan:
Enclosed is the Development Agreement Extension application for Tracts 13564 and 13565. As we
discussed previously, Standard Pacific requests an extension to our Development Agreement Ord.
348 so that ~ve may continue developing both tracts noted above.
Standard Pacific originally purchased Tract 13565 in 1988. Since then we have continued to develop
this site. Unfortunately with the slow down in the housing market in the early 90's, the buildout of
tile project has been at a slower rate than expected. However, the past few years have shown a
pickup in this market area and we are experiencing improved sales.
In 1994, Standard Pacific also purchased 182 lots north of the SCE easement 'knovm as Tract 13564.
Prior to our purchase, this project was near lbreclosure, and the City was concerned with the impact
of the failed property to the proposed Community Facilities District 88-2 (CFD-88-2). When
Standard Pacific purchased Tract 13564, we took on the increased tax obligation and provided the
City and the future municipal bond investors with the confidence that the projects would be
completed. As a result, the city moved forward with the issuance of bonds for CFD 88-2.
It is our intent to move forward with the development of tract 13564 within the next nine to twelve
months. We will also continue developing our current housing program in Tract 13565. Standard
Pacific greatly appreciates the opportunity to work with the City of Rancho Cucamonga to amend
this agreement. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely Yours ~'~
Project Manager
cc/Bill Fisheel
'!\,' ;- ' ~ : ~ ' CostaMesa. Calitbrnia 92626.7t4/668-4300
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
AMENDMENT NO. I TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 88-02, FOR
ETIWANDA HIGHLANDS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
1. Etiwanda Highlanda has filed an application for Amendment No. I to Development
Agreement No. 88-02, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution. the
subject Development Agreement is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 9th day of October 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing
on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Pad A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Therefore, pursuant to Section 65868 of the California Government Code, the Planning
Commission recommends approval of Amendment No. 1 of Development Agreement 88-02 as
attached hereto as Exhibit "1 ."
3. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1996
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Darker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DA 88-02 - ETIWANDA HIGHLANDS
October 9, 1996
Page 2
I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
cedify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 9th day of October 1996, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AN
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 88-02 FOR ETIWANDA
HIGHLANDS
A. Recitals.
1. The California Government Code Section 65868, now provides, in pertinent part, as
follows:
A Development Agreement may be amended, or canceled in whole
or in part, by mutual consent of the parties to the agreement or their
successors in interest.
2. On January 7, 1989, the parties hereto entered into a Development Agreement
concerning a residential development, "Etiwanda Highlands," (hereina~er referred to as "the
Agreement").
3. The original developer, Caryn Development Company, was succeeded by Standard
Pacific Corporation.
4. Standard Pacific Corporation has requested Amendment No. I to Development
Agreement No. 88-02, as described in the title of the Ordinance. Hereinafter, in this Ordinance,
the subject Amendment is referred to as the "request."
5. On October 9, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a fully noticed public hearing and recommended approval of this request.
6. On , the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a
duly noticed public hearing on the request.
7. All legal prerequisites prior to the recordation of this Ordinance have occurred.
B. Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find,
determine, and ordain as follows:
1. This Council specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this
Ordinance oare true and correct.
2. Therefore, pursuant to Section 65868, of the California Government Code, the City
Council approves Amendemnt No. I of the Development Agreement 88-02 as attached hereto as
Exhibit "1 ."
3. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be
published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a
newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the
City of Rancho Cucamonga.
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Attn: Debbie Adams
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 88-02
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
ENTERED INTO ON JANUARY 7, 1989 ENTERED INTO BY AND
BETWEEN CARYN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
A. Amendment.
1. Section 2.2, Term, is hereby amended to read as follows:
2.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the
Effective Date and shall, unless sooner terminated or extended as
hereina~er provided, terminate on October 5, 2006.
2. Section 4.3, Design Review of Project, is hereby amended to read as follows:
4.3 Design Review of Project. In order to implement the density,
allocation and height provisions herein specified, Developer shall
follow the applicable design review procedures of the City. In addition
to the design review procedures contained in the City Development
Code, the City's "Etiwanda North Specific Plan Design Guidelines"
shall be used in the design and review of all development within the
Property.
3. Exhibit "D" is hereby deleted in its entirety.
4. Other than as specifically amended hereby, the Agreement and each and
every term and provision thereof, shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Amendment No. 1 to
this Agreement as of the dates set forth below opposite the name of each such party.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Dated: By
William J. Alexander, Mayor
Dated: By.
Debra J. Adams, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA )
On , before me, Jan Sutton, Deputy City Clerk of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, personally appeared William J. Alexander, Mayor, and Debra J.
Adams, City Clerk, personally known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed
to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their
authorized capacity, and that by their signatures on the instrument the persons, or the
entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Jan Sutton, Deputy City Clerk
City of Rancho Cucamonga
STANDARD PACIFIC CORPORATION
By:
Date: Title:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss.
)
On , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public
in and for said County and State, personally appeared and
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who executed this
instrument as of STANDARD PACIFIC CORPORATION and
acknowledged to me that such officer is authorized to execute on behalf of such
corporation.
WiTNESS My hand and official seal.
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DCA 96-01, ISPA 96-04, & SUBAREA 18 AMEND. 96-01 - CITY Of R.C.
November *, 1996
Page 3
regulatory authority of any federal agency or authority.
"Antenna" shall not include any antenna used solely for amateur
radio or citizen's band radio purposes or equipment for cellular
communications, personal communication devices, or
similar wireless communication equipment.
B. "Antenna Permit" shall mean an approval of a minor
development review application as provided for in Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.06.020. For purposes
of utilizing the minor development review process, the provisions
of this Chapter shall prevail where inconsistent with any
provision of said Section 17.06.020.
C. "City Planner' shall mean the City Planner of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, or a designee thereof.
D. "Planning Department" or "Department" shall mean the Planning
Department for the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
E. "Surface Area" shall mean the sum of that area existing between
the outer dimensions of such antenna, as measured in three
dimensions. Surface area shall not include surface area of any
antenna support structure.
Section 17.26.030 - Antennas less than 20 square feet in surface
area.
A. Any antenna less than 20 square feet in area may be mounted
in the rear or side yard, or on the roof of any structure if the rear
or side yard prove unsatisfactory, subject to all conditions
hereinafter provided.
B. Any antenna less than 20 square feet in area may be mounted
in the front yard of any residence, subject to conditions
hereinafter provided, upon receipt of an antenna permit obtained
in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.26.070.
Section 17.26,040 - Antennas 20 square feet or greater in surface
area.
A. Each antenna, 20 square feet or greater in area, shall be
installed in the rear yard, except as hereinafter provided.
B. In the event overall quality of reception in the rear yard is not at
least equal to that received by cable, or other circumstances
preclude such installation, a permit may be obtained, in
accordance with the provisions of Section 17.26.070, authorizing
the antenna to be located in a side yard, on the roof of a
structure, or in the front yard, subject to conditions hereinafter
imposed.
CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 9, 1996
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 96-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~
A request to amend the antenna regulations in all zones to be consistent with
Federal Communications Commission recent regulations.
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-04 - CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the antenna regulations in all zones to be
consistent with Federal Communications Commission recent regulations.
SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01 - CITY OF RANCHO
.CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the antenna regulations to be consistent with
Federal Communications Commission recent regulations.
BACKGROUND: As a result of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Federal Communications
Commission adopted new regulations affecting municipal regulation of satellite dishes and other
antennas. Essentially, the Federal Communications Commission rules preempt local control of
satellite dish antennas 2 meters or less in diameter in Commercial or Industrial zones, and I meter
or less in diameter in Residential and all other zones. Also, the Federal Communications
Commission rules allow limited "reasonable" local control of larger antennas. A "reasonable"
regulation is one which "has a clearly defined health, safety, or aesthetic objective without
unnecessarily burdening the federal interests in ensuring access to satellite services and in
promoting fair and effective competition among competing communications service providers." The
Federal Communications Commission has indicated that aesthetic concerns alone, or fear of
electric and magnetic fields "EMFs" does not constitute a reasonable basis for regulation. Local
regulations may not favor one type of television reception over another.
ANALYSIS: The City Attorneys office has drafted an Ordinance consistent with the Federal
Communication Commission's recent rule making. The Ordinance is a comprehensive set of
regulations for all radio, television, and satellite dish antennas, excepting amateur radio and
citizen's band antennas. The Ordinance establishes the rear yard as the preferred location for
such antennas, with the side yards as the secondary choice, and a permit process (Minor
Development Review) where it becomes necessary for an antenna to be mounted in a front yard
or on a roof. Screening requirements are imposed, excepting satellite dish antennas 2 meters or
less in diameter in Commercial or industrial zones, and I meter or less in diameter in residential
and all other zones. The attached table summarizes our current and proposed regulations
(Exhibit "A").
ITEMS E, F, & G
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DCA 96-01, ISPA 96-04 & SPA 96-01 - CITY OF R.C.
October 9, 1996
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The amendments are exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated
thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3).
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached
Resolution recommending approval of the Ordinance.
Respectf ubmitted,
City Planner
BB:DC:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Table of Current and Proposed Regulations
Resolution Recommending Approval
Ordinance
SUMMARY OF ANTENNA REGULATIONS
Maximum Antenna Height 50 feet when in use 10 feet above peak roof line
(35 feet when not in use)
Maximum Size 1 meter if roof mounted; 10 feet 6 inches in diameter
Unlimited if ground mounted
Maximum Number Unlimited Unlimited if antenna is < 20 s.f. in area;
Two if antenna is > 20 s.f. in area
Location Not allowed in any setback 1. Not allowed in any setback area
area (front, rear or side) (front, rear, or side); and
2. Antennas <20 s.f. allowed in rear or
side yard or on roof. Allowed in
front yard with permit *; and
3. Antennas >20 s.f. allowed in rear
yard. Allowed in front or side yard
or on roof with pet~mit *
Screening Required? Yes if antenna is >1 meter dia. Yes if antenna is > 20 s.f. in area or in
front yard
Permit * Required? Yes if antenna is >1 meter dia. Varies (see Location above)
Maximum Antenna Height 55 feet (40 feet within 1 O0 feet 10 feet above peak roof line
of residential zone) / 75 feet in
industrial unless approved with
CUP
Maximum Size Unlimited 10 feet 6 inches in diameter
Maximum Number Unlimited Unlimited
Location No limitation 1. Not allowed in any setback area
(front, rear, or side); and
2. Antennas <20 s.f. allowed in rear or
side yard or on roof. Allowed in
front yard with permit *; and
3. Antennas >20 s.f. allowed in rear
yard. 'Allowed in front or side yard
or on roof with permit *
Screening Required? Yes Yes if antenna is > 20 s.f. in area or in
front yard
Permit * Required? Yes Varies (see Location above)
· Permit means approval of a Minor Development Review application.
,.. E-G
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 96-01, INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENT 96-04, AND SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT 96-01, PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF RADIO AND
TELEVISION ANTENNAS, INCLUDING SATELLITE DiSH ANTENNAS, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for the amendments described
in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject Development Code,
Industrial Area Specific Plan, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendments are referred to as "the
application."
2. On the 9th day of October 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing
on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public headng on October 9, 1996. including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located within the City; and
b. The proposed amendments will not have a significant impact on the environment.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. These amendments do not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan
and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan
and with related development; and
b. These amendments promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code;
and
c. That the proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DCA 96-01, ISPA 96-04, & SUBAREA 18 AMEND. 96-01 - CITY OF R.C.
October 9, 1996
Page 2
d. That the subject application is consistent with the objectives the Development
Code; and
e. That the proposed amendments are in conformance with the General Plan.
4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been prepared and reviewed in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. as amended, and the Guidelines
promulgated thereunder, and further, specifically finds that based upon substantial evidence, it can
be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendments will have a
significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed amendments are exempt pursuant
to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3).
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby recommends approval of Development Code Amendment No. 96-01,
Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 96-04. and Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendment 96-01
as shown in the Ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit "A."
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED 'FHIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1996.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buffer, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 9th day of October 1996, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE; PART 111, SECTION IV.A.5 OF THE
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN; AND SECTION 5.4 (PAGE 5-30) OF
THE SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN, pERTAINING TO THE REGULATION
OF RADIO AND TELEVISION ANTENNAS, INCLUDING SATELLITE DISH
ANTENNAS.
A, RecitalS.
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has heretofore conducted
and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on October 9, 1996, as required by law, and has
recommended the adoption of this Ordinance as set forth below.
2. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has heretofore conducted and
concluded a duly noticed public hearing on November *, 1996, as required by law, with respect to
the adoption of this Ordinance.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
B. Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find
and ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: In all respects as set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2___ : The City Council hereby finds and determined that the adoption of this
Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970,
as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of
Division 6 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
SECTION 3: The modifications to Title 17 and various specific and community plans, as
set forth herein, are in conformance with the City's General Plan.
SECTION 4: Section IV.A.5 of Part Ill of the Industrial Area Specific Plan is hereby
amended by deletion of the words "satellite dish antennas," wherever the same shall appear.
SECTION 5: Section 5.4 (Page 5-30) ofthe Subarea 18 Specific Plan is hereby amended
by deletion of the words "satellite dish antennas," wherever the same shall appear.
SECTION 6: Section 17.06.020.C.5 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read, in words and figures, as follows:
5. The construction and/or placement of silos, antennas not
regulated by Chapter 17.26, water tanks, roof or ground-
mounted equipment visible from public view, or similar
structures and equipment as determined by the City
Planner:
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DCA 96-01, ISPA 96-04, & SUBAREA 18 AMEND. 96-01 - CITY OF R.C.
November *, 1996
Page 2
SECTION 7: Section 17.08.060.1.4. of Chapter 17.08 of Title 17 of the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby repealed.
SECTION 8: A new Chapter 17.26 is hereby added to Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code to read, in words and figures, as follows:
Chapter 17.26
REGULATION OF TELEVISION. SATELLITE DISH, AND
RADIO ANTENNAS IN ALL ZONES
Sections:
17.26.010 Purpose.
17.26.020 Definitions.
17.26.030 Antennas less than 20 square feet in surface area.
17.26.040 Antennas 20 square feet or greater in surface area.
17.26.050 Screening required.
17.26.060 Conditions and restrictions applicable to all antenna installations.
17.26.070 Antenna permit application.
17.26.080 Antenna placement in non-residential zones.
Section 17.26.010 - Purpose.
Consistent with applicable federal regulations, including the limited
preemption created by the FederaJ Communications Commission as to locat
regulation of satellite dish antennas, this Chapter is designed to provide
local regulation of television, satellite dish, and radio antennas in order to
promote and protect the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the City
by minimizing significant visua~ impacts resulting from, and reducing safety
hazards associated with, the size, height, and placement of such antennas.
The standards set forth herein are designed to balance the City's concern
for public safety and aesthetic interests, with each person's right to transmit
or receive radio and/or television signals without imposing unreasonable
limitations on antennas, or preventing the transmission or reception of radio
and/or television signals, or imposing unreasonable costs on applicants
seeking to install such antennas.
Section 17.26.020 - Definitions.
For purposes of this Chapter, and except where otherwise indicated, the
following terms shall be defined as set forth in this subsection:
A. "Antenna" shall mean any antenna, together with any associated
support structure or related equipment, used for purposes of
transmitting or receiving radio, television, and/or satellite
broadcast signals, and not otherwise subject to the sole
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DCA 96-01, ISPA 96-04, & SUBAREA 18 AMEND. 96-01 - CITY OF R.C.
November *, 1996
Page 3
regulatory authority of any federal agency or authority.
"Antenna" shall not include any antenna used solely for amateur
radio or citizen's band radio purposes.
B. "Antenna Permit" shall mean an approval of a minor
development review application as provided for in Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.06.020. For purposes
of utilizing the minor development review process, the provisions
of this Chapter shall prevail where inconsistent with any
provision of said Section 17.06.020.
C. "City Planner' shall mean the City Planner of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, or a designee thereof.
D. "Planning Department" or "Department" shall mean the Planning
Department for the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
E. 'Surface Area" shall mean the sum of that area existing between
the outer dimensions of such antenna, as measured in three
dimensions. Surface area shall not include surface area of any
antenna support structure.
Section 17.26.030 -Antennas less than 20 square feet in surface
area.
A. Any antenna less than 20 square feet in area may be mounted
in the rear or side yard, or on the roof of any structure if the rear
or side yard prove unsatisfactory, subject to all conditions
hereina~er provided.
B. Any antenna less than 20 square feet in area may be mounted
in the front yard of any residence, subject to conditions
hereinafter provided, upon receipt of an antenna permit obtained
in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.26.070.
Section 17.26.040 - Antennas 20 square feet or greater in surface
area.
A. Each antenna, 20 square feet or greater in area, shal~ be
installed in the rear yard, except as hereinafier provided.
B. In the event overall quality of reception in the rear yard is not at
least equal to that received by cable, or other circumstances
preclude such installation, a permit may be obtained, in
accordance with the provisions of Section 17,26.070, authorizin9
the antenna to be located in a side yard, on the roof of a
structure, or in the front yard, subject to conditions hereinafier
imposed.
CiTY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DCA 96-01, ISPA 96-04, & SUBAREA 18 AMEND. 96-01 - CITY OF R.C.
November *, 1996
Page 4
Section 17.26.050 - Screening required.
A. Each antenna visible to the public which has a surface area
exceeding 20 square feet or greater, or which is permitted by this
Chapter to be mounted in the front yard, shall be screened to the
satisfaction of the City Planner, unless otherwise screened from
public view by existing structures, landscaping, or topographical
features. If such antenna is to be mounted directly, or through
a supporting structure, to the ground, then such screening shall
be accomplished through the use of appropriate plants, trees, or
shrubbery or a combination of such plants, trees, shrubbery, and
wood lattice or other material compatible with the residence or
other adiacent structures. Plants, trees, or shrubs to be utilized
for screening purposes shall have a minimum container volume
of 10 gallons at the time of planting. All such screening shall be
sufficiently high so as to screen at least 90 percent or more of
the antenna from public view.
B. Each antenna with a surface area 20 square feet or greater,
which is permitted by this Chapter to be roof mounted, shall be
screened with materials compatible with the structure upon
which such antenna is mounted and shall be screened to the
satisfaction of the City Planner. Such screening shall be
sufficiently high so as to screen at least 90 percent of the
antenna from public view.
C. This Section 17.26.050 shall not apply to satellite dish antennas,
2 meters or less in diameter in commercial or industrial zones,
or I meter or less in diameter in any other zone.
Section 17.26.060 - Conditions and restrictions applicable to all
antenna installations.
A. The preferred order of placement of any antenna is rear yard
first, then side yard, roof, and finally front yard. Notwithstanding
the foregoing. the preferred location shall be that location which
results in the greatest screening of the antenna from public view
by existing landscaping, structural, and/or topographical
features.
B. No antenna shall exceed 10 .feet in height above the peak roof
line of the structure upon which such antenna is mounted or the
height of the peak roof line of the closest building or residential
structure if such antenna is not to be roof mounted.
C. No antenna shall be installed in any required setback, within 5
feet of any property line, or in any other location which would
impede emergency access to any perdon of the subject proper~y.
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DCA 96-01, ISPA 96-04, & SUBAREA 18 AMEND. 96-01 - CITY OF R.C.
November *, 1996
Page 5
D. No satellite dish antenna shall exceed 10 feet, 6 inches in
diameter.
E. Each satellite dish antenna exceeding 5 feet in diameter shall be
earth-tone or neutral in color and shall be constructed of a "see-
through" mesh or open grid design. Solid surface receive-only
satellite dish antennas, such as solid, white fiberglass designs,
are prohibited.
F. Nothing herein shall excuse any person from obtaining all
permits otherwise required or from complying with any and all
applicable local and state codes, laws, and regulations pertaining
to the installation of antennas and/or antenna support structures.
G. No more than two, receive-only antennas 20 square feet or
greater in surface area, may be installed per residential lot or
parcel.
Section 17.26.070 - Antenna permit application.
A. Where a permit is required, or application therefor is authorized,
under any provision of this Chapter, each person desiring a
permit shall apply to the Planning Department and shall submit
a non-refundable processing fee in such amount as set by
resolution of the City Council and a completed application on a
form provided by the Department containing at minimum, the
following:
1. Name, address, and telephone number of the applicant;
2. The specific location where the applicant proposes to
install the antenna, including a detailed description of the
antenna design and any supporting structure proposed to
be utilized, including size, weight, and such other
information as the Department may require;
3. A statement as to why the proposed antenna may not be
satisfactorily installed, or will not satisfactorily function, in
a preferred area, as prescribed herein;
4. A description of the screening proposed to be utilized by
the applicant, or facts establishing that screening is not
required;
5. A sketch or other drawing, satisfactory to the City
Planner. showing:
(a) Location of physical features on the subject property;
CiTY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DCA 96-01, ISPA 96-04, & SUBAREA 18 AMEND. 96-01 - CITY OF R.C.
November *, 1996
Page 6
(b) Approximate dimensions (plus or minus 1 foot) of the
subject lot and physical features thereon;
(c) The specific location where the antenna, and
screening if required, are proposed to be installed;
(d) Any other physical features in the area of the subject
property which applicant feels would adversely affect
reception on those areas set forth herein as
"preferred;" and
(e) The design of the antenna and proposed support
structure.
6. If applying for a permit pursuant to subsection C, below, a
statement setting forth what the applicant contends are
exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of any of the
requirements of this Chapter.
B. All applicants for an antenna permit may be required to show, to
the satisfaction of the City Planner, that circumstances preclude
installation in a preferred area, or that reception quality in the
preferred area or areas is insufficient, as herein prescribed.
C. Any person aggrieved by any provision of this Chapter because
of exceptional circumstances may apply for an antenna permit
in accordance with the provisions of this Section.
D. The City Planner shall provide the applicant with a written
decision approving. denying, or conditionally approving an
antenna permit application within 21 calendar days following
submission of a completed application pursuant to this Chapter.
The City Planner's decision shall contain findings in support of
the decision. The City Planner's written decision shall be final
and shall become effective with 10 days following the date of
said decision unless, during such 10-day period, an aggrieved
applicant files a written appeal with the City Planner. Upon
receipt of a written appeal, the City Planner shall cause the
matter to be placed on the Planning Commission's agenda for
public hearing and consideration by the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission shall decide the appeal, with written
findings, within 60 days of submission. The Planning
Commission may sustain, reverse, or modify the City Planner's
decision and its decision shall be final unless appealed.
E. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, no antenna
permit shall be required as to any satellite dish 2 meters or less
in diameter in any commercial or industrial zone or 1 meter or
less in diameter in any other zone; however, such satellite dish
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DCA 96-01, ISPA 96-04, & SUBAREA 18 AMEND. 96-01 - CITY OF R.C.
November *, 1996
Page 7
antennas 2 meters or less in diameter in commercial or
industrial zones shall be subject to the provisions of Section
17.26.060, subsections A, B, C, D, F, and G.
Section 17.26.080 - Antenna placement in non-residential zones.
Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, all provisions herein,
including, but not limited to, permit and screening requirements, shall be
fully applicable to placement of antennas in non-residential zones. The
preferred order of placement shall be rear setback areas first, then side
setback areas, roof, and finally front setback areas.
SECTION 9: Preemption of inconsistent Municipal Code, specific plan, and community
plan provisions.
The provisions of this Ordinance shall preempt and supersede any and all provisions
contained in Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, and in any specific plan or
community plan in effect, as amended from time to time, which are inconsistent herewith, provided,
however, that the enactment of this Ordinance shall not be deemed to excuse any violation of any
provision of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, including Title 17, or of any provision of any
specific plan or community plan, occurring prior to the effective date hereof.
SECTION 10: Penalties for violation of Ordinance.
It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, or corporation to violate any provision
or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Ordinance hereby adopted. Any person,
firm, partnership, or corporation violating any provision of this Ordinance or failing to comply with
any of its requirements shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall
be punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding six months, or by
both such fine and imprisonment. Each and every person, firm, partnership, or corporation shall
be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or any portion thereof during which
any violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance is committed. continued, or permitted by
such person, firm, partnership, or corporation, and shall be deemed punishable therefore as
provided in this Ordinance.
SECTION 11: Civil remedies available.
The violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance hereby adopted shall constitute a
nuisance and may be abated by the City through civil process by means of restraining order,
preliminary or permanent injunction, or in any other manner provided by law for the abatement of
such nuisances.
SECTION 12: Severability.
The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word
of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent
jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptire legislation, the remaining provisions, sections,
paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.
Oily of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
ROBERT H. DeBERARD
D
October 8, 1996
Planning Commission OCT 9 ~9~
city of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive Ci~ ~anchoOu~ '
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 an~g Oivis~o~ga
Re: DeBerard Home Ranch, South-west corner of Sixth Street and
Archibald, Rancho Cucamonga.
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
During the course of reviewing the documentation provided with the zone
change materials certain inaccuracies were noted relative to the
DeBerard family and that portion of the study area that has been the
DeBerard home place since approximately 1902. When originally developed
by W.H. DeBerard in 1902 the property at the south west corner of Sixth
Street and Archibald Avenue was planted to peaches and grapes.
In addition to the eighteen acres located on the south west corner of
Sixth and Archibald the DeBerard family has owned and farmed properties
on the north east corner of Fourth and Vineyard including the land
currently occupied by the Stater Brothers center and the Daily Bulletin;
the Vineyard Freeway Center property on the seuth side of Fourth Street
at Baker in Ontario, as well as others in the West End. Robert DeBerard
and his son Jeff continue to farm, currently tending in excess of two
hundred acres of vineyards in the valley.
The DeBerard family will not oppose the propcsed master plan change to
residential use for the bulk of the property comprising the project
area. The family does feel strongly however that the frontages on both
Fourth Street and Archibald including the entire eighteen acres
comprising the DeBerard home place, be master planned fer commercial
use.
The inclusion of commercjal zoning as suggested in Option 3 of Figure 8-
2 of the Draft EIR for the project area provides many benefins to the
City of Rancho Cucamonga and its residents. First, the i~c]usjon of the
commercial areas takes advantage of the commercial benefit provided by
high traffic flows on both Archibald and Fourth as well as the
significant traffic flows on Sixth Street. Second, it provides a buffer
to the residential lots from the significan~ noise, air polluEion and
pther impacts of the large traffic flows found on Archibald and Fourth
Street. F~.naliy, the commercial use is compatible with other retail
commercial, industrial/commercial, and office uses that already exist on
both Archibald Ave. and Fourth Street- The family is of the opinion
however that Office uses on Archibald will be significantly and~
negatively impacEed by the preponderance of excellent office product on
nearby Haven Avenue. Our recommendation would be that commercial zoning
when approved not be limited ~o office producE.
Ber Jeffrey R: DeBerard
P.O. Box 1757/Upland, Californ!P 91785
October 8, 1996 R E C E I V E D
OCT 8 1996
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division Planning Division
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807-10500 Civic Center Dr.
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
Concerns and Questions -
Re: Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan
Subarea 16 Redesignation EIR
State Clearinghouse No. 95112019
Dear City Planners:
I am opposed to the zone change as proposed. I concur with the issues and
concerns raised by the concerned citizens of Rancho Cucamonga in Carla
Florance's letter to Alan Warren, Associate Planner, dated August 30,
1996.
I believe that the E.I.R. documents enough negative impact on traffic/
circulation, air quality, noise, fire protection, police protection, schools,
water supply, sewage, solid waste, storm drainage and cultural resources
to warrant a denial of the zone change by the planners of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga.
I am not convinced that our city is prepared at this time to deal with the
negative impacts that appear to be inevitable if this zone change is
granted.
I am sure that Griffin Industries takes great pride in their projects. I
don't think that the Griffin project in itself is the issue. Whatever quality
housing may or may not ultimately be built if this zone change is granted,
is not our biggest problem. I feel that our city planners will be involved
from the inception to the completion of the project to monitor for an
acceptable quality of housing. I am deeply concerned about what happens
after Griffin has completed its work. Griffin would not embark on a
project like this, I am sure, without parameters of profit and loss well
defined/secured/protected. The City of Rancho Cucamonga must do the
same, please, for the rest of us.
We keep hearing from proponents of the zone change that we don't have a
choice, that land owners can do whatever they want with their property
and that no others have shown any interest in doing anything on this land
so this is what's going to be done whether we like it or not. And, "...for
heck sake, wouldn't you rather have a residential area that a factory...?"
As I understand it, landowner's can't "...do whatever they want...", that
city planners and the public do have a say, and that the choices aren't just
between having a factory or houses/townhouses/apartments, or for
mandating that "something has to be done with that property right now!"
The E.I.R. certainly makes the case, from my point of view, that if anything
at all is done right now, much re-examination of options must be done.
Griffin Industries, as thoughtful as they may be, will have little interest
in staying around and running the Cornerpointe the way Disney manages
Celebration, Florida. The E.I.R. contains the data which shows that our
city is not equipped at this time to deal with all the negative impacts that
would be generated by granting this proposed zone change.
I think that the City of Rancho Cucamonga is to be commended for much of
what's being accomplished: our Civic Center, the Epicenter, the
commercial buildings and landscaping on Haven and Milliken... But I think
our city may be missing a terrific opportunity in this part of Rancho
Cucamonga. We are the Gateway to Rancho Cucamonga and the Ontario
International Airport! There are going to be many visitors coming our
way--not just up Haven or Milliken. There is so much potential here--not
just to preserve our cultural and historical heritage (as outlined in the
E.I.R.-although their "plan for preservation" is ludicrous), but to showcase
the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the whole area. Rancho Cucamonga is
not just what's above Foothill Blvd. or up Haven Ave. We have an
opportunity to present Rancho Cucamonga to the world's visitors by
preserving some of the vineyards on the property, the Lucas Ranch
Complex and some of the out buildings. Historic buildings from other
parts of Rancho Cucamonga could be moved to the Gateway
Historical/Cultural Complex.
I envision a wonderful combination of preservation and commerce. We
could have a visitor's center to compliment the historical/cultural
components of the area. Architecturally valid commercial space could be
added responsibly that would encourage our area's professionals--
architects, attorneys, computer software engineers, multimedia
specialists, city planners...to locate their offices here (much more
convenient for those with out-of-area/national/international clients)_
Those professionals who benefit and search for an easy-access-to-the-
airport location.
One could envision the ultimate use of the property with players who may
or may not yet be involved who can bring this plan to fruition. It's my
understanding that the city 'planners and concerned parties often have the
opportunity to bring new participants into a project. Again, I am not
impugning the motives of Griffin Industries nor the quality of their
projects. Nor do I think that the City of Rancho Cucamonga would not be
involved in the initial phases of the project, to ensure acceptable
quality/practices. But developers move on, city planners have new
projects. Now is the time to make sure that it's right, that irreversible
mistakes aren't made.
Reality warrants a deep concern with what will be the problems and
negative impact of the project--specifically the zone change to low-
medium density housing. These problems will be with us on an ongoing
basis. The City of Rancho Cucamonga does not seem to have any control
over absentee speculator/landlords who are benefiting from programs
meant to help those truly in need, who show no interest in maintaining
their properties. We are afraid that a zone change in our area will result
in more absentee/speculator landlords with no interest in maintaining
their properties, rather than those hoping to buy their first home who take
great pride in their homes and that accomplishment. Are those potential
home owners going to choose to buy in this project?
Rancho Cucamonga does not appear to have the resources at this time to
enforce quality of life regulations, while it does have the
interest/regulations to enforce the maintenance and beautification of its
commercial properties.
The City formulated a Master Plan in 1982 that we would hope and assume
addressed what is best for the residents who already live in this area, as
well as the City of Rancho Cucamonga in general. I ask you to consider
with care this request for a zone change.
Again, the E.I.R. contains all the information one needs to conclude that a
zone change to low-to-medium density housing would have a continuing
negative impact on the residents of the area, causing an ongoing
instability of services and quality of life; with the City of Rancho
Cucamonga losing the true, positive potential of the Gateway to Rancho
Cucamonga and the Ontario International Airport. A zone change to low-
to-medium density housing is not in the enlightened self-interest of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga or its residents.
Sincerely,
Dorothy I. Nielsen
9564 Meadow St.
Ranoho Cucamonga, CA
91730
October 9, 1996
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
RE: Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 16
Redesignation--Draft Environmental Impact Report
Dear Planning Director and Board Members:
In response to the Draft EIR for the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea
16 Redesignation, I would like to offer the following response which will
explain why I am opposed to the land use redesignation from light industrial
to low-medium density residential.
The EIR indicates that there will be significant traffic/circulation problems
primarily at the intersections of 4th and Vineyard and 4th and Archibald at
buildout. There will be right-of-way issues that will effect proposed street
improvements that may not be mitigable. Traffic will wait longer at inter-
sections and freeway egress will be slower thus increasing travel time.
On site and surrounding air quality during and after the construction phase
'will adversely impact the area. Carbon monoxide (CO) emission levels and
fine particulate matter (PM O) will exceed both federal and state air quality
standards. Ambient air wil~ be compromised because of toxic vehicle emissions
during construction. The construction phase "can be expected to occur
periodically over the next couple decades, or continually over the next 5-7
years" (p.5.3-8). There is also an indication that the jobs-to-housing ratio
is somewhat "jobs poor" (p.5.3-12) for the City's balance.
The possibility of an 8 foot sound barrier wall at the entrance or gateway
to the city of Rancho Cucamonga to help mitigate airport, street, and freeway
noise pollution as well as a 91' foot cellular transmission tower strongly
suggest that a potential residential buyer may go elsewhere.
Fire and police protection response time is already 19 minutes when dispatching
from the station. Cucamonga Cornerpointe (the project) is located in Beat 2
which now has the highest crime volume and there is no indication that any
more officers will be hired. Further, Federal-Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
October 9, 1996
Planning Director and Board Members
Page 2
recommends that the City is currently understaffed when comparing officer
to resident ratios.
I agree that our schools are functioning and operating at capacity levels
and that there are no plans to build new schools. The project will bring
hundreds of new students to the districts which will further impact our
schools and compromise their education. The City is in a "rapid growth"
mode (p.5.7-1) but introducing a Mello-Roos District will deter potential
buyers by imposing a tax hardship or bring a decline in home sales.
During drought years contracted water delivery to the project site may be
decreased thus limiting or restricting existing or project water usage.
Chino's Treatment Plant No. 4 is scheduled for completion in 1998, until
then excess burden will be placed elsewhere for processing reclaimed water.
I am concerned that water pressure during and after the project construction
will be adversely effected.
Milliken Landfill is scheduled to close in 1996 and Mid-Valley and Colton
Landfill are scheduled for closure in 1999/2000 because of capacity limits.
These closures and the lack of feasible landfill sites in the area is a
serious problem that is not adequately addressed in the EIR.
Flooding in the project area has been a serious problem in the past. Storm-
water pollution and onsite flooding can significantly effect the southwesterly
flow of runoff rainwater. Fourth Street at Archibald, Hellman, and Vineyard
will be adversely effected by flooding caused by lack of water absorption
and will cause and compound traffic and circulation problems.
Lastly, the EIR suggests that the vineyards and homes on the buildout site
be photographed and documented and sent to the library for future reference.
Rancho Cucamonga has an opportunity to preserve a bit of history and maintain
a current cultural perspective and preserve city heritage. The grape
vineyards are active, alive, and a part of the environment that should not
be altered. If all the vineyards in the City are plowed under and bulldozed
away the City will have to reconsider their grape logo on their stationery
and possibly rename The Grape Harvest Festival...you must think the
vineyards are important.
Sincerely,
Carla Florance
9580 Meadow Street
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 989-3262
AdminiStration
Board of Trustees John T. Aycock
Evelyn L. Branson Su~.rint~d~t
Robert S. DeMallie, Jr. Karen Wffiett
Elsie P. Millet
David J. Ortega Claudia Maidenberg
Julian Rincon
Teaching in the Present, Focusing on the Future!
8776 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730-4698
(909) 987-8942 / FAX (909) 980-3628
October 9, 1996 FIE C E I V E D
OCT 9 1996
Chairman and Members of the Planning Com/~issioa .,~ City of Rancho Oucamonga
City of nandio'euvc~_'o,ga ~.. ~-:~:" ~!:~-:~-'~"'~-~i~, . Planning Division
~ ~ n John
On b~half of th~,~camonga School District Boa~'d of Trustw. s and Superintende t,
Aycock, :I'am iUUn~i~n?s~re~ding Agend.~':Ite'm~'H, I, }.k~?..~.d L all of which relate
to the CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC Project located We~t of Archibald Avenue. East
of Hellman A~6nfi&'Nd~th'~f 4th Stre~t and South of 6th Sweet. (GPA. 95-03A: ISPA 95-04.
DDA 95-02. TentatiXe Tract 15727~ and respectfully request that this letter be entered into the
record for suci~Ubi{c h~ing.. "~' )~ ~...
~L'~d~moX~',~ho~/D'k/~4ct has not been given~a~te time .~"~ with
representatx'v'&/'of GriffiWI~lustries, Inc. to discuss the Dist~ict's issues ~nd con~,erns related to
the pby i imp. ct oi Tpro a a:/ ni..ict'. f cinties.
Griffin h~t/~s, ';;" 'm~Itdd;~he District on Monaay,
Administrd~&;'tha~;ri~ih~ Project" was sc~i~Ri for Publl¢~H~arin~0~i October 9,
Th~:i~pact of 9¢"hroposed project on the District and its facil'~;:will ~b~;s'gn'~cant.
age chilaii.~j_i~.d..td~'ga~a;a b~ the ~oj~t Wi. ll~ .r.~9,uj_r:~.a, dai~i.o,nal haif~g at beth the
elementary ~n'd middle Seh6ol
The "Cornerpointe Project' is currently located in THE ONTARIO CENTER SCHOOL
(TOCS) attendance area. Based on the anticipated number of K-5 students from the project,
approximately 183, that site will r~luire the construction of a minimum of six (6) additional
Page Two
Letter: Planning Commission
October 9, 1996
classroom. As of today, each room in TOCS is fully occupied. Even if the District were to
alter the attendance area where the project is located, beth of the District's other elementary
schools, Los Amigos and Cucamonga, are already at full capacity.
The Rancho Cucamonga Middle School, serving 6-81h grade students, will receive
approximately ninety-two (92) additional students from the development. Accordingly, the.
school will need to construct a minimum of three (3) new classrooms to adequately house the
students. There are, as of today, no vacant classrooms in the Middle School. In addition, the
Rancho Cucamonga Middle School has "special needs' such as science laboratories with limited
capacities, physical education locker rooms with limited capacities, adequate seating facilities for
lunch service, adequate seating for multi-purpose/auditorium purposes, to name but a few.
The impacts from the project cannot be mitigated by the fees currently assessed by the
District. However, since the project involves a legislative act (i.e. a zone change, general plan
amendment, and specific plan), the limitations set forth in the statutory school fee legislation
(Govt. Code Sections 53080 et seq & 65995 et seq) do not apply. [William S. Hart Union High
School District v. Regional Planning Commission, 277 CaI.Rptr. 645]. Accordingly, the City
can require mitigation in excess of statutory school fees. The proposed mitigation conditions for
school facility impacts do not mitigate the impacts to a level of insignificance as required by law.
The proposed mitigation condition is not adequate since it is indefinite, uncertain and speculative.
Moreover, it is not permissible to defer the development and implementation of a mitigation
measure until after project approval.
The EIR fails to adequately discuss alternatives such as non-student generating housing
and phased development. The project will also have significant adverse impacts upon traffic and
circulation as well as health and safety related environmental impacts (such as fire, safety and
transmittable diseases) from overcrowded classrooms.
As discussed above, the project will have significant adverse physical impacts upon the
environment which the City has failed to adequately mitigate.
All of the above mentioned issues and concerns must be discussed and fully mitigated
prior to approval of the project and the EIR.
It is our understanding that the General Plan in Rancho Cucamonga requires that public
infrastructure be in place before residential developments are allowed to proceed. The project,
as currently planned, is inconsistent with the City's General Plan. Under State law, the project
must be consistent with the City's General Plan and until the mitigation measures are adopted to
fully mitigate school facility impacts, this project will remain inconsistent with the City's
General Plan.
Page Three
L~tter: Planning Commission
October 9, 1996
In order to fully mitigate the school facility impacts from the project, the District requests
that the EIR be revised to include a mitigation condition requiring that the developer fully
mitigate the project's school facilities impact by entering into a mitigation agreement with the
District prior to issuance of building permits. Absent this mitigation measure, the City is
required by law to deny approval for the project. In the alternative, the District requests the
continuance of the hearing on this matter.
Business/Personnel Services
cc: Board of Trustees
John T. Aycock, Superintendent
Mr. Kenneth Levy, Esq., and Mr. Thomas Kovacich, Esq.,
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud and Romo
Larry Henderson, Principal Planner
October 3, 1996
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 95-03A
Dear Mr. Warren,
As the date approaches for the public hearing on the
above matter I would like the planning commission to
consider a few more items before reaching its decision.
Having lived here since 1949 I can tell you that the
overhead air traffic has increased tremendously- Everything,
but not limited to; circling jumbo jets, cargo planes
(heading northwest), private aircraft, all types of
helicopters etc. Then it gets worse in the winter when air
traffic is re-routed due to the Santa Ana winds affecting
the landing pattern. Feel free to come down so you can
experience the noise for yourselves.
Rancho Cucamonga should not have to deal with the same
noise problems that Ontario had to solve a few years back.
The complaints that came from private residences (not from
office or industrial buildings) resulted in Ontario having
to spend a lot of money to make resident. s accept the noise.
We would not put homes at 4th & Milliken, or 4th & Haven.
So why would we build homes at 4th & Archibald?
I feel that the simple answer to this amendment problem
boils down to two questions;
1. Would you personally buy a house here to live
and raise your family? I believe your answer
would be no.
2. Would you personally locate your office or business
here? I believe your answer would be yes. With the
high volume of traffic and its proximity to the new
airport terminal, it would be the perfect spot.
George T. Assanelli
Lucas Ranch Complex
9510 Archibald Ave.
Cucamonga, CA 91730 .. R E 0 ~ V 5 D
cc; Councilmember James V. Curatoio O~l B ~
Councilmember Paul A. Biane
C~yCRanc~oCUcamO~a
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 9, 1995
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buffer, City Planner
BY: Alan Warren, AICP. Associate Planner
SUBJECT: INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 16 REDESIGNATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE
LLC - A public hearing on a draft Final EIR prepared for General Plan Amendment
95-03A, Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04. Development District
Amendment 95-02, and Tentative Tract 15727 to authorize the development of 351
single family dwelling units and a neighborhood park by the reclassification of
approximately 82 acres from Industrial Park to Low Medium Residential
dwelling units per acre). and the consideration by the City of alternative land use
and zoning designations of Office. Commercial. Low Medium Residential (4-8
dwelling units per acre), and Low Residential (2~, dwelling units per acre) for the
remaining 60 acres of land within the area bounded by Sixth Street on the north,
Archibald Avenue on the east. Fourth Street on the south, and Hellman Avenue and
the Cucamonga Creek on the west. APN: 210-062-02, 05, 06, 08.10.11, 13, 17.
18, 19, 26., 28, 31, 32.33, 34, and 39.
ABSTRACT/INTRODUCTION: Upon submittal of General Plan Amendment 95-03A, City staff
determined that a focused environmental impact report, in conformance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), would be needed to address the anticipated impacts of the
proposal. The draft Final Environmental impact Report (FEIR), including responses to comments,
has been completed. The purpose of this hearing is to review the report, public comments, and
responses to comments concerning the adequacy of the FEIR. After receipt of public testimony
and Planning Commission discussion. staff recommends that the Commission consider
recommending certification of the EIR to the City Council. If issues are raised that the Commission
believes require responses not immediately available during the meeting, staff recommends that
the item be continued in order to complete any responses or revisions.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
A. Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated: On November 2, 1995, a notice of preparation of a
Draft EIR for General Plan Amendment 95-03A and Tentative Tract CFF) 15727 was
circulated. In that notice, the project area was defined as being within Subarea 16 of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan. This area is larger than that of the proposed tract and
neighborhood park because of the City's decision to study the proposal within the context of
ITEM H
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
EIR - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 2
the larger 142-acre subarea. The EIR content was designed to be a planning tool to help
determine appropriate land use arrangements for the enlarged study area. This decision
resulted in an EIR that addresses impacts from the following perspectives:
1. The specific residential development proposal of 351 units (now 342) and its
relationship to the remaining land within the subarea and surrounding neighborhood.
2. The most intensive or "worst case" scenarios for each type of land use were
considered. This aspect of the EIR reviewed various land use alternatives for the
specific project as well as the remnant subarea portions not part of the tract application.
These alternatives were included to provide the Planning Commission and City Council
with a board range of alternative land use relationships upon which to determine the
most beneficial plan for the area.
B. Draft FEIR circulated: The Notice of Completion (NOC) of the draft EIR was forwarded to the
State Clearinghouse on July 17, 1996. The 45-day comment period ended on August 30,
1996. with the City accepting comments received up until September 3, 1996, because of the
Friday weekend and Labor Day office closings. The NOC was posted on the property on July
15, 1996, and copies of the draft EIR were mailed to those responsible agencies that
requested copies. The NOC was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on July 18.
1996.
C. Correspondence: Nine letters were received. The letters and the responses are attached
under Correspondence/Response to Comments. This material will be added to the draft EIR
to form the Final EIR when certified by the City Council.
D. Response to Comments: Generally, the changes are technical, reflecting comments from
responsible agencies. The responses describe the disposition of significant environmental
issues raised. They include revisions that can be made to the proposed project to mitigate
anticipated impacts or objections. Also, detailed rationale is provided explaining why
comments were not incorporated if the City does not agree with the recommendations and/or
objections raised in the comments. The most significant disagreement is with the State
Department of Conservation's assertion that the site is a designated deposit of aggregate
resources and, therefore, potentially affected by resource protection requirements. Staff is
following up on this issue as it can potentially affect a significant aspect of developing portions
of the City. In short, staff believes the basis for the State's comments is in error.
E. Summary of Siqnificant Impacts: The FEIR has been prepared according to CEQA and State
guidelines and staff suppods the adequacy of the document. The document's primary thrust
is the evaluation of the "worst case" buildout potential for 92 acres of Low Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre) with the remaining 46 acres being Industrial Park land. The
"worst case" accounts for the largest residential unit count (659) allowed for under the density
range. The EtR, as required, addresses project impacts on the site in its present
undeveloped condition. The document also moderates the severity of impacts (air quality,
traffic, etc.) by its acknowledgment of the site's approved industrial land use and anticipated
impacts. This approach provides discussion for "no build" and "currently permitted buildout"
scenarios under the "No Project" alternative (please refer to the EIR, page 8-1 ).
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
EIR - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 3
At the beginning of the Executive Summary, the potentially significant impacts, recommended
mitigation measures, and the potential for unavoidable adverse impacts are listed. Of the
environmental impacts identified, many can be mitigated to a level of not significant. Other
items have been mitigated to the maximum extent feasible, but still have not been mitigated
to a level of below significance. The FEIR identifies four impacts that would not be reduced
to a level less than significant after implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, they
are as follows:
1. Traffic/Circulation - Each development within the total project area ('IF 15727 and
adjacent properties) will be required to mitigate all on-site traffic and specified off-site
impacts through installation of frontage improvements consistent with the City of
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan's Circulation Element, as well as contribute to the
City's Transportation Development Nexus Fee program for off-site impacts. The
proposed roadway improvements should improve the areas of significant traffic impacts.
However, there may be insufficient right-of-way available, or feasible to obtain, to
accommodate proposed improvements. Therefore, the traffic impacts should be
considered significant and potentially unavoidable.
The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan's EIPJMaster Environmental Assessment (1988)
identified City-wide traffic as a significant cumulative impact, but not adverse if freeway
facilities are expanded.
2. Air Quality - Long term air quality impacts, the daily emission rate under a worst-case
buildout scenario would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's
(SCAQMD) thresholds of significance. The proposed land use change, however, is
considered to be consistent with the 1994 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in that
it would generate fewer daily emissions than a buildout under the subarea's current
designation. After implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the long-
term impacts generated by development of the subarea are considered less than
significant. The cumulatively significant carbon monoxide (CO) hot spot concentrations
that exceed state standards (as shown in EIR Table 5.3-6) will persist if roadway
improvements cannot be made to improve intersection levels of service. As it has been
noted that some improvements may not be feasible, both the subarea's potential
buildout and TT 15727's contribution to this cumulative impact is considered potentially
significant and unavoidable.
In comparison, the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan's EIR/Master Environmental
Assessment (1988) identified air quality as a significant unavoidable impact from
development of the City.
3. Noise - Development of the subarea with the proposed residential, park. and industrial
uses would create potentially significant but mitigable impacts on existing, surrounding
residences in the short term. To mitigate the ambient noise levels for properties off
Fourth Street, it would require sound barriers (16 feet in height) that would not be
aesthetically acceptable. Therefore, it may not be feasible to fully mitigate anticipated
noise impact without considering the elimination of lots along Fourth Street or requiring
alternative non-sensitive land uses along Fourth Street. These two solutions would
constitute a major redesign and as such, be beyond typical project mitigation. As a
result, without project redesign, the ambient noise impact on future residents is
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
EIR - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 4
considered potentially significant and unavoidable. Subsequent project-specific noise
analysis may indicate less noise attenuation is needed when the actual residential tract
design and house configurations are included.
The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan's EIP,/Master Environmental Assessment (1988)
identified noise as a cumulative adverse impact that will increase proportionally but not
exceed levels typical in other Southern California communities.
4. Solid Waste - Development of Subarea 16, and the residential tract in particular, would
result in a significant increase in solid waste generation when compared with the
existing conditions. W~th the possible closing of solid waste landfills in San Bernardino
County, long-term solid waste capacity is a serious issue because of the lack of feasible
landfill sites in the area. While the implementation of recommended mitigation
measures will reduce the project's impact, because there is no known solution to the
landfill shortage at this time, this project's impacts are expected to remain cumulatively
significant and unavoidable at a project development level.
Impacts that can be mitigated below a level of significance include:
1. Land Use - The land use relationships that will result from the proposed development
are the primary issues of the General Plan Amendment. It was for this reason that the
amendment application area was expanded to included the entire subarea and the EIR
alternatives included possible alternatives for the adjacent properties. Very early in the
study, staff recognized that inherent incompatibifities between the resident component
and the remaining industrial component would probably be a determining factor in the
general plan amendment decision. From this perspective, the EIR consultant used the
development standards to lessen the degree of incompatibility.
2. Police Protection - Development of the subarea as proposed would place additional
demands on the City-wide law enforcement services. The impact on police services
could be cumulatively significant. By implementation of design features to reduce the
potential for crime activities, impacts will be kept less than significant.
3. Fire Protection - Development of.the subarea, as proposed, would result in considerable
increases in the demands for various fire protection services currently provided by the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. The costs to relocate a fire station to
meet the demand would not be adequately generated through standard property taxes
and, therefore, the impact to fire protection services are potentially significant.
Annexation into Mello-Roos District 85-1 to assist in the funding for facility relocation
should reduce the financial impacts to less than significant.
4. Schools - Development of the residential portions of the subarea would result in the
generation of approximately 648 new students to the elementary and high school
districts in the area. Both of the school districts administering the area schools have
indicated that the existing enrollment levels are at or near maximum capacity.
Therefore, the impact to schools is considered potentially significant. The impact will
be reduced to less than significant by requiring the residential development to
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
EIR - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 5
participate in the high school district's Community Facilities Assessment District as well
as pay the elementary school district's property tax increment through existing impact
reduction measures.
5. Water Supply - Development of the subarea, as proposed, would result in an inevitable
and partially unanticipated water demand increase which apparently can be
accommodated by the Water District. To accommodate that demand, however, would
generate a significant impact on existing water distribution facilities. With the
construction of a 12-inch water main on Fourth Street with development and
establishment of a refund agreement (with the Water District) for future development,
as mitigation measures, the impact would be less than significant.
6. Storm Drainaqe - The proposed project would inevitably increase stormwater runoff that
would be generated on site and collected by the area's drainage channels. The
increased human activity on site would also significantly increase potential stormwater
pollution when compared to existing conditions. With the implementation of flood
control measures (Master Drainage Plan revision and Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan) and construction of stormwater facilities, the impacts can be mitigated to less than
significant levels.
7. Cultural Resources - Development of the subarea may ultimately affect the historic
Lucas Ranch Complex, a potential local landmark and National Register eligible
property. The ranch is not on the land proposed for 'R' 15727, but within Subarea 16,
and, as such, is part of the overall project consideration. The City's Historic
Preservation Ordinance would be utilized when development is proposed to officially
consider its designation as a landmark. In addition, as a mitigation measure, it is
recommended that all new development within the subarea should incorporate historic
themes. With these measures, the impacts would be less than significant.
F. Unavoidable Impacts - The City must balance the benefits of the proposed project against its
unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits
outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, these effects may be considered "acceptable."
The California Environmental Quality Act requires the City to adopt a statement of its views
that the significant unavoidable adverse impacts are acceptable due to overriding concerns.
This Statement is included in the project's Resolution of Approval.
G. Non Environmental Issues - At staffs direction, a separate Fiscal Impact Analysis was
included in conjunction with the EIR. Review of fiscal issues is not required by CEQA, and
as a result, the study is not addressed in the environmental analysis, but provided as an
independent study, which can be found in Appendix "H" of the EIR. The results of the study
will be discussed in the General Plan Amendment report.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM: State law requires the City to adopt a monitoring
program for the changes to the project that are required or mitigation measures that are adopted.
Essentially this is a reporting program designed to ensure compliance during project
implementation. The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is contained in Table 11-1 of the FEIR
and will be considered by the City Council as part of the project approval findings. If alternatives
to the project are adopted, the mitigation measures may be modified in response to changes in the
potential impacts.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
EIR - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 6
The MMP identifies each adopted measure or required change in the project design that mitigates
or avoids significant environmental effects, The MMP establishes a reporting format and is
intended to provide a means for decision makers to gauge the effectiveness of mitigation
measures.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached
Resolution, thereby recommending that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report.
Respectfully submitted,
City Planner
BB:AW/jfs
Attachments: Draft Environmental Impact Report (previously transmitted)
Correspondence/Response to Comments
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Resolution Recommending Approval of the Final Environmental Impact Report
Response to Conlments on the Draft
Envirorunental Impact Report
Industrial Area Specific Plan
Subarea 16 Redesignation
State ClearLnghouse No. 95112019
Prepared for:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Platruing Department
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CaLifornia 91729
Prepared by:
Envicom Corporation
28328 Agoura Road
Agoura Hills, California 91301
October, 1996
12.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
12.0 RESPONSE TO COM1X'IENTS ON THE DIL-~T F_ER
12.1 Noticing and Availability of Draft EIR
The Draft EIZR (DEIR) for the Rancho Cucamong~ ~dustrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 16
Redesignation was prepared by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department with the
assistance of Envicom Corporation. The City Plaruning Department (lead agency) forwarded
copies of the DEER as well as a "Notice of Completion of an Environmental Docu.ment' form to the
State Clearinghouse Ln Sacramento. The State Clearinghouse acknowledged receipt of the DEIR
and established a 45-day public review period for the report be~inaing July 17, 1996 and closing
August 30, 1996. This public review period was subsequently extended to September 3, 1996
because Rancho Cucamongn City Hall was closed m Friday, August 31, 1996 and Monday,
September 2, 1996 (Labor Day). The purpose of the public review period is to provide interested
public agerides, groups, and individuals the opportunity to comment on the contents and
completeness of the DEIR and to submit testimony on the possible environmental effects of the
proposed project.
12.2 Receipt of Comments
Section 15088(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) GuideEnes provides for
any person or entity to submit comments to a lead agency concerning any environmental effects of a
project beLng considered by the lead agency. In addition, the CEQA Guidelines require that the
lead agency evaluate comments on the envixonmental issues received from persons who reviewed
the DEER and prepare written responses.
According to Section 15088C0) of the CEQA GuideLines, the responses to comments must describe
the disposition of signLficant envixonmental issues raised. If the Iead agency determines that
changes to the DEIR are warranted, revisions can be made to the proposed project to mitigate
anticipated Lmpacts or objections. Additionally, the responses must provide detailed rationale
as to why comments were not incorporated if the lead agency is at variance with the
reconu~'nendations and/or objections raised in the comments. In either case, the CEQA GuideEnes
require good faith, reasoned analysis in responses.
12.3 List of Conmaentors
During the 45-day public review period, a total of me organizations/persons provided written
comments on the DEER to the City Plarmmg Departznent.
Date Organization/Person $1gnator7 Page
A. July 26, ~.996 Southern CaEfomia Regional Rail Ron MatNeu, Manager, 12-3
Authority Public Projects
B. July 29, 1996 Cucamonga Coun,ty Water District James H. CLine, jr., Director of 12-9
Engineering and Lr'mpection
C. August 26, 1996 City of Ontario Plarming Jim Ragsdale, Principal Planner I2-24
Department
D. August 28, 1996 Chino BasLq Municipal Water Gary E. Hackney, Manager oL 12-33
District Planning
E. August 29, 1996 jake Faller Associates Jake Falter '12-35
F. August 29, 1996 Chaffey Communities Cultural Max A. van Balgooy, President 12-47
Center
G. August SO, 1996 Carla Florance Carla Floraance 12-49
RANCHO CUCAMONGA INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
SUBAREA 3.6 REDESIGNATION
12.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Date Organization/Person Signatory. Page
H. Aug-tLst 30,1996 Governor's Of~ce of Planning and Antero A. Rivasplata, Chief, 12-52
Research State Clearinghouse
I. August 26, 1996 Department of Conservation, Jason R. Marshall, Assistant 12-55
Office of Governmental and Director
Environmental Relations
12.4 CommenLs and Responses to Comments
Provided on the following pages are copies of the comment letters received during the public
review period and the responses to each comment, Provided below is a list of the DEIR pages
that have been aznended in response to the various comments submi~:ed en the DEIR during the
public review period.
Page 1-10 (Table 1-1, Mitigation Measure S-I)
Page 1-10 (Table 1-1, Mitigation Measure W-l)
Page 2-3 (Figure 2-2)
Page 4-2 (Figure 4-1)
Page 4-5 (Table 4-1)
Page 5.1-9 (last sentence of second paragraph)
Page 5,1-17 (third paragraph)
Page 5.1-19 (first sentence of Section 5.1.4)
Page 5.5-2 (first sentence of fifth paragraph)
Page 5.7-2 (Figure 5.7-1)
Page 5.7-4 (Table 5.7-1)
~Dage 5.7-5 (~Mitiga~ion Measure S-I)
Page 5.8-1 (second sentence and third bulleted item)
Page 5.8-2 (Figure 5.8-1)
Page 5.8-3 (first two sentences of Section 5.8.4)
Page 5.8-4 (Table 5.8-1)
Page 5.8-5 (NLitigation Measure W-I)
Page 5.9-1 (fifth sentence and second bulleted item)
Page 5.9-2 (Figure 5.9-1)
Page 5.9-3 (first two sentences of Section 5.9.4)
Page 5.9-4 Gable 5.9-1)
Page 5.10-2 (first three sentences of Section 5.10.4)
Page 5.10-3 (Table 5.10-1)
Pages 8-3 and 84 (Table 8-1)
Page 11-8 (Table 11-1, Mitigation Measure S-l)
Page 11-9 (Table 11-1, Nlltigation Measure W-l)
During the preparation of this Response to Comments document, the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Pierruing Department requested that Mitigation Measure S-1 of the DEIR be amended because, as
currently worded, it may be interpreted that each development on the project site will pay
property, tax increment directly to the Cucamonga SchooI District (CSD). Therefore, Mitigation
bleasure S-1 on pages 1-10, 5.7-5, and 11-8 of the DEER ~ hereby amended to read as follows:
'IS-l] Each residential development within Subarea 16 shall be conditioned to
participate in the CJUSHD's CFD No. 2 as well as pay CSD's proper ,W tax
increment through existing impact reduction measures."
RANCHO CUCAMONGA INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
SUBAREA 16 REDESIGNATION EIR
-- A
e southern california Regional Rail Authority
II IIMETROUNK P.o. 8ox 8s42s
Los Angeles, CA 90086-0425
july 26, 1996 ' '-- : U
File: S0000!60
Ms. Catherine Bernstein
Envicom CorPoration JUL 2 a icct-'
28328 A~oura Road
Agoura ~ ~ ~ s CA 91301 ~%~*~.":;~'~';~,~':
..... , .~ ~.,.;- ..,:
Dear Ms. Bernstein:
R_!jYCHO CUCAMONGA I_N'DUSTRi.!L .AREA SPECIFIC PLAbI
SUB~_REA 16 REDESIGNATION EiR
Please reference your DI~FT Environmental imoact Report (DEiR) of
july 1996 for the above subject. ' '
As a matter of information, The Soumhern California Regional Rail
Authority (SCRPc~) is a five (5) County joint Powers Agency formed
to manace the planning --,
~ _- ...... design, construction operation and
maintenance of the METROLIN"K commuter rail system. One of SCt%A'S
memjDer agencies, San Bernardino Associated Governments {S:~aN~AG),
owns the right-of-way and tracks ~rS~TROLIN~< operates over within
San Bernardino County. SC-t°~ manages day to day matters that
arise from the operation and maintenance' of the METROLiNK Svstem
on behalf of S:~NBAG. '
We have reviewed the DEiR and have the following comments to 'make:
!. Hellman Avenue is a north-south secondary arterial
street crossing the S~xYBAG railroad right-of-way and
~TROLiNE< Rai!rcad tracks just north of =i ~t~ Street.
This grade crossing was rebuilt in 1995 as part of an
overall railroad improvemen~ project. The crossing is
e.quipped with flashing lights, bells and gates; but is
not equipped with raised median islands due to its
resmrictive geomet~ and unique drainage channels. The
Hellman Avenue crossing cf the METROLINE< Railroad will
see an increase in use if the proposed Cucamonga
Cornerpointe residential project is developed. The
DPJ~FT EiR does noi address issues associated :with
potential traffic density increases at the Hellman
Avenue grade crossing. We believe that further analysis
of traffic changes at the METROL!NK Railroad crossing
must ~= inco~crated in t~ ~-~ EiR
-- _ ....... =- as a function of
public safety. in ~he fumure, we heiieve that a traffic
Ms. Catherine Bernstein
July 25, 1996
Page 2
signal, including railroad preemption, may be ~ i_ed
at the intersection of 8=h Street and He!!mln Ave~.~
2. Please correct the identification of the METROLiNKIA
Railroad on Ficures 2-2; 4-!; and 5 7-~ mhese a~amhics
depict the railroad as be!oncinc to the Atchison,
orre o c t _K
if you have any questions, please call Byron Nordberg of my staff
az (2!3) 244-7022.
Since~e!y,
Manager Public Projects
~M: ban
DiSTRiBUTION:
M. Bait - S~AG Alan Warren
E. Pederson - SCL~ Associate Planner
B. Nordberg - SCR~ City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, ~ 91730
~<C SCRPc'~ Ce2tra! Tissue
tdll
12.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM:
Ron Mathieu, Southern California Regional Rail Authority (dated July 26, 1996):
A1 The third paragraph on page 5.2-16 of the DEER provides an analysis of the proiect's
potential traffic/safety impacts on the HelLman Avenue crossing of the METROLINK
Railroad Oust north of 8th Street). The DEIR's traffic/cLrculation analysis also
determined that the proposed project would generate 688 average daily tri~s at the
intersection of HeLLman Avenue and 8th Street (60 trips during the A~'v~ peak hour and 80
trips during the PM peak hour). This amount of project traffic is not anticipated to
generate a significant safety impact, nor does it warrant a traffic signal or raiiroad
preemption at the intersection of HelLman Avenue and 8th Street. However, the
applicant will be required to pay transportation fees for the project; a portion of these
fees will be used for the future funding of traffic signals and railroad preemption, when
volume and safety (number of accidents, etc.) conditions warrant signalization with
tra/fic from other cumulative developments.
A2 The comment identifies that Figures 2-2, 4-1, and 5.7-I of the DEER incorrectly label the
railroad near 8th S~reet as the Atc~nson, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad (ATSF), and
that the correct nomendatu_re for the railroad is ~FETROLIZNrK KATLROAD. Therefore,
Figures 2-2, 4-1, and 5.7-1 of the DEIR have been amended to identib/the railroad as the
METROL~FK R.zLILROAD. These revised figures are provided at the end of the
responses to Comment Letter "A".
RANCHO CUC.A. MONGA INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
SUBAREA 16Z.,~il~,Z,ASIGNA, TION EIR
In/and Empire Boulevard
Holl Boulevard
Airpod Drive
['~Envicom Co~po~atEon
!
JEFFREY A. GARTER
CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT ROBERTNEUFELD
'IRE. SHOLLENBERGER
R E C E I 'V E D GEORGE A. KUYKENDALL
july 29, !996 DONALDJ. KIJRTH
JEROME M, WILSON
JUL 3 1 Lq%
City 0i Rencho Cutstongs
P~anning Division
Citl.¢ of Rancho Cucamonga
Comet, unity Development Department
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cuc=_monga, California 91730
:D'-cten:io,--..: Alan Warren
Associate P!er,_ner
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the
Draft Envirommenta! impact Remort (EiR) oreDared for the
Rancho Cuca_monga industrial ~ea Specifi~ PLan S'~area !6
Redesi_cnation. The Cucamonga County Water District (District)
is involved in two primary service areas that will be affected
by this project. These service areas are potable water deliveries
and collection and transportation of domestic and industrial
wastewater. As such my comaents are directed at Section 5.8
(Water Supply) and Section 5.9 (Sewage). Attached are copies
of both sections with comments and/or revisions as noted.
Section 5.8 WAT~-L~ ~U~PLY :
Section 5.8.1
a. The District provides "potable' water from its various
sources a_nd distributes to different users.
b. The third bu!!eted item listed um. der exiSting'water!ines
should be changed to "!0" due to a recent system upgrade.
Figure 5.8-!
a. Need to make changes as noted. ] B3
section 5.8.5 - Mitigation Measures
Comm, ents to the W-! Mitigation measure are as follows
a. the 12" water main is in addition to all other
waterlines that are required to be insza!!ed
within ~he'developmenc area by the owner/builder.
CUCAN1ONGA COUN't'Y WATE~ DISTRICT · P.O. BOX 838 · RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91729-0638 · (gOg) 987-2591
City of Rancho Cuc~.,onga
july 29, 1996
Page 2
b. a refund agreement "may' be escab!ished dependent B5
upon whether the 12" waceriine ~ca!ifies. Under
the District's refund policies, only that portion
of the waterline insta!!acion re~qcirement that. is
"offsite from the project' is subject to a refund
agreement. Based on maps presented thac would
include only the 300 feecl from Archibald west.
c. in this instance, any refund agreement agreed coI B6
would be based on cemp!eEion of residential units
rather than "esCimaced water demand".
Section 5.9 S[WAGE
Section 5.9.1 Existing Conditions
a. "in the future .... ", RP-4 has nothing to do with this B7
project. All .flows fr6m this projec~ will flow to
RP-!. Flows from the northeast area of the District
will be diverted to RP-4 which will inturn allow for
additional capacity at RP-!.
Fighare 5.9-1
a. Need to make corrections/revisions as noted on the ] B8
enclosed.
if you have any qluestions regarding any of the comments, please
contact ~he undersigned at your earliest convenience.
Yours truly,
CUCA/~ONGA COUNTY_ WA~R DiS_.~R/CT
Director of Engineering and inspection
~C:b
Enclosures
B
5.8 WATER SUPPLY
e . ' _t ...... u '3 ' er ,2 ~' .
perc'&nt), stu-iace water ~'onn ca_nvons (7 percent} and [moor'red water (65 percent, ;qhidR is
primariiy du/~mg i-dgh demand,' ,sun~-ne toohalls). The ~roundwater comes ~om !3 welds in the
Cucamong~ Groundwater Basin and 5 weds ~ Lhe C;'~ino Groundwater BasL'l (Boy!e E"x~.neezing,
1993). The CCWID has LFL-ee connedons to .'M~'~'D unseated water; Bvo deliver water from the
State Water Proje.'d,, and one delivers water from Lhe Colorado ~ver. 'Fne ~ has con~ac~
[`hrouEhout the SouLhem Caiifomia area to SuDDIV a total of 4.2 Ln~lion ace-feet of water Per
year. However, tZne firm y'-'e!d of ~fW'D water somr~ oniv 2.4 milEon acre-feet per year.
T'nere~ore, although M~,VD is able to suoo]v its ~ con~-a~ed amount to CC'~%"D and other
con~'~c~4--ng aS~'ldes duzing wet ye~s, dLt~i4g drouEht yea~s, contacted amou.n~ may not be
delivered CBoyie r_-xEineef,.ng' 1993). Redi-',ed ware_- will be available for u.se within 'areas
the Ci.~, wh~_n the C-.L-;c 3-4sLn Mur~dpal ~,','atc: Dis~i,:t completes co,'~s~uc~Zon o~ Ke~ional
xA/astewater Trea~--m_nt F!ain~ No. 4 and Lhe assodated reclaimed water lateral d/s~-ibu~on line
in 1998.
Overall, the CC'VfD water de-mend beBvetn ]ulF 1994 and june 1~9,5 was 35.62 ~on ga. tlon$ per
day (:~gd), of which approximaml.v 48 p~xent ccme~ from Nf~'D sour:~ (CCWD Annual
Product;on Report). Based ~ a dis~%-rict-wide future popu/ation of 233,900, the District
antid.oates a.n u1~Ixate deL-~an~ of 675 reed ('Boyle F_'~g~meeing, 1993).
Within Zone 1, the maiorltv of water ~&n_sn-.ission and dis~-ibu~on facilities re_~ed to serve
Lhe commm-d~ are cdrre_ntl'y in pIacs. C,,,L~e_ndy, water is supplied to Zone i via pressure
regulators (redurinE stations) ~om the uDDer, Zone 2 refer'voLt system_ However, within the nes. r
~utu.re, the CCWD exped.s to construct a'~ew 9 miLkion gelton reservoLr CReservo/r 1C) for domestic
water storaEe capad.ty in Zone 1. The proposed rese.-¢oLr would ge_ne_,-dly ~L-'~orove water oressure
and capad~2,- of Zone 1. W~LFtLn [,he study a.~ea, however, t~he c~:~t static ~esign presume (90 to
110 psi) i.s considered to be adequate.
E.,'~ting waterLLnes that serve Lhe Droje~:* site are shown in F]gure 53-1 and listed below:
10~ LLne on the south side of 6th Sl:ree. t
/! 10" line on the we.st side of Arc2~ibald Avenue; '
· ~ LLne on the east side of Ard-dba!d Avenue;
' 8' line on the we_st side o~ Hie]linen Avenue, exdudin~ a secton acoss Cucamong-a Cre~_k;
10" line on the nor'2q side o~ 4th S~"eet betwere Hetlman and Cuca.mon~a Cree_k, with two
21]'xlO' stub-ins into but not a~os the d'~anneL
E,'c2stinE water consumption on.site is estimated to be aooroximatelv 6,0CO g'dlldns Per day. T'nis
inc!ude$ domestic and Iand-scaoin~ u.sa~z_ by the ex~&nE residences and ancEL!L7 ,bulldinEs.
VLne.v-ard and field irri. i~tion of'the proiect site's ag~c,.Litural areas no longer o¢c'm-s.' ·
5.8.2 'F. ruresho]d of Signific-~.nce
The project's water ~uppiy Lmpac~ w~iI be corkside..-~ed significant i~: t~he proposed projec~,-
g_,~ne_--~ted water denand substantially ~×c._~eds the anticipated water d_,~---.and accounted for in
the CC'W'D Water ~faster PIan sud~ Lhat Lhe CC,'VID ~e~.e.,-an, ines that L.he pro~ec~_. cannot be
ade~.uate!l'/se_'-','ed; or i/ne'~' maior water ~_;,',~ a~e required in order [o serce Lhe proiect.
RANCHO CUC.,MONGA [NDUSTKIAL AREA SPECEFEC PLAN
SUBAREA IS REDESiGNAT[ON
B
5.8 ~VATER SUPPLY
5.8.3 Proiect Lmpac~
5ubare~ 26 Potential Buildout
Deve!opmene of Sub~ea !6 as proposed wo~d subst~eially ~crease e~s~mg water ~ag~ m ~he
siee ~d generate ~ orerail d~d of 526,180 g~ons per day..~ sho~ ~ Table
resi~entialIy desi~aeed po~on of ~e proj~t site wo~d ~e~95,400 g~ons per day, ehe
pubEc p~k wo~d n~ 7jO0 g~ons per day ~d $,e ~dus~ai D~k po~on of ~e site wo~d
req~e 1~,280 g~ons per day.
The propos~ proj~e ~voives a i~.d ~ d~nge ~om ~ ~dus~ des~a~on to a residential
desi~a~on. j~ ~%~d ~ ~c~on 8.0 Aitemaeives, b~doue of Sub~ea 16 ~ propo~ wo~d
reset ~ a ~ percent greaeer d~d for wa~er En~ j ~e en~e sub~ea wee ~o ~ deve!ooed
wi~ ~d~ p~k. T~ ~eaeer d~n~.d ~ a~butable solely ~o ~e resid~n~al po~on of lhe
.propo~ proj~t Al~ough ie ~ ~ ~F~ed that ~e Dis~ct's waeer master pl~ ~d
~n~dpate ~ ~ pereerie ~cfe~e ~ d~nd, ~e C~ has ~dicaeed Gnat ~e water d~d
~ ~ adequately supplied ~d [hat a "will sep~e" letter wo~d ~ ~ted to individual
deve!opmen~ ~ w~n r~u~e (i~namD !995). Therefore, m si~c~e ~a~ m water
supply ~e expeCed eo be. gtnemted by ~e proposed buildsue of Sub~ea 16.
Ie sho~d be noeed ~ae ~ deve!opm~ne wi[~ ~,e sub~ea wo~d have ~o commiy w{[h several
loc~ ~d state wafer co~eFa~on re~a~o~, ~du~g ~e ~e~ation of ~ater co~g
l~dscap~g ~ de~ed h Chapter i9.16 Of ~e ~d~o Cu~on~ Nf~dD~ C~e.
ad~on~ meL~ of water co~e~ta~on ~ [~e ~ of r~ed waseewaeer for ngn-po~ble ~,
where econo~c~y legible.
Wi~h reg~d to ~e adequaq of e~ng faceties, [he addi~on~ water d~ ~at wo~d
g~ted at ~ 5~doue of ~e sub~ea c~oe ~ adequate!y prodded for by ~e ~g
lnes. Speedy, b~dou~ of ~e proposed proj~t wo~d a~e a de~e ~ water pres~e ~ the
~d -~d Avenue ~ Fo~l S~t T~ ~ cop~ideed eo ~ a poeentity si~c~t ~Dact
Of ~e proposed proje~
~ne C~ ~t~ a Wafer Devdommtnf F~ ~ga~on pm~ to ~gafe potentially
si~c~t ~pa~ m Ioc~ water fa~[ies (annoYed ~ ~n~ce No. 3~D).
~ developt~ of ~ ~e~ of ~e proj~ site wo~d ~ ~ ~o pay ~e f~, ~
dev~opm~t of ~e proj~ site ~ proposed wo~d g~n~te b~ly ~c~ive ~pac~ which
~o~ ~ ~y ~gaeed by ~e f~ pm~ ~pp, 19955' ~ereiore, ~e Dmo~ proj~'s
~pae~ on ~ water fa~ are co~idered eo r~ pot~y si~[~t -
Cu~monXa Co~oint~ S~di~i~
~v~opm~t ol ~e 35~-dw~g ~t Cu~ Com~o~ee ~ion ~ ~ the
propond public p~k wo~d d~d a to~ cl 2!8,1C~ ~o~'oi water per ~y ~able
~-~ above, ~ough ~e C~ ~ able eo pro~e ware to ~ p~
~he project's ~pact on ~g ~c~e r~ pot~y si~c~ ~ '
5.8.4 C~a~ve ~pac~
~pi~n~on of ~e re!a~ed pr~ wo~d g~emee ~n ~ceL~ ~ water d~d of 8~,~57
g~ons per day ~able 5.8-1): B~dout of ~he oro~o~ proj~ ~d ~a~ve pmj~
wo~d ~cease Clt~id~ wa~er ~e bv 1,403,!3~ g~o~ ~e day.. The propo~ D~ reDres~
RANCHO CUCAMONGA INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
SU~AREA !6 REDESEGNATION
B
WATER SUPPLY
TABLE
and
Potential Buildout )
Restr. t=t,.ca 659 ~ 395,4~
N~ R~I 0.62 ~ ~680 I,~2
Ind~ ~.7 g ~680 1~.~6
RANCHO CUCAMONGA IND~JgTRI~L AREA SPEC!F~.C PLAN
SUBAREA !6 REDESIGNATION
12-14
B
5.8 WATER SUPPLY
t~e Ci,t'y's General Pla_n Land Use May, C'~is an~c!va~ed c&'r~ula~ive Lncrease Lq water dec, and can
be accoatmodated by the DistrZct. '
5.3.5 MLi~iga~on Measures
The foLIow/ng mi~iga~on measure ~ zec~e~ to ~ce Vroiec~ ~vacts to water iacHieies to less
[W-l] ~ addison to pay~ co~n tees, Lhe C~.~np Co~e~oL~te or ~e f~st ma'or
~~deve!opm~n~ oi ~e ~ea shall ce~ a t2" water m~n ~ Fo~-~ c
/ ~=~v/. BeCause older deve!op~t wi~ Lhe sub~-ea w~ ~o ~
7//YI ~ ~s water m~, a ~d aFee~Lq~ shall ~ estabUshe~ wi~ G~e Cu~on~ Co~W
~ae~: D~s~ct L~ whi~ ea~ ~eve~opmene wi~ ~e pro~ect s~e si~ vrov~e Dr~rat~
~g, Dase~ uDon es~ated wa~er ~em~d oi ~e v~l~ ~ve~ovm~a~
~ order to ~er reduc~ ~e' ~ potable wate~ ~c~d oi ~e sub~ea, it ~ r~o=~,d~
deve~opmL~t oi ~e p~bUc p~k ~ga~on sys~L~ ~dude s~u~ whi~ 'aUow lot easy
conversion oi ~e L~ga~on system &om potable waeer to rePLied water use.
5.3,6 Residual Adve~e ~pac~
Development oi Sub~ea !6 as propose~ wou1~ result ~ ~ Lne,~abIe ~d p~!~y ~cipated
Lnce~e ~ water d~ w~ aDv~qUy ~ ~ acco~a~ed by G~e Cu~on~ Co~
Water Dis~ct. Deve!opm~nt ~ ~,~ sub~ea wo~d ~o gtnerate a poeenUally si~iic~
~pact on er~g water d~bu~on/a~; however, w~ L~ple=Lnta~on oi ~e mitigation
~e~ure d~be~ above, ~ ~pact wo~d be ~e~uced to less ~ s~c~t levels (Class
RANCHO CUCAMONGA [NDUSTR.~AL AREA SPECiFiC PLAN
SUBAREA 15 REDE,SEGNATEON
12-15
B
5.9 SELVAGE
3.9 SF~VAGE
5.9.1 F_~tin~ Conctkions
T'ne collection of domes~dc, commercial, and Lndus~--ial wastewater ;.n the preiect.~ vicinity is
provided b7 the Cuc~-nong'a Coun,ty ~,Vater Distr~ct (CC~,VD) pipeIFjLnes. 'Fne trea~nent
wastewater is provided b,v the ChLno Basin Municipal Water DisL'?ict (C~Df~'D) whdc2n operates
and maintair~ al/ interceptor S:,'SteL'~.$, non-reclaimable wastewater lines,~ and waste
redlateran pianos. Sewage curre, lit'/~nerated at the proiect site (es[i..-qated at 2,080 E~I/or~ per
day) is cl.-rently routed to Re,anal Plant No. ! (R_P!), wh/d-i is operated by the CB~M'VfD and is
Iotated in the City of Ontario. R_Pl has a ~'ea~e_nt design caoadty of ~ million ~d/ons Der da
'; ' · · e ' ~ D ' , - ' ~'. ' ,e, ' '
. e_o'lonal Plant No curre: v unc ~ .
ff]~loulry or the LS~'vf~%q2).' 'Fnerefore, the CC, qD provides ten-yell ~rowth forecasts to
tb.e CBNfVVD to assist with plans needs. Cu:re_ndy, t.b. erL~ are F~D ?~: sewer h_'nes, upgr_ades,
repairs pla.r~ned ne~_r the project
T'ne ~xis~nE; waste,,vater LLnes adjacent to ~e site are shown in Finite 5.9-1 and listed below:
CCWD L.;n~s
10" sewerline ~n Sixtln S~eet ~om Hle!Lrnan Avenue to .AL~ednyst
24~ s~werline in Four~ S~eet Erom ease o~ Cuc~nong'a Creek Cnannei 5o approximately
9C0' ease thence
t5" sewerEne on the west side of Arci'~:~ald Avenue;
10~ sewerline on the es~ side of Ardnibald AvL-nue;
8' sewerjine in Fourth Street Erom .A.l~L~ald Avenue ~o approximately 3C{I feet
21" sewerLLne alanE e~terly fi~ht-obway of CucaLnon~a Cre°2< Cnanne!.
C~M'WIi) L~:nes
2~~ sewerline along Cueaxnonga Cre'~ Carme], due we~t oi CCW'D's line;
10" sewerline along the north side oi Four*d~ Street; -
8~ sewerline along ~e west sMe oE .~-d~ibald Avenue, serving the FritzLay fadlity.
A~ording to the CCWD% ~wer 5yst~ Master pl.~.n Update (Boyle Engq_neering, ~993),
existing hydraulic ca.pa~ty o~ a sewer Ltne i5 egual to a depth-~e--ddameter (D/d) ratio of 0.50 for
sewers 12 inc2~ i~ dlaz~eter and smaEer, and 0.75 ~or sewers 15 ind'~es in dla.meter and Iazger.
Eow mcrnitorLng datm collec.~d be.~,e~_n Nove~r~ed, 199~ and lanu~-y, 1993 indicated that the
lrunkline along Fourth S~eet is operating. at a D/d of 0.60, the westerly tru~<lin'e along
Archibald Av~-nue is operating at a D/d of 0.-d.8 and the easterly u~Lr~kline along Arcl'tib~ld
Avenue is ope_~atLng at a D/d of 0..!!_. Of ~.he~ ~d'~xee lines, the easterly ~-unkline is desert to
capedry', (Le., D/d = 0.50).
5.9.2 'I'nr~ho]ds of
'Fne project would g~_nerate a si~,nificant sewage Lmpa~ if the anticleared wastewater generated
would exceed the remaining capad~/oE e~-istLng sewer lines and/or waste',vater trea~.e_nt
faciii~ies, or i.~ the project requires the Lr,.st~ta~ion of addi~onal tnnt lk!Lnes to so_we the projet.
The non-redaiL-~ab[e w'~tewat~ ILn~ e_'~=c~ !nd~Tm~FFan~dot,~e: non-re-jai~mab~e (bd~h 5ak Content)
wat~ L'rom the !r~a for ,'reanm, ent and d;~pcsal by the Los An~e.~es County Sani~on
RANCHO CUCA.xdONGA INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
SUBAREA !5 REDES[GNAT[ON EIR
12-16
B
EXlSTIXG W,~STEW~TEm LI~ES "--'-~N p'q~o 4b ,~ 0-.'I
B
5.9 SE!NAGF
5.9.3 Project Impacts
Subarea 16 Potential Buildout
Development of Subarea 16 as proposed would substan~:ally income the amount of sewage
is c'urzenfiy generated by the eight e,'dsting homes. Tree proiect would ~lace additional demands
on e.'ds~d..ng sewer lines and the R?I wastewater tream'~ent Plant..As indicated in Table 5.9-i, full
development of the subarea would generate an estimated t~tal of 326,080 gallons vez day (g-dd) oi
wastewater. The residential comoonent of the subarea would generate 177,950 .g~ of sewage, the
public park (i/it contained laGatofies) would generate 9E0 g~ and the indus~'--/al park LL~eS
would generate 147,2~0 gpd. As di~-,~sed in ~c~ction 8.0 .~L!tematives, the overall sewage
generation represents a 26 percent decease in what would be g~erated if the entire subarea were
to be deve!o.ved with indus~%rlal park uses as cd.rrently designated. Therefore, the sewage
g~nezation ~eated by the proposed 1projet. an be considered to be adequately accon'Lmodated in
the CC'~'D's Sewer System Mlster Plan.
The CCWID has indicated that reclaimable sewage gtnemted by flLLl develoDnle_nt of the subarea
can be adequately cib. osed of ;.n~o existing sewer lines in Four~jl S~eet ~nd into the wester!v
krchjbald Avenue seg'me-nt (Iohn Knapp, 1995). Non-redainnable sewage from the furlale
indus~al park would be direC. ed to CBbf~VD's Line in Azcl-dbald Avenue. The reclaimable
sewage would be ~.'anspo~ed to R_Pl, whjcjn has an existing remairdng camad~, of 6 mgd, Subarea
16 sewage would Lncease the load at RP1 by 0.33 mgd, which is not co~iddred to be sigrdficant
~ven the plant's remaining capadty. The loAg-~e~ Lmmrove_ments necessar¢ to accoEnlnodate the
proposed projec~'s sewage generation would be offset by 'the DisLri~'s collec~on of connec~on and
user fees. In addition, any development Ln the subarea would be suL~ect.~ to state wa~er
coIlservat~on requireznen~s (such as low water use flx~ures and water pressure regujators) which
wou/d, '.mb. Lrn, zruLnimize the a/nount of sewage requi~g collection and trea~ne_nt. There/ore,
significant impacLs relative to sewage disposal and ~eatment would crc.,ur from buildout of
Subarea 16.
Cucarnonga Cornerpolnte Subdiv{slon
Deve]olmmen~ of the 351-dweUing urdt Cuczmong~ Corne,'pointe residential subdivision and the
assodated five ace public park would generate a total of 95,720 gpd oF sewage. Based .upcn the
a.?alysla presented above, this incease in sewage generation is not considered to be a significant
impact.
5.9.4 Cumulative Lmpac~
Development of the cumulative pro~ec~ lis~ed in Table 4-1 would generate approxLmate!y
1,178,990 gallons ~ day of wastewater gable 5.9-1). Together with the sewage gene_~ated by
development in Subarea 16, cumulative sewage ge~e_--aflcrn is expected to reach 1,505,070 gpcL The
proposed pr~eC and czmulative Frojecm w~mld represent les~ than tkr~ pea'teat of the RPrs
remaining treatnlent capadty. Tneredore, the proposed prc~ec~ is not exl?ec~ed to 'g~nerate
significant cumulative impacts relative to sewage. . .
5.9.5 Mitigation Measures '
Because ~ signi/icant Lmpac~ relative to sewage. have be~_, iden~fied, no rdtigation
are required.
5.9.6 Residual Adve.-,'se Impacts
A Jr.hough bah deve/op.ment of Subarea 16 and Cu~ncrng~ Cornen:~ointe, in ]Dar~cujlar, would
incease dennands on existing sewer ;lines and wastewa~er treatn~e_nt faciii~es, the projeC',s
sewage im.DaC~S are ccrf~de,,~ed ~o be adve~e but less than sigllLT-ican~ becl=,use of the adeouate
RANCHO CUCAMONGA INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
SUBAREA !~ REDESiGNATION
12-!8
'B
5.9 SE~,VAG~
,~2u~'-c~ ~ovle Ln~We-_~.~,g Co~oratlon. AugtLs, !,~3. TaMe 3-2 and
RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC FLAN
SUBAREA 16 REDESiGNATION EIR
12-I9
12.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DttAFT EI2~
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM:
James H. Cline, Jr., Cucamonga County Water District (dated July 29, 1996):
B1 The commentor suggests that the second sentence of Section 5.8.1 of the DEIR (page 5.8-1)
be revised to more accurately describe the type of water acquired and distributed by the
Cucmmonga County Water Dis~ct (CCWD). Therefore, the second sentence on page 5.8-1
of the DEIR is hereby amended to read as follows:
"The CCWD acquires its potable water from three water sources:
groundwater (28 percent), surface water from canyons (7 p~rcent), and
imported water (65 percent, which is tL.c. ed primarily during high demand,
summer months)."
B2 The commentor requests that the third buLleted item in Section 5.8.1 of the DEIR (page
5.8-1) be revised to indicate that a I0" waterline exists on the east side of Archibald
Avenue, not an 8" waterline. Therefore, the third bulleted item on page 5.8-1 of the
DEll% is hereby amended to read as foUows:
"' 10" line on the east side of Archibald Avenue;"
B3 The commentor identifies that revisions are required to Fi~2re 5.8-1 of the DEIR in order
to reflect recent upgrades to the City's waterlines along Archibald Avenue. Therefore,
Figure 5.8-1 of the DEIR has been amended to include these recent system upgmdes and is
provided at the end of the responses to Comment Letter "B".
B4 The commentor clarifies that the 12" waterline required as a part of Mitigation Measure
W-1 in Section 5.8.5 of the DEER (page 5.8-5) is in addition to all other waterlines
required to be installed on the project site. Therefore, the first sentence in Mitigation
Measure W-1 on pages 5.8-5, 1-10 (Table 1-1), and 11-9 (Table 11-1 of the DEIR is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"In addition to payIng connectdon fees and installing all required waterlines
on the project site, the Cucamonga Cornerpointe or the first major
development of the area shall construct a 12" water main in Fourth Street
be~,veen Cucamonga Creek Channel and Archibald Avenue. If Cucamonga
Cornerpointe is the first major development of the site, then the 12" water
main shall be installed prior to final inspection approval. If the industrial
buildings are the first major development of the site, then the 12" water main
shall be installed prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy,."
B5 Comment acknowledged. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for the industrial
buildings or final inspection approval for the residential sm.~cmres of Cucamon~
Cornerpointe, a determination will be made by the CC~VD as to whether or not the 12"
waterline qualifies for a refund agreement. If it is determined that the 12" waterline
does qualify,, the total amount of the refund agreement would be then be calculated by the
CC~V1D based on the District's refund policies.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
SUBAREA 16 REDESIGNATION EIR
12-20
12.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
B6 Citing Mitigation Measure W-1 in Section 5.8.5 of the DEIR (page 5.8-5), the cogentor
clarifies that any refund agreement agreed to would be based on completion of residential
units rather than "estimated water demand." Therefore, the last sentence in Mitigation
Measure W-1 on pages 5.8-5, 1-10 (Table 1-1), and 11-9 (Table 11-1) of the DEIR is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Because other development within the subarea will also be dependent upon
this water main, a refund agreement shall be established with the
Cucamonga County Water District in which each development within the
project site shall provide a pro-rata funding, based upcrt the completion of
residential units of each particuiar development."
B7 The cogentor identifies that the fifth sentence in Section 5.9.1 of the DEIR (page 5.9-1)
is incorrect. Titis sentence incorrectly states: In the future, all flows will be directed to
Regional Plant No. 4 (currently tinder constmtction) for treatment and/or reclamation
(Boyle Engineering, 1993). Instead, sewage from the project would actually flow to
Regional Plant No. 1 (RP1). In addition, flows from the northeast area of the District
will be diverted to Regional Plant No. 4 (RP4), which will in turn allow for additional
capacity at RP1. Therefore, the fifth sentence on page 5.9-1 of the DEIR is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"All sewage from the proposed project will flow to RP1; sewage from the
northeast area of the D/strict will be diverted to Regional Plant No. 4,
which will in turn allow for additional capacity at RP1.'
B8 The cogent requests that Figure 5.9-1 of the DEI~ be revised because it incorrectly
LLlustrates a 12" sewerle along HelLman Avenue and an 8" sewerline along 4th Street.
Therefore, Figure 5.9-1 of the DELR has been amended to eliminate. these errors and is
provided at the end of the responses to Cogent Le~:er "B".
The amendment to Figure 5.9-1 of the DELR regarding the existing 8" sewerLIne along 4th
Street also requires that the second buLIeted item inSection 5.9.1 of the DEIR (page 5.9-1)
be amended as follows:
"° 8" sewerLine in Fourth Street from east of Cucamonga Creek Charmel to
approximately 900' east;"
RANCHO CUCAMONGA INbUSTR[AL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
SUBAREA 16 REDESIGNATION
12-21
Proiect Site Boundan/
Water Line
City Bounda~/
Boundary
12-23
Aught 26, 1996
~rad Bullet, CRy Pl~er
City ofRancho Cucamonga Plannin~ Dcp~mem
P.O. Bo~ 807
R~cho Cu~ong~ CA 91729
SUB~CT: SUBAREA 16 REDESIONATI{}N
De~ Mr. Buller:
Th~ you for ~e oppo~ity ~o revie~ the dra~ Enviro~enta] Impact Report For ~c h~du~tdal Area
Specific PIg gub~a 18 gedesigmnion. A~er considering ~e infogation contained in ~e EIR, U~e City
of Ontario ogers the ~llowing commcnl~ for inco~oration into the ~nal EIR:
]. ~ - Table ~-I (List
odd ~on for gHto-Lay at the no~e~; comer of 4;h and ~n:hihald (squ~c footage gog) gd
the Koll w~ehouse/distHbution project soud~ of Agog'. c.~gt. of O~wood. and sou~ of Tacoma
(.400,000 squ~e feet).
2. Sho~ Te~ Noise
from 6:30 a.m. to g:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, excluding national holidays, we request
· c cons~ction activity
the south ~id~ of 4th.
3. g - The location of
Figure 5.7 1.
We appreciate beiug kept informed
these comments. If you have
(909)391-2506.
Sincerely,
ONTARIO PLAgING DEPARTMENT
/~e, AICP
Principal Plnnner
RG:sm
/-/3/
12.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ErR
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM:
Jim Ragsdale, City of Ontario Planning Department (dated August 26, 1996):
C1 The commentor requests that Table 4-1 (List of Related Projects) of the DEIR be amended
to include both the Frito-Lay and KoLi Arrow Center projects. However, the Frito-Lay
project is already included in Table 4-1 (page 4-4) of the DEIR as related project number
13. Table 4-1 (page 4-5) of the DE1R is hereby amended to include the following
Lrdormation regarding the KolI Arrow Center project:
Map ID File No. Land Use Size Location Status
No. Type
32 DR 95-33 Industrial 471,625 sq. ft. S/o Arrow Approved
on 23.08 acres Route, E/o
White Oak
Figure 4-1 (page 4-2) of the DEIR has also ~ amended to include this related project
and Ls labeled as cumulative proiect number32. The revised Figure 4-1 is provided at the
end of the responses to Comment Letter "C".
As a result of the addition of this industrial project to the reiated projects List, several of
the cumulative Lmpact analyses provided in Section 5.0 of the DE[R must be revised,
inducLing Sections 5.1.4, 5.8.4, 5.9.4, and 5.10.4, as well as Tables 5.7-1, 5.8-1, 5.94, and
5.10-1. However, the following revisions will not change the conclusions of the DEIR's
cumulative impact analyses.
Section 5.1.4 (CumuIative Land Use Impacts) - The first sentence included in Section 5.1.4
of the DE~R (page 5.1-19) is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Development of the proiects listed in Table 4-1 would result in the
conslruc'cion of 673 dwelling units, 300 acres of industrial use, over 144,000
square feet of office space, over 2.4 mLLUon square feet of retail space as well
as a variety of other miscellaneous uses in southern Rancho Cucamonga and
northern Ontario."
Section 5.8.4 (Cumulative Water Supply ImpaCtS)- The first two sentences included Ln
Section 5.8.4 of the DE1R (page 5.8-3) are hereby amended to read as foLlows:
"Implementation of the related projects would generate an increase in water
demand of 908,611 gallons per day (Table 5.8-1). Buildout of the proposed
proiect and cuznula~ve projects combined would increase Citywide water use
by 1,434,791 gallons per day."
Section 5.9.4 (Cumulative Sewage impacts) - The first two sentences included in Section
5.9.4 of the DEIR (page 5.9-3) are hereby amended to read as follows:
"Development of the cumulative proiects Iisted in Table 4-1 would generate
approximately 1,252,910 gallons per day of wastewater (Table 5.9-1).
Together with the sewage generated by development in Subarea 16, :
cumulative sewage generation is expected to reach 1,578,990 gallons per day."
RANCHO CUCAMONGA INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
SUBAREA t6 REDESIGNATION EIR
12-25
12.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ELR
$eCtic)n 5.10.4 (Cumulative Solid Waste Impacts~ - The first three sentences included in
Section 5.10.4 of the DELR (page 5.10-2) are hereby amended to read as follows:
"Implementation of the cumulative projects listed in Table 4-1 would generate
an estimated 151,672 additional pounds of solid waste per day (Table 5.10-1).
Full development of Subarea 16 as proposed in combination with development
of the cumulative projects would result in a total increase in solid waste
generation of approximately 176,210 lx~nds per day. Subarea 16's impact
represents 14 percent of this cumulative total."
Tables 5.7-1, 5.8-1, 5.9-1, and 5.10-1 of the DELR have also been amended and are
provided at the end of the responses to Comment Letter "C'.
C2 The 6:30 a.m. construction start time has been included in the City of Rancho Cucamonga's
Development Code for several years and is still considered appropriate for the proposed
project. However, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission or City Council could
consider delaying the construction start ~ne to 7:00 a.m. This cogent will be forwarded
to the decision-makers for consideraeion.
C3 The comment identifies that the location of Ontario Center School an Fi~ure 5.7-1 of the
DEER (page 5.7-2) is incorrect. Therefore, Fi~ure 5.7-1 of the DEIR has been amended to
LL!ust~ate the actual location of Ontario Center School Tl-ds elementary school is located
at 835 North Center Avenue bet~veen 4th Street and Inland Empire Boulevard. The
revised Figure 5.7-1 is provided at the end of the responses to Comment Letter "C'.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
SUBAREA 16 REDESIGNAT[ON EIR
I2-26
LEGEND
['~Envicom Corpe~alion
I
:
LEGEND
G OnlalioCenlerSchool
Ib.~l.~a,d ~ RanchoCucamongaMiddleSchool
AIz~onDfivll ~ Chal[eyilighSchool
TABLE 5.7-I
Project-Specific and Cumu2ative Student Generation
Student Generation Student Population Percent of
Dwelling Square Factors' Increase Total Total
Units Footage K to 8 9 to I2 K to 8 9 to I2 Increase K - 12
lSubaxea 16 Potential Buildout d
Residential 659 0.7836 0.2 517 i32 64~ 49%
Industrial Park 907,398 sf N/A
Public Park
N/A
[Cucamon~a Comerpointe
Residential 351 0.7836 0.2 275 71 346
Public Park 5 ac N / A
Rtsidential
Single Fami/y 33I 0.7836 0.2 259 66 32S
Condorrtiniuras 170 0.78.36 0.2 133 34 167
Apartmen s 172 0.7836 0.2 135 38 170
Subarea 16 Potential Buildout plus Cumulative Proleers 1044 267 1,310
N/A = Not Applicable
· S~urce: Cucamonga School District and C:'taifey Joint Union High Sc~oo District, I995.
12-29
TABLE 5.8-I
Project-Specific and Cumulative Water Demand
Dwelling Acres or Factor' Total % or
Units Square Feet (gal/dav/acre (gal/day/du) (gallons/day) Cumulative
ISubarea 16 Potential Buildout I
Residential 659 660 395,400
Public Park 5 ac t,500 7,500
Industrial Park 46 ac 2,680 123,280
Subarea 16 Total 526,180 37%
I Cucamonga Cornerpointe I
Residential 351 600 210.600
Public Park 5 ac 1.500 7,500
Cucamonga Cornerpointe Total 218,100
I Cumulative Projects I
Residential
Single Family 331 600 198,600
Condomihiums 170 260 44,200
Apartments 172 260 44.720
Commercial
Office 3.3 ac 3,570 I 1,814
Neighborhood Retail 0,62 ac 2.680 1.662
Regional Commercial 55 ac 2,680 147,400
Industrial
Light Industrial 40.7 a¢ 2.680 109,076
General Industrial 258.90 ac 1.340 346.926
Other
Golf Course Club House 0.17 ac 3,570 607
lee Rink 0.95 ac 3.570 3,392
Child Care Facility 0.06 ac 3,570 214
Maintenance Facility, N/A
Electrical Substation N/A
Transmission Tower N/A
Cumulative projects Total 908,611 63 %
Subarea 16 potential Buildout plus Cumulative Projects 1,434,791
Source: Boyle Engineering Corporation. September 1993. Table 3-3
12-30
TABLE 5.9-1
Pro}ect-gpecific and Cumulat/ve Sewage Demand
Dwelling Factor* Total % of
Units Acres (ga[/day/acre) (gaE/day/du) (gatlons/day) Cku~ulat~ve
~Subarea 16 Potent~a/Buildout]
Residential 659 270 177,930
Public Park 5 ac 190 950
IndustriaI Park 46 ac 3200 147200
Subarea 16 Total 326,080 21%
[Cucamonga Comerpo~nte ~
Residential 351 270 94,770
Public Park 5 ac 190 950
Cucamonga Cornerpointe Total 95,720
Subarea I6 Potential Buildout pius Cumulative Projects 1,578,990
,
· Bource: Boyle Engineering Corporation, August, I993, Table 3-2 and 3-3.
12-31
Tr%BLE 5.10-1
Project-Specific and Cumulative Sotict Wast~ Demand
Generation
Dwelling Employees Factor Total % of
Units Acres per Acre Ipounds/day) (pounds/day} Cumula~ve
ISubarea 16 Poten~al guildout]
Residential 659 16.25 ' 10,709
Public Park 5 ac 5.7 ** 29
Industrial Park 46 ac 20 15 * 13,800
Subarea I6 Total 24,538 14%
Cuca.monga Cornerpoh~te ]
Residential 351 16.25 ' 5,704
Public Park 5 ac 5.7 '° 29
Cucamonga Cornerpointe Total 3,733
ICtunulative Proiects
Residential
Single Family 231 16.25 · 5~379
CondornL~ums 170 16,25 ' 2;63
AparU'nents 172 16.25 · 2,795
· Source: San ae.n~ardino CounM/Solid Waste Management Plan, I986, Assumes 3.25 persons pet household.
"Source: County of San Bernardino, !993.
~,UG-.28-SS ~'ED 8: 17 P, 02
.- D
)(2HINO BASIN
RO. Box 5~7 · Ranc~ C~a. C4
~[CIPAL WATER DISTRICT TEL(9~)~7~241 · F~{9~)357*3884
Or. Robb D.
~iet ~u~ ~cer
G~e~ Mara~r
August 28, 1986
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Community Development Department
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Attn: AJan Warren, Associate Ptanner
Subject: industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 16 Redesignation - EIR
Gentlemen:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above draft environmental impact report.
We have the following comments:
On page 5.9-1 you state that "In the future, all flows will be directed to Regional Plant
No. 4 (currently under construction) for treatment and/or disposal."
The site of this proposed devetopment is not a aart of the area which is proposed to
be diverted to Regional Plant No. 4. It will ccntinue to be directed to the District's
Regional Plant No. 1. .
If you have any questions, please call Ken Petersen in our Planning Department.
Very truly yours
Manager of Planning
GEH\KP:tc
G:~'Gr°uP\Plan\k=,m\KP-INDST
eiH HEll G~or~e aotb~ John L Atlderson Anne Du~11[,hue Wy=rt~ L. Ttoxe4
12-33
12.0 RESPONSE TO CONIMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM:
Gary E. Hackney, Chino Basin Municipal Water District (dated August 25, 1996):
D1 Comment acknowledged. Please refer to Response to Comment B7.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
SUBAREA !.6 R~DESIGNATION EIR
12-34
-' E
JAKE FALLER ASSOCIATES
24005 Ventura Boulevard, Suite J
Calabasas, California 91302
818-222-2831 fax 818-591-0087
August 29, 1996
Transmitted by fax and US Mail.
Mr. Alan Warren
Planning Department
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated July, 1996, for the
Subarea 16 Redesignation
of the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan
(GPA 95-03A and Tentative Tract 15727)
Dear Alan:
On behalf of Cucamonga Cornerpointe LLC, the applicant for GPA 95-03A and Tentative
Tract 15727, we would like to offer the following comments regarding the Draft Environmental
Impact Report, dated July, 1996, for the Subarea 16 Redesignation of the Rancho
Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan:
Pomment #1, regarding revised Tentative Tract Map 15727, dated 7/26/96:
Subsequent to the EIR consultant's preparation of the Draft EIR, dated Ju y 1996,
Cucamonga Cornerpointe LLC has revised the Tentative Map in response to
concerns raised by City staff. We request that the Draft EIR be revised where
appropriate to reflect the following information regarding the proposed
Cucamonga Comerpointe project as shown on the revised Tentative Map,
dated 7126196:
a) No private roads are proposed in the project, only public roads. The fifth
paragraph on Page 5.5-2 under the sub-heading "Cucamonga
Cornerpointe Subdivision" refers to "proposed private roads," and should
be revised.
b) The third paragraph on page 5.1-17 discusses the side yard and rear yard
setbacks that have been desiened to mitigate any potential conflicts
between the residential and in:dustrial park uses. The revised Tentative
Map shows the following design elements, which we request be included in
the Draft EIR:
12-35
August 29, 1996
Mr. Alan Warren
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 2
E1
i) 39 single-family lots will abut the industrial park properties.
ii) 29 of those lots will have backyards between the common
property line and the homes.
iii) The remaining 10 lots would have a side yard between the
common property line and the homes with those lot widths
ranging from 75 to 86 feet.
iv) The minimum setbacks proposed for the project along the
industrial park are now a 30-foot minimum for side yards and a
60-foot minimum for rear yards. _
Comment ~2, regarding Mitigation Measure W-1 (Table 1-1, and Page 5.8-5): 'i
It should be noted that the Comment Sheet dated 7/17/96 from the Cucamonga
County Water District for the Technical Review Committee meeting for Tentative
Tract 15727 (copy attached), calls for a continuation of the 10-inch waterline in 4th
Street between Hellman Avenue and Archibald Avenue. Mitigation Measure W-1
(Table 1-1, and Page 5.8-5), should be revised to show a requirement for a
inch water line, instead of a 12-inch line.
Comment #3, regarding the Storm Drainage section (Table 1-1, and Page 5.11-7):
Revisions to Tentative Map 15727 have been made subsequent to the E[R
consultant's review of storm drainage. The revised Tentative Map and hydrology
study indicate that the stormwater runoff from the area designated for future
industrial use has been planned for and will be accomodated appropriately. We
request that the Draft E[R be revised to reflect this.
Comment ~t, regarding Master Plan improvements (pages 5.1-9 and 10):
The Land Use section discusses proposed changes to the Master Plan for public
improvements in Subarea 16 and to the phasing of those improvements. The
second paragraph on 15age 5.1-9 states that "...an assessment district may have
to be formed" once the Cornerpointe project and the public park are approved and
developed. We request that the Draft EIR be revised to make it clear that
Cucamonga Cornerpointe LLC proposes to build the public improvements
required with Tentative Map 15727 and the proposed public park without the use
of an assessment district. The owners and/or developers of the industrial park
development area east of the proposed residential area may choose to propose
an assessment- district for the industrial park area, but we would not anticipate that
that district would include the public park or any of the residential area.
12-36
August 29, 1996 E
Mr. Alan Warren
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 3
Comment #fi, regarding the comparison of the proposed project and alternatives in
Section 8:
Table 8-1, "Comparison of Potential Impacts of Proposed Project and
Alternatives," compares the "Subarea 16 Potential Buildout (Proposed Project)"
with four different potential alternative developments. As Note #1 in the table
explains, the table compares impacts in terms of development of the overall
subarea, not just the proposed Cucamonga Cornerpointe residential project. The
"Proposed Project" or "Subarea 16 Potential Buildout' column, however, is based
on a potential density of over 7 residential units per acre for the 91 acres of the
Cornerpointe, Cook, and Blessent properties, which is close to the maximum
allowable for Low-Medium Residential.
In actuality. the current proposed Tentative Map 15727 shows only 342 units on
the 77-acre Cornerpointe property, which is a c/ensity of 4.6 units per acre. If we
apply that same density to the entire 91-acre residential portion of the "Subarea
16 Proposed Project." a total of 416 residential units would result compared to the
659 units. The "Proposed Project" column in Table 8-1 reflects the unmitigated
impacts of these hypothetical 659 units combined with an estimated 907,398
square feet of industrial park buildings and a 5-acre park.
We request that Table 8-1 also show an additional column for comparison
purposes entitled "More Precise Subarea 16 Proposed Project" based on the
proposed Tentative Map 15727, which includes the more realistic 416 residential
units instead of the hypothetical 659 units. This additional column would provide
information which would more closely reflect the actual impacts that can be
anticipated from the development of Subarea 16. According to our calculations,
this additional column would provide the information on the attached Exhibit A. j
Comment #6. regarding the Fiscal Impact Analysis:
Although CEQA does not require that a fiscal impact analysis be made for an EIR,
the City chose to have the Fiscal Impact Ann ysis, dated July 8. 1996. and
prepared by The Natelson Company, Inc.. attached to the EIR.
It should be noted that the Fiscal Impact Analysis reflects an earlier project design
with small lots and detached condominiums. The new project design, as shown
on Tentative Map 15727, revised 7/26/96, is composed of larger single-family lots
which average 6,845 square feet in size.
It appears that the dollar values used in the "Average Value per Unit" column of
Table 8 of the analysis reflect the previous small lot and detached condominium
design of the Cornerpointe project. It is our belief. based on our current marketing
data, that the homes that will be built on the nevv larger lots will range in value
from S155.000 to S225.000. We believe that the Fiscal Imoact Report should be
modified to reflect this chanoe in order to orovide the publ'~ and the City's
- ' ffW
decision makers with more accurate information.
12-37
August 29, 1996
Mr. Alan Warren
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 4
E6
As a result of the increase in the average value per housing unit, the average
household income for this project will also be higher reflecting the higher income
qualifications required for the purchase of these homes. As a result of these
increases, we believe that the amount of sales tax revenues derived by the City
will also increase correspondingly.
Additionally, we believe that the assumption in the Fiscal Impact Analysis that
50% of the new residents in Subarea 16 will shop in areas other than the City of
Rancho Cucamonga. may not be accurate. We don't believe that the analysis
takes into sufficient consideration the draw of the nearby major power centers that
have been built along Foothill Boulevard in recent years.
The Fiscal Impact Analysis also assumes that most of the City's expenses will
start to occur from the very beginning of the project. This assumption does not
take into account the fact that most if not all of the maintenance costs attributed to
the City will in actuality not be assumed by the City until the end of the project
development.
We request that the Fiscal Impact Analysis be revised to reflect all of the points
discussed above. We do not believe, however, that the revisions to the Draft EIR
and the processing of those revisions should be delayed by changes to the Fiscal
Impact Analysis, since the fiscal analysis is only an attachment to the EIR. The
revised Fiscal Impact Analysis should, however, be available for the public
hearings so that the public and the public officials will have the most accurate
information available at that time.
This concludes our comments on the Draft EIR for the Subarea 16 Redesignation, dated July,
1996. If you have any questions or need additional information regarding these comments,
please don't hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
.ja~/L'''' ~'~
/if
attachment
cc: Mr. Geoff Reilly. Envicom Corporation
Ms. Mary Rauschenburg, Communities Southwest
Mr. Rick Niec. Griffin Industries. Inc.
Mr. Bruce Strickland, Gri~'~n Industries. In;~//t//~.
I2-38
13.030 Allemahve 2
/MONGA COD~'Ty WATER DIS2rKiCT P.O. BOX 638 R.~NCHO CUC.-~MONGA. CA 91729-0638 (909)483-7440
CUCAblONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
TRC CO~LMENT SHEET
PROJECT: TR 15727, Cucamonga Cornerpointe LLC. Industrial Specific Plan Amend. # 95-04.
Development District Amendment # 95-02, Formerly CC~,VD Engineering File # CD-7~
LOCATION: NWC 4th Street and Archibald Avenue, APN's 210-060-002, 011, 013, 026, 032, and 033
Date: 7/17/96
BY: JOHN KNAPp, Engineering Technician
WATER: Existing 10" waterline in 4th Street west of the SBCFCD Cucamonga Creek Channel.
existing 10" Waterline stubs on the west and east sides of the 4th Street channej
bridge excluding the center section, an existing 10" waterline on the west side ol
Archibald Ave. an existin,, 8" waterline on the east side of Archibald Ave., and-an
existing 10" wai'ertine on th~ south side of 6th Street. '
· District Requires:
1) Continuation of 10" waterline between Herman Ave. and Archibald Ave.
2) Normal connections to the public water svstem.
3) All public water mains to be 8" minixnu~ sizing.
4) Any domestic meter which is to provide residential fire protection shall be 1"
mininium sizing.
~ All public landscaping shall be served only from a separate landscape metered
service,
6) All public landscape or public domestic metered services shall have an ap[
Reduced Pressure Principle Assembly installed as the required minimum backflow
device.
7) All meters are to be located outside of any pedestrian walkway area or any vehicular
traffic area and shall be located within a parkway, landscape,'or planter area.
8)Relocatinn of any effected metered service or appurtenance.
SE~'VER: Existing 21" sewerline along the east rig. ht of way of Cucumonga Creek t.'~ng into a 24"
sewerline in 4th St. which extends approximately 900 feet east thence south, an exjstina
8" sewertine-:at_lhe northwestcorner of 4th St. and Archibald Ave.-that'flows to the-"
existing 10" sewerline on the east side of Archibald Ave., and an existing 15" sewerline
on the west side of Archibald Ave.
District Requires:
1) Development to be served bv the existing 15" sewerline exclusively. Any other
sewerline access to be per Disirict approval only. '
2) Normal connections to the public sewer system.
3) No clean-outs to be installed within any ehclosed garage areas.
4) All public sewer mains to be 8" minir~um sizing.
NOTE: A 10 foot minimum horizontal separation is required between the centerline o~ any tree and
the centerline of any water or sewer main (a 5 foot minimum dimension is ret~uired fo~
laterals). Any dimension less than this required minimum requires prior written a
A__.LL PERTINE.N'T LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLANS .ARE TO INCLUDE THIS NOTF
EXISTING pLBLiC~_C4~T
IES:TO BE FIELD VERIFIED
12.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM:
Jake Faller, Jake FalJer Associates (dated August 29, 1996):
E1 The commentor identLfies that the applicant has revised Tentative Tract Map 15727 in
response to various concerns raised by City staff. Tentative Tract Map 15727 was revised
subsequent to the cLrculation of the DEIR for public review and is now dated July 26, 1996.
As a result, the commentor requests that several pages of the DEIR be revised to reflect
new information on the revised Tentative Tract Map 15727.
First, the commentor identifies that private roads are no longer proposed for the project,
and requests that the fifth paragraph on page 5.5-2 of the DEIR under the subheading
"Cucamonga CornerpoLnte Subdivision" be revised accordinglF Therefore, the first
sentence of the fifth paragraph on page 5.5-2 of the DELR is hereby mended to read as
follows:
"Review of the site plan for the proposed Cucamonga Comerpointe
residential subdivision indicates that the proposed access drives and cui-de-
sacs would provide sufficient width and tu.ming radii to acconTu~odate the
Dis~'rict's fire and emergency medical service vehicies,"
The amendment to the fifth paragraph on page 5.5-2 does not change the DEIR's
conclusion that the proposed subdivision could result in a potentially signLficant impact
relative to fire protection. However, this potentially signfficant impact can be
mitigated to a less than significant level fitrough the implementation of Mitigation
Measure FP-1, which is proposed on page.5.5-3 of the DEIR.
Second, the commentor identifies that the revised Tentative Tract Map 15727 includes
different design elements and requests that the third paragraph on page 5.1-17 of the
DEIR be mended to reflect the different design elements. Therefore, the third
paragraph on page 5.1-17 of the DEIZR is hereby amended to read as follows:
"In order to address this potential land use conllict, the Cucamonga
Cornerpointe subdivision proposes to use side yard and rear yard setbacks. Of
the 342 potential lots, 39 would knmediately abut industrial park designated .
propev~y. Of these 39 lots, 29 of the lots would have backyards between the
common proper~y line and the homes, with a total lot length between 110 and
160 feet. The remaining 10 lots would have a side yard between the commc~
property line and the homes with lot widths ranging from 75 to 86 feet. The
minimum setbacks from each dwe.ULng unit to the common property line would
be 30 feet for side yards and 60 feet for rear yards.. An eight foot high
masonry screen wall would also be constructed between the residential
development and industrial park. The proposed lot widths and lengths
combined with the masonry wall will serve to reduce potential land use
compatibility impacts between the residential and indusLrial uses. However,
because the precise uses which will end up in the industrial park portion of
the subarea are unknown at tkis ~ime, adverse land use compatibility impacts
may still be generated. LndustHal buildings which are 75 feet in height,
warehouses with 24-hour ~ucking operations located at the rear of the
industrial park parcels, and certain custom manufacturLng activities
involving noxious/nuisance substances are all potential realities of the
industrial park' which could degrade the livabillty of areas beyond a
sideyard setback of 10 or t5 feet. As such, the proposed design of the
RANCHO CUCAMONGA INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
SUBAREA t6 REDESIGNATION EIR
fi,/ 2-42
12.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Cucamon~ Comerpointe subdivision is considered to generate a potentially
significant adverse land use compatibility impact."
It should be noted that the potentiaiiy significant land use compatibility impacts
described above can be mitigated to Iess than sig-nificant levels fitrough implementation
of NLitigation Measures LU-2 through LU-5, which are proposed on pages 5.1-19 and 5.1-
20 of the DEFR.
E2 The commentor notes that the Comment Sheet dated j'uly 17, 1996 from the Cucamonga
County Water District for the Technical Review Committee meeting for Tentative Tract
Map 1572_7 ca/Is for the continuation of the 10" waterline in 4th Street between Hellman
Avenue and Archibald Avenue. However, Mr. ]ames H. CLine, Jr., Director of Engineering
and Inspection of the Cucamonga County Water District, has indicated (personal
communication, September 10, 1996) thai the july 17, 1996 Comment Sheet is incorrect and
that a 12" water main will be required between the Cucamonga Creek Channel and
Archibald Avenue. Please refer to Response to Comments B4 and B6.
E3 The revised Tentative Tract blap 15727 and August 20, 1996 Drainage Study are still
subject to review and approval by the City of Rancho Cucamonga En~eering Division.
However, preliminary review of the revised tract map and drainage study indicates t h a t
most all of the potential storm drainage impacts described in Section 5.11 of the DEIR
have been accommodated, including stormwater runoff from the industrial park portion of
the subarea. The applicant for Cucamonga Comerpointe LLC has already complied with
storm drainage Mitigation Measures SD-1 and SD-3 wh/ch are listed on pages 5.11-9 and
5.1140 of the DEIR. Mitigation Measures SD-2 and SD4 (page 5.11-10 of the DEIR)
have yet to be implemented. Combined with the revised tract map and drainage study,
implementation of Mitigation Measures SD-2 and SD4 would reduce potentially
significant storm drainage impacts to less than signLficant levels. The applicant may
also be required to meet any additional storm drainage conclltions recommended by the
City's Engineering Division.
E4 The commentor identifies that Cucamonga Comerpointe LLC proposes to build the public
Lmprovements required with Tentative Tract Map 1572_7 and the proposed public park
without the use of an assessment district and requests that the second paragraph on page
5.1-9 of the DEIR be revised accordingly. Therefore, the last sentence included in the
second paragraph on page 5.1-9 of the DEIER is hereby amended to read as follows:
"However, it should be noted that Cucamonga Comerpointe LLC proposes to
build the public improvements required with Tentative Tract Map 15727 and
the proposed public park without the use of an assessment district."
An assessment district may still be needed for the industrial park portion of Subarea 16;
however, such an assessment district is not anticipated to include the public park or
residential portion of the subarea.
E5 Whjde the Cucaznonga Cornerpointe subdivision Ls proposed to be developed at a density
of 4.6 dwelling units per acre, it is tanknown at this time if the Cook and/o~ BIessedt
properties wou/d be developed at this same residential density. As such, Section 8.0
(Alternatives) of the DEIR analyzed the entire project trader a worst-case scenirio,
assuming that the residential portion of Subarea 16 would be develoved at a density over
7 dwelling units per.acre. '
RANCHO CUCAMONGA INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
SUBAREA 16 REDESIGNATtON EIR
/~SZ) 12-43
12.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Assuming both the Cook and Blessent properties would be developed at a density near 4.6
dwelling units per acre (instead of over 7 dweLLing units per acre), then the '~'~vfore Precise
Subarea 16 Proposed Project" described by the commentor wouJd indeed more closely
resemble the actual dwelling units associated with the project. For comparison purposes,
Table 8-1 cn pages 8-3 and 8-4 of the DEIR is hereby mended to include an additional
column entitled "More Precise Subarea 16 Potential Buildout (More Precise Proposed
Project with Residential Densities from Tentative Tract 1572~D". The mended version of
Table 8-1 ls provided at the end of Comment Letter "E'. The new column provides a
revised description of the residential component of the project and also identifies the
environmental impacts associated with the '2vfore Precise Subarea 16 Proposed Project."
The City of Rancho Cucamonga identified severaJ minor errors in the mended version of
Table 8-1 that was submitted by the commentor. These errors have been corrected and the
mended version of Table 8-1 of the DEIR has been subsequently approved by the City.
However, the mended version of Table 8-1 does not change the conclusions of Section 8.0
(Alternatives) of the DEIR.
E6 As stated by the comn~entor, the fiscal analysis prepared for the DEER was based on an
earlier project design with small lots and detached condomirdums. As such, the
commentor requests that the fiscal analysis be revised based on the project as currently
proposed (larger single-family lots which average 6,845 square feet in size). However,
the fiscal consultant has not been authorized to complete a model re-run for the new
project. Therefore, provided below Ls an estimation by the fiscal consultant of the fiscal
impacts resulting from the new project description.
The commentor notes that the new larger lots (342 lots) will range in price ~rom $155,000
to S225,000. The attached Tables 1 and 2 show an estimation of the net fiscal impact
resulting ~rom the change in the project. Table 1 displays the net fiscal impact
attributable to the Cucamonga ComerpoLnte re-configuration. As proiected at buildout,
the net fiscal impact of the Cucamonga Cornerpointe residential component of the new
project wLLl return a surplus of approximately $38,000 compared with only $11,000 under
the old project. Table 2 displays an estimation of the costs and revenues resulting from
the entire development under the new project description.
The sales tax generation calculation built into the model is LLrtked directly to the
residential development assumptions. Thus, the revised project does in fact increase the
overall level of retail sales tax revenues to the City as is reflected in the Table '1 and
Table 2 projections.
With regard to the comment about the projected City capture rate of retail sales, the
fiscal consultant stays committed to its current projection of ~ percent as the best
conservative estimate of the City's potential capture of new residential demand. Given
the lack of a regional retail center in Rancho Cucamonga and the project's proximity to
retail areas in neighboring communities, the fiscal consultant has determined that a 50
percent capture rate is an appropriate estimate. Based en the fiscal consultant's
experience, they believe that any upward adjustment in this figure has the potential of
compromising the integrity of the fiscal analysis by potentially inflating City revenue
projections.
The methods used by the fiscal consultant to detemine the fiscal costs of public
maintenance is described on pages 18 end 19 of the fiscal impact analysis (under the
subheading "Public Works Maintenance Costs") and on the first page of AppendLx I to the
fiscal anaiysls. These methods were previously reviewed and approved by the City of
Rancho Cucamonga.
RANCHO CUCAblONGA INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
SUBAREA 16 REDES[GNATION
Hs
-/12-44
Table 1
ESTEvlATION OF FISCAL INIPACTS OF CUCANIONGA CORNERPOINT
Residential Component Only:
Acres: I42.3
Units: 650
Cucamonga CornerPoint:
Acres: 77
Units: 342
Cucamonga ComerPoint as a Percentage of Residential Component
Acres: 54. 1% __
Units: 52.6%
At Percent
Buildout if Total
LEVENUES:
Pmpe.-~yTax 526.762 314,08I 4.41% Units
T,-aa-,sferTax 8,497 4.47I 1.40% Units
Sales Tax 56,143 29,54/:) 9-9-5% Units
Franc,hise F~ 1 I2.089 58,976 18.48% Units
Businca Licease~ 0.00% Units
Transfers From Other Agencies 101.914 53,622 I6.80% Uni~
. Misc~Uaneous Revenue 13.798 7260 2.27% Unie
Total Revenut $319203 $267,950 52.62%
COSTS:
.Police Costs* S31379 $16.980 5.24% Acres
Parks Maimena.nc::: 81,359 0.00% No Parks in CC
Srx'=:t,Malntermsx= 114,761 62,098 19.17% Acres
Storm Drain Mai~tezw, nce 4,636 2.5O9 0.77% Acres
Planning Deparm'~nt 4,891 2573 0.79% Units
Rccv:.adon Progi-~m 20,129 10.591 3.27% Units
City Administration and Overhead 66,717 35,I03 10.84% Units
Total Costs $323,872 $129,854 40.
Net Fiscal Impact $38,096
iVet Fiscal Impact under Previous Plan 810, 784
Total Increase in Fiscal Revenues to the City Y27,312
Table 2
5L~LMARY OF RECURRING FISCAL IMPACT ON CITY OF RANCI:
SUBAREA 16 AREA FISCAL LM~ACT REPORT
At Percent
Buildout of Total
REVENUES:
Pmpe,'~y Tax 38.672 6.1%
Tratl.sfer Tax 10.859 1.7%
Sa/es T,'~
Towl Sales Tax Revenue 56.143
Other Sales Tax Revenue O 0.0%
Fr:mchise F~_.s 391,023 61.5%
Bus~.s [j~ns~ 6.632 1.0%
Trm~fe."s From Other Agenci~ 101.914 16.0%
Miseell:meo~ Revenue 30,685 4.8%
Total Revenue 635,923 100.0%
COSTS:
Pel ice Costs' 3&391 10.2%
P~ks Maintenance 81,359 22.7%
Street Mainten2nce I35,34~' 37.8%
Storm Dr~n Mainten,~nce 6.3T/ 1.8%
planning Dcparanent 4,891 1.4%
· Recreaiion Program 20.129 5.6%
Cit'/Administration and 0verfie:~d 73,810 20.6%
Tow/Costs 358,303 100.0%
, RATIO OF REWiNUE TO ! .77
12-46
29 August 1996 CZ~, of Ran
I c
platrains Dep~Lrrment ~/a~ho Cuca
i0500 Civic Ccn~er Drive
Ranc~u Cuca~ong~, CA 91729
indu~al ~ca Specific Pl~n Substea
Rcdc~i~aUon--Dr~t Env~onm~nt~ Impact Rcpurt
Dc~ Pl~nin~
In respon~ to Lhe Dr~ ~I~ br d~c .Industrial Areo Specific
Pl~n Sub~ea 16 ~cdcsi~aUon, wc would ~e to offer
no ,ing r sponsc r g dn g ulmr sou ces
1. W~ cunuur ~ thc Fredlugs ~at ~ere ~e nn histo~c
fcsourcc= ~in ~e proposed 77-~cre Cucaonga
Cornc~ointe residena~ proj~cf.
2. We concur ~at the adjacent Lucas g~ch Complex
~stoNc~ly significat ad support die mitigation
measures and addiaon~ recomnmndation~ as proposed.
3. We disagree ~at the ducunlcnta~on on ~is historic
resource (such a~ i-cpog~, or~ MatoHes, or photogaphs}
be unl.y deposited wi~ ~ Ci~ of Racho Cuc.mnnga,
Rm~cho Cucaonga Public Libra', ad the historic
prc=c~adon commission {if it e~ts}. These ~emctes
not fgilla wi$ profession~Iy mana~ng such specified
mate~g according to curr~nt libr~ ~d ~cMv~
~t~d~ds so thnt ~hey ~e both prese~ed ~zd z'cadHy
accessibl. to ~e public. We su~c3t, therefore,
mafefials be deposited ~a such i'c~on~ histo~
agencies as ~c Model Cvluay Room of ac Onto CiW
Librwy or ~e Chaffey Communi6ea Cultur~ Center.
if I c~x pr~4dc any further assistance, please cnnmct me at
your convcnlcnce.
Cordi~y,
· :"'.. Max A. vg Bagooy
... .:..5'. President
12-47
12.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DR.AFT EL.x<
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM:
Max A. van Balgooy, Chaffey Communities Cultural Center (dated August 30, 1996):
F1 Corruznent acknowledged.
F2 Con'u:nent acknowledged.
F3 The City of Rancho Cucamonga's existing program for cultural resource documentat/on,
preservation, arckivLng, and pubtic presentation is considered to be sufficient for the
project site's cultural resources. It should be noted that the proposed documentation of the
cultural resources is a reconunendation of the DEIR and not a required mitigation measure.
RANCHO CUCA.MONGA INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
SUBAREA 16 REDESIGNATION E[R
12 -4 S
Augus[ 30, 1
City of Rancho Cucamonga ~' C~.<.,] ~ ¢j...,~9.
Planning Department
10500 Civic Center Drive ~ ~
Ranshe Cucamonga, California 91729 ~ ~x
Afienfion; Alan Warren, Associate Planner
Commams an~ Conn~rn~
Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area 5Declllc Plan
SuDarea 15 ~e~eslgnadon E~R
S~ate Clearinghouse No. 95112019
Dear Mr. Warren:
This correspondence is in response to the information contained in the above
mentioned Draft Environmental Impact Report which analyzes the potential
environmental impede associated with thc development of Subarea 16 of the City of
Ranshe Cucamonga's industrial Area Specific Plan.
We are concerned with the environmental implicationSimpacts of the proposed
rodesignation as addressed in the above referenced document; as well as
environmental implications/impacts which may not have been adequately addressed
in the above referenced document.
The EIR required descriptions of mitigation measures lo reduce slgnlflcan~ adverse
impacts reveal thin mer~ are impacre w~icb ~nnoz be reduced below signi[ican[
revels by zhe proposed mizlgafJon measures as fdentified. According to the EIR the'
proposed project would generate signltZcan~ and unavoidabl~ adverse impacts in the
areas of air quality. noise and solid waste.
A~hough ~be al[ernagve analysis rufurunu~d- and the document- concludes that
lesser impaOs would b~ generated by the proposed proje~ than if the subarea were
tu bu developed entirely under the current land use designation, we are concerned
lhat these "beneficial impa~s" associated with the land use change as proposed are
far ou~eighed by the significant and unavoidable adverse impacts that weuZd be
genereted.
We 8re concerned that the conclusions reached in the referenced EIR as to
significantinsignificant environmental implications/impacts an land use.
traffidcirculatian, fire protection, police protection, schools, water supply. sewa0~,
~2-49
storm drainage and cultural resources may not have analyzed to the extent necessary
those factors which would more accurately refie~ the reel impacts on the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, its citizen/residents, businesses and visitors.
We are ooncerned thr~t this Industrial Area Specific PJan Subarea 16 Redesignation
and the Project as proposed will have both short and long term significant adverse
impact On the City of Rancho Cucamonga, its ci~[zens/reglden~s, businesg9s and
visitors.
As the Gateway to Hancho Cucamenga and to the Ontario International Airport,
City of Rancho Cucsmonga, its nifizan/msidRnm Rnd Dusinesses have a significant
opponunity lo follow ~..~t practices in its planning and developmare o~ this property
and all of the City ot RRnchn Cucamonga.
Representing the Concerned Citizens of Rancho CucaITlorlga.
Carla Florence
9580 Meadow St.
Rancho Cucamonga, California 9~.730
989-3262
co's: Interested Parties and Concerned ClUzens of Rancho Cucamonga
cf/d n
12 -50
12.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ETZR
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM:
Carla Florance (dated August 30, 1996):
G1 The commentor expresses concern over the potential environmental Lmpacts that cotLid be
generated by the proposed project, and notes that the DEIR may not have adequately
analyzed such environmental impacts. The commentor is also concerned that the
potential benefits from the proposed land use redesiguation of the project site are far
outweighed by the impacts that would be generated by the project.
The DE1R for the proposed project was prepared in accordance with the environmental
impact report preparation requirements established under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 as amended. The State of California Office of Planning and
Research CEQA GuideLines were strictly foLlowed, along with advice and guidance from
the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. The principal objectives of CEQA
are that the environmental review process Lnvolve the general pubtic, and that the EIR
be an Lnformational document that will inform member,s of the pubtic, City decision-
makers and technical reviewers about the environmental impacts associated with
implementation and operation of the proposed project. ,Section 15151 of the State CEQA
Guidelines defines the standards for ELR adequacy:
An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-
makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently
takes into account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental
effects era proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be
re~aiewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not
make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR would summarize the main points of disagreement
among the experts. The courts have not looked for perfection; but for adequacy,
completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure. ·
Sect/on 15146 of the State CEQA Gujdetines also states: The degree of specificity
required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying
activity which is described in the EIR.
The DEIR clearly identifies that the proposed project will restLit in potentially
significant (short-term and long-term) environmental impacts. The level of significance
of the envLronmental impacts were determined by using appropriate "thresholds of
significance" which were derived from existing City, state, county, and federal
standards. Mitigation measures are proposed in the DELR in an effort to reduce or avoid
such impacts. Section 11.0 of the DEIR also includes a Mitigation Monitoring and
Repor'dng Plan for the proiect which outlines the ac~ons requ.tred to ensure that all
mitigation measures are completely implemented and monitored. However, the proposed
project would still result in significant unavoidable impacts even after the mitigation
measures are implemented.
In order for the City of Rancho Cucamonga to approve the project, they must first prepare
a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) for these unmitlgable impacts. The SOC
will be required to describe why the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the
project's signt~cant unavoidable impacts. The City decision-makers will be responsible
for approvLng or den. ying the project as currently proposed.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA I~STRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
SUBAREA t6 REDESIGNATION EIR
12-51
GOVERNOFt'5 OFFICE OF pLANNING AND RESEARC~ '~'
14G~ IbNTHSTREET
PETE WILSON 5AGRANI~NTO 95814
~0~ SEP 0 5
AUgUSU 30,
City of gancho Cu$a~o~a
I2-52
12-53
12.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM:
Antero A. Rivasplata, Govyrnor's Office of Planning and Research (dated August 30, 1996):
HI Comment acknowledged.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
SUBAREA 16 REDES[GNATION EIR
12-54
Su~m o~ C~l~fornla Thm Ramaug:am
Memorandum
TO: Pro~ C~rdinat~ DATE: ~Gumt
Remou~m AGency
Mr. ~ W~en ', ~ "1 Lm J--, 7. ,,..
~. Li~ Hen~r~ ,., .'-
Ci~ ~ Ra~o Cuu~ga Planni~ De~ ' ~ '~ .:',;
1 ~ Civic Cent~ Drive . _~ $ =~'~ ~::~
~ CuriOs, Califomla 91729 ~,A ~XS ,..< ~ /:
FROM: Depmnt of Conleffl~on : . .,.
~ce of Governaerial and ~vlmn~n~ Rela~ont ' ".'r: ~,/"' .:'
SUBJECT: The Dra~ Envtr~menta{ Impa~ Re~ (DEIR) f'~ '
S~fic Plan Subarea 16 R~eslg~ti~ -~~
T~ State Mlntng and G~t~y Bo~d (Bo~) staff ~m revi~
~ s~ve refere~ ffoJ~. ~ Boa~ establishem ~1~ ~ ~e ~stl~
~ve~em ~ mineral re~ur~a ~d d~31g~tes ~ee8 ~vlng r~ional. mining
~~, The foll~ing ~mments ~e offered f~ your revi~.
We u~r~ ~t ~ City af R/n~ Cu~g8 Is ~mCy
~ ~vel~nI ~ ~ a8 ~e ladusUal ~a S~c Plan,
~ St~e Geo~i~ as ~taining im~t igg~me ~ ~r mt~ ~ffs.
~H la~s, el~, ~ve ~ Desig~t~ by ~ Bo~ as ~ ares ~
Slgni~ (Publ~ Re~ur~ C~ S~i~ ~.7). ~ Ci~ ~ RE~
~ ~ ~st~i~ d reei~t~ sites h ~is ~ea ~uld
~e ~vel~ d aggregate relives in ~e mt~l m~ ares I~1~
D-12 (8~el ReDod 14a, Pad VI. C~ of~8~ Gm~Re~
~ ~ in ~e DEIR'~. Initial Stay, ~ 'B', ~
Ca~f~n~ )'~n d Mines and G~y ~Ss ~n~ "~g~a~' ms
im~a~ ~ In t~ City. No~ of the ~a~ ~ ~
Fu~m, ~ ~e ~ n~ ~wn to sup~ any ~ ~8~ na~
~, ~p~nt af the ~ ~te ~ ~t fnhlbff ~ ~ any
12
Mr. Alan WmT~ / Mr. Larry Henderson
Augur28, 199~
P~ 2
~ ~u~.' ~ y~ ~n ~ ~om the a~
L~ti~ ~ (Fi~re 2-2), Se~ D-12
by ~ S~a G~l~ist and Designat~
~d.
Y~ ~ is ~11~ ~ Public Re~E C~ ~I~ 27~ ~ 27~
~75 ~ ~76 ~ding lead ~ re~sl~lltles
r~, ~ is i~nt ~t me =ign~
~ ~ ~ ~tentlal I~ ~refully ~ eval~ed. ~. ~ ~t
I~e ~ 81re. R~al, and C~ inherits in utili~ ~ ~-
~ ~nt ~pr~ates ~
have ~y ~im= ~ardi~ ~e~ ~ts, ~ea~ ~ J~ G. P~ah,
E~ ~r, ~ State Mining ~ Geol~y B~ at (916) ~-1~2. _
.
~.~ D~
~: J~ G. P~, S~te Mlnt~ a~
I2-56
" ~ Not in ~:ec-tor
· z.. · ' , "' ;i~ .. ,_::i :
· ~ .. '~:-,
~-~ .,. ,. ~
,= ' m-:"'.=~'~.. I.~ ,
. "". "-.'~r-'~. :/ t c .......
~' :: -" .~i~.. ', ~ '. .,
L - ~ ~' .-.c: ;' ~ .~
m: k p
~':% J-~...:.$,~jz ':~ .....!..: "- - ""
i:-~ :r~: ='~: --L~d_:~.. '.::...~:f. -.=' . .,~ m:
. ..-. ,.-,;.',,.: .....:.~......., .~...,.~. -
~ .....~:~ ~"-.--J~17:jx~a- ....---.-., ....--:..-:
· '~ ..... SECTOR D-13
..- ~. .:. ,.,.,,...,,.,, ~-,..~ - i:,"'---~-~--.~..:
..~-~: .,_. ~{ : : : ',..._
.~ I ~ ~ q ':
.~; '.... ~ ..,
~; ~' 7: - "' ' '" · .- ~'
'~/ONTARi SEC' D-IS '.'
. . ,,--~;., ..
;: :'.:,.. ~!~. ;.,~ ....~ ""' .,~.., ~" .: ,-
.;~; .... ~. ~
· .; · · : · ,. : ~._ "- 2~'2. - ,"2 ·
~.:.;7~.~;;::ye~~y/.'. ":~.?~( .....,._.~.~.,----, .....y';. .....-..-._.-. ....."";
. . _.,:; , ,;..;~.; ~.L;:~' .~ ..............~ ............· 7~ .. ..
"- - - · ~ .'- --- ": ...... : ~]~ .... L .,. _ ;. ,
' "" "~"' >/~" " '" *' ' ' ' '~ ............... ~ '? :
~ ,..., ,? ,:~;.~.~ .;.~f.., ~ ;,.~ ... ,-, .;.::.,-.
~ggregat. ~esourca Sectora
CIaremonf-UDand P-C
12.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
RESPONS[~ TO COMMENTS FROM:
Jason R. Marshall, Dep~tr~ment of Conservation, Office of Governmenf~al and Environmental
Relations (dated August 25, 1996):
I1 The City of Rancho Cucamonga questions the State Mirdng and Geology Board's
designation of the project site as containing important miners2 resources and is currently
investigating the issue. The aggregate resources map (Figure W-2) of the City's General
Plan was updated per "Designation of Regionally Significant Constamcfion Aggregate
Resource Areas in the Claremont-Upland and San Bemardino ProductinndZonsumption
Regions" (California Division of Mines and Geology, January, 1987). This repor~ did not
identify any important aggregate resources on the project site. As such, the Initial Study
for the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Plan Subarea 16 Redesiguation EIZR also
concluded that the project site did not contaIn Lmportant mineral resources.
The City has requested that the State review their records and make a fully documented
account of the actual adopted aggregate resources. At the ~ne the State makes a factual
determination, the City wLL! respond accordingly.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA IN0//~"St'fRiAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
SUBAREA 16 REDESIGNATION EIR
I2-59
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
11.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN'
11.0 Ntl 11GATION MONITORING .&ND REPORTING PLAN
In compliance with Public Resource Code Section 21081.6 (enacted bv passage of AB3180
[Co~eseJ), public agencies approving projects which have the potential to cause significant
envLron.mentai impacts must adopt a monitorj. ng and reporting pro~am for the adopted or
required measures which would mitigate or avoid the significant effects. This section of the EIR
constitutes the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Subarea 16 Redesignation
project.
A project manager will be assigned by the Rancho Cucazmonga Planning Director to supervise the
implementation of the monitoring plan throughout all phases of project development, from the
time the project is approved to the time the certificates of occupancy are issued. The project
manager will have the authority to stop the work of construction contractors if compliance with
any aspects of the mitigation is not ck-'azrring after written notification has been issued. The
project manager will also have the authority to refine, replace or add mitigation measures as
necessary which achieve the same goals as the adopted mitigation measures.
Table 11-1 is a master checklist which identifies the mitigation measures to be implemented and
how they are to be morkitored. At the poLnt each mitigation measure is implemented, a reporting
and implementation form (Table 114) shah be filled out, documenting the adequacy of
mitigation compliance. As a mitigation measure is completed, the project manager can "check
off" that measure cn the master checklist. Certificates of occupancy for any approved phase of
development within Subarea 16 shall not be issued until compliance with all mitigation measures
has been verified.
It should be noted that there will be multiple developments within Subarea 16 which will have
to comply with this mitigation monitoring plan. As such, a "fresh" mitigation monitoring
checklist and set of reporting forms must be completed for each development within the subarea.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
SUBAREA //Z77~
16 REDE GNATION EIR
]:~,~lll:, 11-1
Mitigation Monitoring Master Checklisl
IASP Subarea f6 l(edesignation
Verification of
Compliance
Party Field Party
Mitigation Measure Administrative Action Timing Responsible Monitorin~ Responsible Signature Date
for Repofling Schedule for
Verification Verification
LU-II The City shall adopt land use amendmen~ and ~ City to atnend Indttstrial Prior to l'lanning None None
development standards for Subarea 16 of the Area Specific Plan and Cucamonga Department
Industrial Area Specific Plan which will Citywide Master Plan of Come~ainte
supersede tile provisions contained in the Storm Drains. Final Tract
adopted Master Plan for Subarea 16. The Map Approval
citywide Master Plan of Storm Drains shall
also be revised to reflect the currently proposed
developnlent. These administrative actions
shall take place prior to final tract map
approval of tile Cucamonga Cornerpoinle
project.
[LU-2I The City shotdd nxodify the list of Subarea 16's City to amend hxdush'ial Prior Io Planning ~one ~one
permitted and conditional t~ to exchtde or Area Specific Plan. Cucamonga Deparlment
~ limit more noxknts onc~. This modification Cornerpointe
shall ¢~t~tr prior to Final Tract Map approval final tract map
of the Cucamonga Conxerpointe project. approval
LU-3] Fttture industrial development within Subarea City to amend Industrial Prior to Planning Site plans of future Planning
16 shall k. subject I¢~ the folkswing buiklit~g Area Specific Plan. Cucamonga Department development shall be Department
limitations: Cornerpointe checked against
final tract map standards prior to
Height Limitation: ~ feet within 10{1 approval issuanceof building
feet of abutting residential development. permit.
Rear l~roperty Line Building Selbhck: 45
feet when abutting residential Implementation
development. shall be verified
prior to issuance of
No loading doors/facilities, outdtDr ¢~cupancy
activities/storage nor mechanical equipment certificates.
shall be located beyond the rear wall of the
subject industrial building.
[LU-4] For the ~ lots within the Cucamonga CucanxongaCtmxerpointe Prior to I'lanning hnplementationof Planning
Cornerpoinle subdivision which abtlt the Subdivision applicant to Cucamonga Department design features shall Departntent
remainitxg industrial park portion of the submit revised tract map Cornerpointe be verified prior
subarea, the following features shall ~ with design features final tract map final inspection.
included in order to reduce future residents' indicated. approval
perception of neighboring industrial park
activities:
Verificalion of
~ __ Con_~pliance
Party Field Party
fv|iligalion Measure Adminislralive Action Timing Respol~ible Monilorin~ Respo~ible Signalere Dale
for Repofling Schedule for
~ Veriflcatiol
[LUq} coal. Verification
which sepnrales the residential and on parcels ~vbich abut building shall be verified
induslrial park lands of the subarea. The Cucnmonga Con~eqx~inte ~ermil
each side of Ibe prt~perly hne
induslrial park shall ~ sel back ~ feet
presence of fi~e adjacent il~dus r; ] park and~ to
Iltdsn/~ces which ~lligbt ~ ge¢lernted by
induslri;fi park. approval
[T-l) Each development in Stabarea 16, i/~chading the Applicant for each Prior Io Engineering None
Cucamol~ga Cornerpoinle subd viskm shall ~ development to pay fees. issuance of Department
responsible for mitigating traffic impacts by building
the City's policies regarding traffic impacl
Cucanlonga Engi/leering Departhie/it
determine ~vhetber the City's required traffic
I
'I'AI~I.E 11-1 {conl.)
Verificalim~ of
Compliance
Party Field Party
/vlitlgation Measure Admlnislrative Action 'Timing Responsible Monitoring/ Respm~ible Signattire Date
for Repo~lng Schedule far
Verification Verification
[T-l] cont.
Year 2001
Archibald Avenue/Fourth Street
Add one eastbound Left-turn lane
Add one westbound Through lane
,. Addonesouthboundl~ighl-turnlane
Add one nt~rthbound Through lane
l-lelln~an Avenue/Fourth Sireel
Signalize intersection
Hellman Avenue/Sixth Street
Signalize intersection (optional)
~ Year 2015
Vineyard Avenue/Fourlh Street
Add one southbound Right turn lane
Add one southbound Through land
Upgrade existing inlersectign signal
1 lelhnan Avenue/Fourth Street
Signalize intersection
ttelhnan Avenue/Sixth Sireel
Signalize lnlersection
IAQ-1I Dust generated by the development activities Appl'icant to list dust Prior to Plam~ing : Spot check/respond Building
by following the dust contn>l measures listed grading plan. grading permit
below.
Verification
Parly Field Parly
Millgation Measure Administrative Aclion Timinff Responsible Monilo~n~ Responsible Signah~re Dale
for RepoSing Schedule for
IAQ-IJ coal. Verificalion
Verifjcalion
a. During c]earh~g, grading, earH~ movin~
malerials, waler lmcks or sprinkler
syslems shall ~ u~i ~o prevent dt~t from
eacl day's aclivifies cease.
b. During conslruction, water Imch
sprinkler syslems shall ~ t~ Io keep all
prevenl dusl from leaving Ihe sile. AI a
such areas in Ihe later mt~ming and after
work is compleled f~r Ihe day, and
disturbed soil shall ~ treateLi
pickup of the soil until the area is paved or
d. S~>il stockpiled for more than two days
e. Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill
AQ-2] All development within the subarea shall be
subject Io applicable provisions of the City's
No. 5: and 523, Adopted April 6, 1994) as
I
Verificalion uf
Con%pliance
Parly Field Parly
Mi[igalim~ Measure Adnfinislralive Acllon Timing Responsible Monitorin~ Respo~ib]e Signalure Dale
for Repo~ing Schedule for
Verlficalion Verificalion
[AQ-2] conL
h~l~ill ]'i~ I)evelo~2l ~111 Sile plans of future Prior ~o Planning hnplemenlalion' Building
a. Office parks with 1,~0 employees or mo~ industrial development issuance of DeparEmenl shall be verified Department
shall provide on-sile video conference shall be checked against ' building prior Io issuance of
facililies. standards. permits occupancy cerlificate.
b..Industrial development over 325,~ square
feet in size shall provide a minimum of ~e
shower facility accessible to both mn~ and
wom~ for pem>t~ waking or bicycling to
work.
c. Bicycle storage facilities at the tale of one
fiu'ee-bike rack} shall be pn~vided within
d. Off-street parking close to the building
shall i provided for office/induslrial
facilities at d~e rate tff 10 percent of the
total parking area as designated for t~ by
e. Convenient pedestrian circulation shall be
public sireels, parking areas and public
lransit facilities with b.uildings and
pedestrian open spaces.
1~1 D~Vc[~I Cucanmnga Comerpoinle Prior to final Planning hnplementation Engiz~eering
f. Cucamtmga Cornerpointe's roadway Subdivision applicant to iracl map Deparlment shall be verified Deparhnent
improvemen s to Fourth Street shall submit revised tract map approval ~rior to final
or contribute toward develop~nent of ~ in contribute towards ' building
an amount satisfaclory to the City Council. development of center permits
ZI'AIII.E 1 I-1
Verification of
Cmnpliance
Party Fie|d Party
Mitigation Measure Administrative Action Timirig I~esponsible Moniloring/ Responsible Sigoature Date
for RepoSing Schedule for
Verificalion Verificalion
[N-l] I'ursuanl It] Seclion 17.02.12[) of the Cily None None Nt]ne Spotcheck/respond Building
Developnlent Cc~de, grading and other
construction aclivilies which involve tim use of Io con~plaiots Department
heavy equipnxent sbnll be restricted Io Monday
through Saturday 6:30 a.m. to 8:~ p.m.,
excludh~g holidays.
IN-2] Applicants for residenlia[ development within Applicant for each Prior to Planning hnplemenlalion IJt~ilcling
the subarea sitall have an acoustical engineer residenlia[ develtq~meB[ Issuance of Deparlnlent sitnll be verified Deparlmenl
cxn~duct and subhilt a final noise study at the to submit acoustical building prior to final
Brae tff subnxittal of plaos for building permits engineering report for ~ermils inspeclion.
t11 btmxes wbicb will border Fourth Street, review and approval.
Sixlb Street and I{elhnan Avenue. The fina Building plans shall
~ noise study shall verify existing and futt~re include approved design
nt~ise anlbient noise levels based tI~ll field meast~res.
measuremenls taken after the ramps linking
Archibald Avenue and Interstate 10 are open.
Based t;~ tbe updated noise
characterization, the sludy wi[I tli~u~ how
Ill less Illan 65 dB CNEL, identify the building
utilized to reduce indcx~r noise levels to 45 dB
CNEL, and verify the adequacy of mitigation
measures included in the buikiing plaos. Any
propond ~)tuld barriers shall ~ desihq~ed in a
manner which is acceptable Io the CiW. The
building plans will ~ checked for confonnance
final noise study and conditicms of approval.
Appendix E contains illustrations and tables
Mdcb identify the potential effectiveness of
Verificatiorl of
"' Compliance
Party Field Party
Miligalion Measure Admlnlslratlve Aclion 'l'imiz~g Respunsible Monitoring/ Responsible Signature Dale
for I~.eporting Schedule for
Verlficalion Verification
ll:l'-l] All pr,.~perty '.vlthin tile present bcmndaries of I Subarea 16 landowners to Prior ~o I(ancho Ncme Norm
Subarea 16 shall be asmexed into Mello Rot>s file azmexation papers. recordaton of Cucamonga
Dislrict 85-1 in order to assist in funding l:ire Cucamonga Fire
Station fits relocalion and/or hiring of Comerpoinle's Protection
additional persol,.neL Annexation of the final tract Districl
subarea shall be cmnpleted prior to recordatim~ map.
of Cucamonga Comerpoinle Final Tract Map.
Subarea landowners shall each conlribute their
pr,.~-rata share of tile administrative costs of
Jl'-l] All development in tile subarea shall inchlde Each development Pril~r to Planning hnplementation Planning
pr¢lvided (11 the project sile Ill aid crime design lealures. final inspection.
lighting standards should meet (~r exceed
existing City standards.
· Landscaping should be designed so as to not
conceal potential crinlinal activities near
· All garages shinlid be er, ctt~sed.
· The use of Iouvered '.vindo,,vs should be
prohibited.
IS-l] Each resider~tial development '.vhllin Subarea Residential developer to Prior Io Building None None
16 shall be condilioned to parlicipaJe in tile sign CJUSHD's issuance of Department
CJUSHD's CFD No. 2 as well as pay CSD's mitigation agreement building
properly lax increment through existing impact and deposit CPD pre- ~ermits
reduction measures. payment.
Residenlial develt~per
pay property tax
TAIII,I~ 11-1 fcoll(,)
Verificaliun of
__ Compli~ance
Party Field Party
Miligation Measure Administrative Action Timing Respunsible Monitoring/ Responsible Signature Date
for Repofling Schedule for
Verification Verification
[W-l] In addition to paying connection fees and Pirst major development Prior Io Building Implementation Building
inslalling all required waledines on Ibe projeer applicant to subrail Iract issuance of DeparHnenf shall be verified Deparlment
site, the Cucamtmga Con~erpointe or the first map/site plan wifi~ grading permit prior to final
major development of tl~e area shall construct a ~vater line improvement inspection.
12" water main in Fourth Slreet bet~veen indica{ed, and sign
CucanR~nga Creek Channel and Archibald reftmd agreemeal wilh
Avenue, IfCucamonga Cornerpoinle is the first CCWD.
major developnlent of the site, then II~e
water main shall be installed prior to final
inspection approval. If the induslrial
buildings are the first major development of
the site, then the 12" ~ater main shall be
installed prior to issuance of certificates of
established ~vith the Cttcamonga County
withit~ the prtqect site sixall prt~vide a pro-rata
[S~V-I} Recyclable waste materials generated during Applicant Io lisl measure Prit~r to Building Spot check Engh~eering
subarea shall be separated out ~ as to building
facilitate the recycling of these matdrials by ~ermils
[SW-2] City maintenance of the public park shall None None Nt~ne Periodic spt~{ check Engineering
inc[ude the recycling of grc~n wastes and the
operational
[S~V-3} All propond dwelling units in the subarea Residential developer to Prior to Planning Implementation Planning
shall ~ designed with adequate include design feature in issuance of Department shall be verified Departnlent
indcx~r/outd¢~r storage space to facilitate the building plans. building ~rior to final
separatioti and recycling of recyclable permits Inspection.
[SW-4] Each industrial park developnlent shall None None None Periodic spot check Engineering
participate in the citywide, non-residential
recycling program, at the lime it ~<om~ when recycling Department
available through private, contracted haulers. program ~omes
:~'AltI.~ 11-1 (Chili,)
Verific~lion of
Compliance
Party Field Party
Mitigalion Measure Adminislrative Aclion Timing Responsible Monilorin~ Responsible Signature Date
for Repo~ing Schedule for
Verification Verification
[SD-1] In order to avoid the potenlial sheet flow Grading and drainage Prior Io final Engineering Implementation BtHlding
flooding that wottld ~ generated fron~ Sixth p[al~s for impacted Iract map Department shall be verified Departtaunt
Street, bttilding pads proposed along Sixth properties shall include approval prior tosign-offon
Street shall ~ raised in accordance with these provisions, based ' bulkling perhilts.
Ordinance 545. In addition, it is the City's upon the results of a sile-
poticy that storm drains ~ installe~ specific drainage shtdy.
wlWnever: 2S-year storm rtmoff exceeds the
capacity of a street (ctxrb-to-curb); a lO0-year
st~rm runoff overflows the street right-of-way;
or street lanes are not kept "dry" during a 10-
year storm. These criteria will determine if a
stortn drain will be required within Sixth
Street.
ISD-2] In t~rder to avoid the impacts of Ihe existing 100 Grading and drainage Prior to final Engineering hnplementation Building
year flood zone along l lelhnan Avenue >lans for bnpacted tracI map Department shall be verified Deparlment
development m the Ox~k and Blesseat properties shall include approval. primer R~sign-offon
properties which woukl ~ located within [lxe fl~ese provisions, based bulkling permits.
flood zone shall either be responsible for the upon the results of a site
construction of the master planned storm drain specific drainage study.
in Ilellman Avenue, or the raising ~ of the
building pads by 3 to 4 feet within that flood
zone, in acc~rdance with Ordinance 515. More ~
precise hydrology calculations wotHd be
required to pinpt>int the "safe" finished
elevations of these sites.
If Ihe raising of building pads is implemented,
flooding wonld continue h> tK~ttr along Helbnan
Avenue and at any project ingress/egress
locations. As such, erosion control measures
would have to ~ incorporated into the fill
slt~pe of flxe raised building pads.
[SD-3I In order to avoid internal flooding problems CucamongaComerpointe Prior to final Engineering hnplementation Bulkling
within Subarea 16 as the area develops, a applicant to submit map approval Department shall be verified Department
revised i~aster drainage plan should be revised master drainage prior to sign-off on
prepared prior to the City preparing conditions ~lan for subarea for building permits.
of approval for the Cucamonga Comerpointe review and approval.
prt~ject. Tlds report mt~t identify the size and
I~>cations of all onsite storm drains,
demonstrate Ihat Ihese slotIll drains Call
adequatety accommodate runoff fron%
]Z~III.E 11-1 (coIli~
Verification of
Compliance
Parly Field Party
Mitigation Measure Administralive Action Timing F. esponslble Monitoring/ Responsible Signalure' Dab
for Reporling Schedule for
Verification Verificatio~
[SD-3] cont.
"upstream" areas within Subarea 16 and
specify the h)cafions of proposed pothis of
discharge wilhin either the Archibald Avenue
or Ctlcillllollga Channe] [ribuhlry areas. In order
to e,~m-e that the project's future rimoff into
Cucilnlonga Creek Channel can be adequately
acconuludaled, the Army Co~s of Engineers
shall ~ consulted, and if necessary. the
impermeable surface areas within the project i
site shall ~ reduced. [n addition, a
preliminary cra rage plan for the project shall
t~ submilled iltld all s[ornl drain designs shall
be approved by the City Engineer prior to final
Illl/t) approval.
JSI)-4] To miniznize Ihe ptHh~ti{m of s ~r valet runoff, Cucamonga Cornerpoinle Prior to IJuilding Periodic spt~l check. Building
a slor,lwater pollulion prevention plan applicant to submit Issttance of Deparhuent Department
(SWPPp), identifying best management SWI'I'P to RWQCII. grading permit
praclices rot t~ bolh during cot/slntdion and
operation t>f all proposed residential
develupmenl shall ~ developed prior h~
CtlcilllR)llgil Cornerpt~inte final tract map
approval, in accordance wilh Regional ~ater
Quality Control lloard requirements.
A master SWpI~p for non-'residential land t~ I:irst industrial Prior h) Building Periodic spot check. i RWQCll
shall be deveh>ped prior to co~tn~clion of such developer to submit Issuance of Department
uses. The SWI'I'P for the non-residential land SWI>PP to RWQCB. grading permit
tk~5 shall require the construction and
control faciliHes, both in lerms of nunlber and in
effectiveness, for removing a variety of
potential pollu/ants. Such facilities should
include, but are not limited to, subsurface
sedimentalton and filtration slmctures Io treat
"first flusit" runoffs. hi ncldilimL the plan mmt
include provisitors for a coordinated, periodic
sweeping program for all paved surfaces which
inchides lhe application and vaamming of
appmved detergems [or hydr~arbon removal,
and an approved disposal program. In
__ ad~ ~itm, Ihe SWPPP must demonstrate how I I
'['ABLE 11-1 (conl.)
Verificalion of
Compliance
Party Field Party
Mitigation Measure Adn'dnislrative Action Timing Responsible Mo~;iloring/ Responsible Signature Date
for Reporling Schedule for
Verlficalion Verificalion
[SD-4] coal
runoff frtnn the industrial portion of the project
will ~ prevented from discharging ohio the
residential area, suc]l as through tile
conslruclion of betms.
[CR-1} PurSuant to the comnmnity design element of All developers ~vithin Prior to Planning Implementation Planning
the City of Rancho Cucamonga's General l'lan, Subarea 16 to submit ~ssuance of Departtnent shall be verified Department
all ne~v development within the subarea building elevations with grading permit prior to issuance of
shottkl incorporate histt~ric themes. historic themes. occupancy certificale
or final inspection.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 16
REDESIGNATION WITH A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals
1. There has been presented to this Commission, in conjunction with the Commission's
consideration of the recommended approval of General Plan Amendment 95-03A, Development
District Amendment 95-02, Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04, and Tentative Tract
15727, a Final Environmental Impact Report.
2. The Final Environmental Impact Report referred to in this Resolution consists of that
document dated July 1996, entitled "Draft Environmental Impact Report Industrial Area Specific Plan
Subarea 16 Redesignation" together with the draft Final Environmental Impact Report dated October
1996, including written comments on the draft Environmental Impact Report and written responses
thereto submitted by staff of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and testimony presented during
hearings on the recommended approval of the said General Plan, Development District. and
Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendments and Tentative Tract 15727 insofar as that testimony
pertained to the environmental matters, as well as the revised executive summary, including
revisions to the mitigation measures, as well as the mitigation monitoring plan. Hereinafier. the
above referenced documents will be referred to as the "Final Environmental Impact Report." The
entirety of the Final Environmental Impact Report is hereby incorporated in this Resolution by this
reference.
3. The public comment period on the draft Environmental Impact Report was duly and
lawfully closed on September 3, 1996, following due notice to the public and all applicable public
agencies.
4. On October 9, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Final Environmental Impact Report 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 Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga take the following action with respect to the Final Environmental Impact Report:
a. Certify that Final Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for General Plan
Amendment 95-03A, Development District Amendment 95-02, Industrial Area Specific Plan
Amendment 95-04, and Tentative Tract 15727 in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Califomia Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. ("CEQA") with
State and City Guidelines for implementing CEQA, and all other applicable laws and regulations.
Further, that the Planning Commission certifies that it has considered the contents of the Final
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EIR - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 2
Environmental Impact Report in considering the approval of General Plan Amendment 95-03A,
Development District Amendment 95-02, Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04, and
Tentative Tract 15727;
b. Hereby recommend adoption of: (1) the Statement of Findings (EIR) and Statement
of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto as Attachment A, and (2) the Mitigation Monitoring
Program, attached hereto as Attachment B, based upon the following findings:
1) The facts and findings set forth in the Statement of Findings (EIR) Statement
of Overriding Considerations are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record and
the Final Environmental Impact Report.
2) The Final Environmental Impact report has identified all significant
environmental effects of the project; there are no known potentially significant environmental impacts
not addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report.
3) Although the Final Environmental Impact Report identifies certain significant
environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects that can feasibly
be mitigated or avoided have been reduced to an acceptable level by the imposition of mitigation
measures on the project. These mitigation measures are attached hereto as part of the Mitigation
Monitoring Program and incorporated herein by this reference.
4) Potential mitigation measure or project alternatives not incorporated into the
project (including the "no-project" alternative) were determined to be infeasible based upon the
considerations set forth in the Statement of Findings (EIR) and the Final Environmental Impact
Report and other substantial evidence in the administrative record. The cumulative impacts of the
project in relation to other projects in the area have been considered, and, except with respect to
those unavoidable impacts described in the Statement of Findings (EIR). mitigation measures are
incorporated into the project to reduce such impacts to insignificant levels.
5) The unavoidable significant impacts of the project that have not been reduced
to a level of insignificance. as identified in the Statement of Findings (EIR) and the Final
Environmental Impact Repod, have been substantially reduced in their impacts by the imposition of
mitigation measures. The remaining unavoidable significant impacts are outweighed by the
economic. social. technological, legal, and other benefits of the project. as set forth in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations.
6) The Final Environmental Impact Report has described a reasonable range of
altematives to the project (including the "project" alternative), even though these alternatives might
impede the attainment of project objectives and might create other significant economic, social,
legal, technological, or environmental impacts, A good faith effort was made to incorporate
alternatives in the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, and reasonable alternatives
were considered in the review process of the Final Environmental Impact Report and the ultimate
decisions on the project.
c. Pursuant to provisions of the California Public Resources Code Section 21089 (b),
this application shall not be operative, vested, or final, nor will building permits be issued or a map
recorded, until (1) the Notice of Determination (NOD) regarding the associated environmental action
is filed and posted with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino; and
(2) any and all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section
711.4, together with any required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of
San Bemardino.
j
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EIR - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 3
In the event this application is determined exempt from such filing fees pursuant
to the provisions of the California Fish and Game Code, or the guidelines promulgated thereunder,
except for payment of any required handling charge for filing a Cedificate of Fee Exemption, this
condition shall be deemed null and void.
2. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1996.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker. Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Bullet, Secretary
I, Brad Buffer, 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 9th day of October 1996, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE
PROJECT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
I. INTRODUCTION
This Statement of Findings of Fact has been prepared for the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial
Area Specific Plan Subarea 16 Redesignation project. The City of Rancho Cucarnonga prepared
an environmental impact report (EIR) for the proposed project in accordance with the
California Environmental QuaLity Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. The EIR was
subject to the review and approval by the Ranch Cucamonga Platruing Commission and City
CouncLI, and was certified as adequate by the City Council on
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The project site is located in the southwestern portion of the City of Randno Cucamonga in San
Bernardino County. Known as Subarea 16 of the City's Industrial Area Specific Plan, the
project site is 142 gross acres in size, and is bounded by Sixth Street to the north, Archibald
Avenue to the east, Fourth Street to the south, and Cucamonga Creek Channel and Hellman
Avenue to the west. The proposed project consists of two components. The first component
involves the redesignation of 91 acres of the subarea from Lndustrial Park to Low-~ledium
Residential (4-8 dweliing units per acre). Because [he City is concerned about potential iand
use compatibility problems, the impacts associated with future industrial park development
on the remainder of the subarea is also evaluated as part of this project component. The second
project component is a proposed 342 single family dweliing unit subdivision on/'7 acres of the
proposed redesignation area.
III. FINDINGS OF FACTS
The California Envirortmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code Section 21081, and
the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provide that:
"No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact
report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment
that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or
more of the following findings:
a. Changes or alterations have boen required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
identified in the EIR.
b. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility or jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
c. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.'
After reviewing the Final EIR and the public record on the project, the City of Ran~ho
Cucamonga hereby makes the findings in Section IV, V, and VI regarding the significant effects
of the proposed project pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
EXHIBIT "A" 2~.yZ~_~ J
IV. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGABLE
TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE
LAND USE IMPACTS
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the removal of 91 acres of industrial
park designated land from Subarea 16 of the City's Industrial Area Specific Plan, and its
redesignation for low-medium density residential use. The proposed redesignation is
somewhat inconsistent with the City's General Plan policy which calls for industrial park
uses along Fourth Street. The proposed development is also inconsistent with the adopted
Master Plan for the area which calls for different phasing, access and drainage
improvements than currently proposed.
Although the industrial park uses wou/d be restricted through implementation of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan's performance standards, it is probable that some nuisance
noise, odor or lighting would impact the proposed adjacent residences beyond the proposed
setback and require attention by City code enforcement.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of the Finding
The potentially significant effects will be reduced to a level of insignificance through
implementation of the following required mitigation measures:
[LU-1] The City shall adopt land use amendments and development standards for
Subarea 16 of the industrial Area Specific Plan which will supercede the
provisions contained in the adopted Master Plan for Subarea 16. The
citywide Master Plan of Storm Drains shall also be revised to reflect the
currently proposed development. These administrative actions shall take
place prior to final tract map approval of the Cucamonga Cornerpointe
project.
[LU-2] The City should modify the list of Subarea 16's permitted and conditional
uses to exclude or Limit more noxious ones. This modification shall oct-cur prior
to Final Tract Map approval of the Cucamonga Cornerpointe project.
[LU-3] Future industrial development withLn Subarea 16 shall be subject to the
following building limitations:
Height Limitation: 25 feet within 100 feet of abutting residential
development.
Rear Property Line Building Setback: 45 feet when abutting residential
development.
No loading doors/facilities, outdoor activities/storage nor mechanical
equipment shall be located beyond the rear wall of the subject
industrial building.
[LU-4] For the lots within the Cucamonga Cornerpointe subdivision which abut the
remaining industrial park portion of the subarea, the following features
shall be included in order to reduce future residents' perception of neighboring
industrial park activities:
a. .4_n eight-foot slump block wall shall be constructed along the common
property line which separates the residential and industrial park
lands of the subarea. The base of fie wall shall be plated with a
foot wide buffer of evergreen vines and dense evergreen trees (eight feet
of landscaping on each side of the property line wall).
b. Homes on lots whose backyards abut the industrial park shall be set
back 60 feet from the common property line. Homes on lots whose
sideyards abut hhe industrial park shall be set back 30 feet from the
common property line with additional wall and window insulation to
ensure interior noise levels to 45dB CNEL.
c. MinLmize the number of windows which look onto the industrial park.
Windows which do look onto the industrial park shall be double-
paned.
[LU-bJ The CC&Rs for the Cucamonga ComerpoLnte residential development shall
disclose the presence of the adjacent industrial park and, to the extent
feasible, describe the potential nuisances which might be generated by the
industrial park.
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
Development of Subarea 16 with residential and industrial park races wou2d increase the
daily generation of pollutants in both the short-term and the long-term. Significant long
term air pollutant emissions wou2d be generated by vehicular trips going to and from the
subarea, and, indirectly, as a result of the use of electricity and natural gas in machines and
appliances.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
Fact in Support of the Finding
The potentially significant effects will be reduced to a level of insignificance through
implementation of the following mitigation measures:
[AQ-2I All development within the subarea shall be subject to applicable provisions
of the City's adopted trip reduction ordinances (Ordinance No. 522 and 523,
Adopted April 6, 1994) as follows:
industrial Park Development
a. Office parks with 1,000 employees or more shall provide onsite video
conference facilities.
b. industrial development over 325,000 square feet in size shall provide a
minimum of one shower facility accessible to both men and women for
persons waking or bicycling to work.
c. Bicycle storage facilities at the rate of one rack or locker per30 spaces
(~urn of a three-bike rack) shall be provided within all
development and related to planned and existing bicycle trails: in
accordance with the Development Code Requirements.
d. Off-street parking close to the building shall be provided for
office/industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking
area as designated for use by car pools and vanpools.
e. Convenient pedestrian circulation shall be provided throughout all
projects to connect public streets, parking areas and public transit
facilities with buLldings and pedestrian open spaces.
Residential Development
f. Cucamonga Comerpointe's roadway improvements to Fourth Street
shall include a bus turnout.
g. Single-family development of 500 or more urdts shall provide a
telecommuting center or contribute toward development of one in an
amount satisfactory to the City Council.
FIRE PROTECTION IMPACTS
Development of the subarea as proposed would result in a considerable increase in demands
for the various fire protection, suppression, and emergency medical services provided by the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. The potential need for relocation of Fire Station
#2 to meet this demand would not be adequately covered by revenues generated through
standard property taxes.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmentaI effects identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of the Finding
The potentially significant effects will be reduced to a level of insignificance through
implementation of the following mitigation measure:
[FP-1] AII property within the present boundaries of Subarea 16 shall be annexed
into Mello Roos District 85-1 in order to assist in Ehnding Fire Station #2's
relocation and/or the hiring of additional personnel. Annexation of the
subarea shall be completed prior to recordation of Cucemonga Cornerpointe's
Final Tract Map. Subarea landowners shall each contribute their pro-rata
share of the administrative costs of annexation.
POLICE PROTECTION IMPACTS
Development of the subarea as proposed would result in additional residents, employees,
pedestrians, and vehicular traffic in the project area, which would increase the existing
demands for the various law enforcement and protection services provided by the San
Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. This impact is considered to be cumulatively
significant in that the need for additional officers may ultimately result in the need for new
or expanded police facilities.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantiaIiy Iessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of the Finding
The potentially si~nificant effects will be reduced to a level of insi~mnL~icance through
implementation of the following mitigation measure:
[P-1] All development in the subarea shall include the following design features to
reduce the potential for criminal activity:
a. Street and night lighting should be provided on the project site to aid
crime prevention and en/orcement efforts. Lighting standards should
meet or exceed existing City standards.
b. La~ndscaping should be designed so as to not conceal potential criminal
activities near windows or doors.
c. ALl garages should be enclosed.
d. The use of louvered windows should be prohibited.
SCHOOL IMPACTS
Development of the residential portions of the subarea would result in the generation of new
students that would attend schools administered by the Cucamonga School District and the
Chaffey joint Union High School District. Additional students may also be generated from
future employees of the proposed industriai park. Because both of the two school districts
have indicated that the existing enrollment levels are at or near ma.'-,Lmum capacity, the
proposed project's impact to schools is considered to be potentially significant.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of the Finding
The potentially significant effects will be reduced to a level of insignificance through
implementation of the following mitigation measure:
[S-1] Each residential development within Subarea 16 shall be conditioned to
participate in the CJ~dSHD's CFD No. 2 as well as pay CSD's property tax
increment through existing impact reduction measures,
WATER SUPPLY IMPACTS
The Cucamonga County Water District has indicated that the existing trunk lines that serve
the site can not adequately accommodate the project's future water demands without a
significant decline in water pressure. Although the project applicants would be required to
pay Water Development Fees to the District, these fees would not be sufficient to reduce the
potentially significant impacts relative to existing water distribution facilities to less than
significant levels.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which a~oid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of the Finding
The potentially si~nificant effects will be reduced to a level of insig-nLficance through
implementation of the following mitigation measure:
[W-1] In addition to paying connection fees and installing all required waterlines on
the project site, the Cucamonga Comerpointe or the first major development
of the area shall construct a 12" water main in Fourth Street between
Cucarnonga Creek Charmel and Archibald Avenue. If Cucamonga
Cornerpointe is the first major development of the site, then the 12" water
main shall be installed prior to final Inspection approval. If the industrial
buildings are the first major development of the site, then the 12" water main
shall be installed prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy. Because other
development within the subarea will also be dependent upon this water
main, a refund agreement shall be established with the Cucamonga County
Water District in which each development within the project site shall
provide a pro-rata funding, based upon the completion of residential units o{
each particular development.
STORM DRAINAGt~ IMPACTS
Development of the subarea as proposed would increase the amount of impermeable
surfaces and reduce the time of concentration, thereby increasing the peak stormwater
runoff potential from the project site. Because drainage facilities have not been identified
for the Blessent and Cook properties, stormwater runoff impacts from these two areas of the
site are considered to be potentially si~nificant. In addition, the Cucamonga Cornerpointe
system does not appear to provide for stormwater runoff from future industrial park
development within the Cucamonga Channel tributary area.
With regard to potential flooding impacts, future development on the westerly portion of the
Blessent property and the northwesterly portion of the Cook property may be significantly
affected by the Hellman Avenue flood hazard area. Development of the subarea may also
generate potentially sig'nificant water quality impacts because of the nature of the land uses
and the considerable area of impermeable surfaces which would be constructed on the project
site.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support 9fthe Finding
The potentially significant effects will be reduced to a level of insignificance through
implementation of the following mitigation measures:
[SD-1] In order to avoid the potential sheet flow flooding that would be generated
from Sixth Street, building pads proposed along Sixth Street shall be raised
in accordance with OrdInance 545. In addition, it is the City's policy that
storm drains be installed whenever: 25-year storm runoff exceeds the
capacity of a street (curb-to-curb); a 100-year storm runoff overflows the
street right-of-way; or street lanes are not kept "dry" during a 10-year stdrm.
These criteria will determine if a storm drain will be required within Sixth
Street.
[SD-2] In order to avoid the impacts of the existIng 100 year flood zone along
Hellman Avenue, development on the Cook and Blessent properties which
would be located within the flood zone shall either be responsible for the
construction of the master platreed storm drain In HelLman Avenue, or the
raising up of the buL!ding pads by 3 to 4 feet within that flood zone, in
accordance with Ordinance 545. More precise hydrology calculations would
be required to pinpoint the "safe" finished elevations of these sites.
If the raising of building pads is implemented, flooding would continue to
occu~ along Hellman Avenue and at any project ingress/egress locations. As
such, erosion contzol measures would have to be incorporated into the fill
slope of the raised building pads.
[SD-3] In order to avoid internal flooding problems within Subarea 16 as the area
develops, a revised master drainage plan should be prepared prior to the
City preparing conditions of approval for the Cucamonga Cornerpointe
project. This report must identify the size and locations of alI onsite storm
drains, demonstrate that these storm drains can adequately accommodate
runoff from "upstream" areas within Subarea 16 and specify the locations of
proposed points of discharge within either the Archibald Avenue or
Cucarnonga Channel tributary areas. In order to ensure that the project's
future runoff Into Cucamonga Creek Channel cmn be adequately
accommodated, the Army Corps of Engineers shall be consulted, and if
necessary, the impermeable surface areas within the proiect site shall be
reduced. In addition, a preliminary drainage plan for the proiect shall be
submitted and all storm drain designs shah be approved by the City Engineer
prior lo final map approval.
[SD-4] To mirdmize the pollution of stormwater runoff, a stormwater pollution
prevention plan (SWPPP), identifying best management practices for use both
during construction and operation of all proposed residential development
shall be developed prior to Cucamonga Comerpointe final tract map
approval, in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board
requizement$,
A master SWPPP for non-residential land uses shall be developed prior to
construction of such uses. The SWPPP for the non-residential land uses shall
require the consh'uction and monitoring of more comprehensive pollution
control facilities, both in terms of number and in effectiveness, for removing a
variety of potential poiLutants. Such facilities should include, but are not
limited to, subsurface sedLmentation and filtration structures to treat "first
flush" runoffs. In addition, the plan must Include provisions for a
coordinated, periodic sweeping program for all paved surfaces which
includes the application and vacuuming of approved detergents for
hydrocarbon removal, and an approved disposal program. In addition, the
SWPPP must demonstrate how runoff from the Industrial portion of the
project will be prevented from discharging onto the residential area, such as
through the construction of berras.
CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACTS
Development of ~he subarea as proposed may ultimately result in the demolition of the
historic Lucas Ranch Complex. Because the Lucas Ranch Complex is eligible for a local
landmark designation as well as the National Register of Historic Places, the proposed
project's impacts to cultural resources are considered to be potentially sig-nificant.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of the Finding
The potentially significant effects will be reduced to a level of insignificance through
implementation of the following mitigation measure:
[CR-1] Pursuant to the community design element of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's
General Plan, all new development within the subarea should incorporate
historic themes.
V. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CAN NOT BE
REDUCED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE
T RAFFIC/CIRCULATION IMPACTS
By Year 2001, the peak hour trips from Subarea 16 would cause si~m~ificaat impacts at the
intersection of Archibald Avenue/Fourth Street. By Year 2015, Subarea 16 traffic would
significantly impact two intersections: Vineyard Avenue/Fourth Street, and Archibald
Avenue/Fourth Street. In addition, the intersections of Hellman Avenue/Fourth Street and
Hellman Avenue/Sixth Street will be significantly impacted unless they are signalized.
Although, in theory, roadway improvements are availabIe to reduce significant impacts,
there may be insufficient right-of-way available to accommodate these improvements, and
thus, significant traffic impacts may be unavoidable at certain locations.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of the Finding
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will substantially reduce but not
completely mitigate the significant effects:
IT-l] Each development in Subarea 16, including the Cucamonga Comerpointe
subdivision, shall be responsible for mitigating traffic impacts by
contributing its pro-rata share of the list of improvements shown below, in
accordance with the City's poiicies regarding traffic impact fees and traffic
mitigations. Each development shall coordinate with the City of Rancho
Cuca.monga Engineering Deparia-nent to determine whether the City's
required traffic impact fees are sufficient to cover the development's pro-rata
share of these improvements.
Year 2001
Archibald Avenue/Fourth Street
Add one eastbound Left-turn lane
Add one westbound Through lane
Add one southbound Right-turn lane
Add one northbound Through lane
The above improvements are already planned by the City of Rancho
Cucarnonga. This wili increase the number of existing through lanes from two
to three westbound and two to three northbound.
Hellman Avenue/Fourth Street Signalize intersection
Hellman Avenue/Sixth Street
Signalize intersection(optional)
Year 2015
Vineyard Avenue/Fourth Street
Add one northbound Through lane
This will increase the number of existing through lanes from two to three in
the northbound direction.
Archibald Avenue/Fourth Street
Add one eastbound Left turn lane Coy 2001)
Add one eastbound Through lane
Add one westbound Through lane Coy 2001)
Add one northbound Right-turn lane
Add one northbound Through lane Coy 2001)
Add one southbound Right turn lane Coy 2001)
Add one southbound Through lane
Upgrade existing intersection signal
This will increase the number of~ existing through lanes from two to three
eastbound, two to three westbound, two to three northbound, and ~,'o to three
southbound.
HeiLrnan Avenue/Fourth Street
Signalize intersection Coy 2001)
Hellman Avenue/Sixth Street
Signalize intersection
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
Development of Subarea 16 with residential and industrial park uses woujd increase the
daily generation of pollutants in both the short-term and the long-term. In the short term,
typical construction activities could generate on the order of 69.7 pounds of carbon monoxide,
8.7 pounds of reactire organic gases, 77.4 pounds of nitrogen oxides, 8.9 pounds of sulfur oxides
and 1,575.5 pounds of fine particulate matter each day. Should the entire subarea be
developed more or less sLmultaneously, the daily construction errdssions would be higher. If
the site is developed in a more piecemeal fashion, then daily emissions would be lower, but
they would cccur over a greater tLme period. In addition, the subarea's contribution to
cumulative increases in carbon monoxide "hotspot" concentrations is considered to be
significant.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantialIy lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of the FindinE
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will substantially reduce but not
completely mitigate the significant effects:
[AQ-1] Dust generated by the development activities shall be retained onsite and
kept to a minLmum by following the dust controI measures listed below.
a. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of
cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to
prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's
activities cease.
b. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to
keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from
leaving the site. At a mum, this would include wetting down such
areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day, and
whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour.
c. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is compieted, the
entire area of disturbed soil shall be treated immediately by watering,
revegetating, or spreading soil binders to prevent wind pickup of the
soil until the area is paved or otherwise developed so that dust
generation will not occur.
d. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shMl be covered, kept moist, or
treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation.
e. Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill materials and/or construction
debris to or from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin.
[AQ-2] All development within the subarea shall be subject to appiicable provisions
of the City's adopted trip reduction ordinances (Ordinance No. 522 and 523,
Adopted April 6, 1994) as foilows:
Industrial Park Development
a. Office parks with 1,000 employees or more shall provide onsite video
conference facilities.
b. Industrial development over 325,000 square feet in size shall provide a
minimum of one shower facility accessible to both men and women for
persons waking or bicycling to work.
c. Bicycle storage facilities at the rate of one rack or locker per 30 spaces
(rrdnimum of a three-bike rack) shall be provided within all
development and related to planned and existing bicycle trails in
accordance with the Development Code Requirements.
d. Off-street parking close to the building shall be provided for
office/industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking
area as designated for use by car pools and vanpools.
e. Converdant pedestrian circulation shall be provided throughout all
projects to connect public streets, par'king areas and pubiic transit
facilities with buildings and pedestrian open spaces.
Residential Development
f. Cucamonga Comerpointe's roadway improvements to Fourth Street
shall include a bus turnout.
g. Single-family development of 500 or more units shall provide a
telecommuting center or contribute toward development of one in an
amount satisfactory to the City Council
NOISE IMPACTS
Development of the subarea as proposed would increase the number of vehicular trips which
utilize the roadways adjacent to the site and, as such, incrementally increase the amount of
traffic noise generated on the local roadways. Although development of the subarea would
not result in an audible increase, subarea traffic in combination with cumulative project
traffic would cause an audible increase which cannot be avoided.
Because the project site is currentiy exposed to unacceptable ambient noise levels,
development of the proposed residential uses would result in exposure of additional
populations to unacceptable ambient noise levels.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lesse,n the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of the Findin~
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will substantially reduce but not
completely mitigate the significant effects:
[N-I] Pursuant to Section 17.02.120 of the City Development Code, grading and
other construction activities which involve the use of heavy equipment s hal i
be restricted to Monday through Saturday 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., excluding
holidays.
[N-2] Applicants for residential development within the subarea shali have an
acoustical engineer conduct and submit a final noise study at the time of
submittal of plans for building permits on homes which wiIl border Fourth
Street, Sixth Street and Hellman Avenue. The final noise study shall verify
existing and future noise ambient noise levels based upon field measurements
taken after the ramps lin'king ArchibaId Avenue and interstate 10 are open.
Based upon the updated noise characterization, the study will clisa~s how
outdoor levels at the homes can be attenuated to less than 65 dB CNEL,
identify the buLlcling materials and construction techniques to be utilized to
reduce indoor noise levels to 45 dB CNEL, and verify the adequacy of
mitigation measures included in the building plans. Any proposed sound
barriers shall be designed in a manner which is acceptable to the City. The
building plans will be checked for conformence with mitigation measures
contained in the final noise study and conditions of approval.
SOLID WASTE IMPACTS
Full development of the subarea would result in the long-term dally generation of additional
solid waste. The amount of solid waste from the proposed project would be less than what is
expected if the entire subarea was developed under its current industrial park designation.
However, given the extremely limited amount of available capacity at both the Milliken
and Mid-Valley landfills, the proposed project is anticipated to result in a cumulativeIy
significant contribution to the regional solid waste disposal crisis.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR:
Facts in Support of the Finding
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce but not completely
mitigate the significant effects:
[SW-1] Recyclable waste materials generated during construction of any development
within the subarea shall be separated out so as to facilitate the recycling of
these materials by the contracted trash hauler.
[SW-2] City maintenance of the public park shall include the recycling of green
wastes and the use of cornposted materials.
[SW-3] All proposed dwelling units in the subarea shall be designed with adequate
indoor/outdoor storage space to facilitate the separation and recycling of
recyclable materials.
[SW-4] Each industrial park development shail participate in the citywide, non-
residentiaI recycling program, at the time it becomes available through
private, contracted haulers,
VI. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Section 15126(d) of the State CEQA GuideHues requires that EIRs describe a "range of
reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly
attain the basic objectives of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the
alternatives." Four alternatives to the proposed project were identified: 1) No Project
Alternative; 2) Low-Medium Residential Alternative; 3) Low-Medium
Residential/Commerciai/Office; and 4) Low-Medium Residential/Office. These four
alternatives are described below.
Alternative 1: "No Project"
There are two scenarios which are both defined as the "No Project" Alternative. The first
scenario is the literal interpretation of the "no project, "which means maintaining the
project site as it exists today (Alternative 1A). Because the first scenario typicaliy is not a
feasible alternative, a second "no project" scenario was also identified. The second scenario
assumes that the project site would be developed as currently permitted under the City's
zoning and general plan designations for the site (Alternative 1B). Alternative 1B consists
of 2,390,180 square feet of industrial park buildings and a five-acre public park.
Alternative 1A: No Build
Because the No Build Alternative would not permit any additionai development, i t
would result in the least amount of impacts compared to the proposed project and the
other alternatives. However, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the
proposed project and would not provide the same amount of benefits as the project (i.e.,
park site, infrastructure improvements, jobs, revenue to the City, etc.).
Alternative 1B: Currently Permitted BuildOut
Alternative 1B would generate more vehicle trips than the proposed project, resulting in
greater impacts relative to traffic/circulation, air quaIity, and noise. This industrial
park alternative would also generate more sewage and refuse than the proposed project,
resuIting in greater sewage and solid waste impacts. In addition, Alternative 1B would
require a greater amount of impervious surfaces than the proposed project; this would
result in more surface runoff than the project. Because this alternative involves more
industrial square footage than the project, it has the potential to generate greater
stormwater pollution impacts because there would be a greater potentiaI that hazardous
materials would be used. Although Alternative 1B would generate more jobs than the
proposed project, it would not meet all of the objectives of the project.
Alternative 2: Low-Medium Residential Throughout
Under this alternative, the entirety of Subarea 16 would be removed from the Industrial
Area Specific Pian and redesignated for Low-Medium Residential (4 to 8 dwelling units per
acre). The exception would be the public park designation which is currently designated on
the general Plan Land Use Map and which is currently proposed as part of the Cucamonga
Cornerpointe development. The maximum number of dwelling units anticipated under this
alternative wouid be 1,036.
Although Alternative 2 would result in less land use compatibility impacts than ~he
proposed project, the policy inconsistencies are considered to be somewhat greater than the
project because there is no retention of any lands for industrial uses, and because the
inconsistency with SCAG's growth projections would be even greater. In terms of noise
compatibility, this alternative is considered to be worse than the proposed project because,
by resulting in substantially more dwellLng units than the proposed project, it could expose a
greater number of sensitive receptors to existing tinacceptable ambient noise levels than the
proposed project.
It is also expected that demands for police protection would be greater under this
alternative than that of the proposed project. This is because residential ~ generate
more calls for service than industrial uses. In addition, Alternative 2 would generate an
estimated 1,019 students, resulting in greater impacts to schools than the proposed proiect.
Alternative 2 would also generate greater water supply impacts than the proposed project.
Although Alternative 2 has been identified as the "Environmentally Superior
Alternative," it would not provide as many jobs or revenue to the City as the proposed
project and would not meet al! of the project objectives.
Alternative 3: Low-Medium Residential/Commercial/Office
Under this alternative, the westem portion of the subarea, including the Cucamonga
Comerpointe site and the Cook and Blessent properties, would be withdrawn from the
Lndustrial Area Specific Plan and would be redesignated for Low-Medium Residentiai use
with a five-acre public park. Therefore, the residential buildout of this alternative would
be the same as the proposed project. The remaining 46 acres of the subarea would also be
withdrawn from the Industrial Area Specific Plan and redesignated. Up to 16 acres of the
site would be redesignated for commercial use and 30 acres would be redesignated for office
use. The anticipated, non-residential buildout of this alternative is appro×Lmately 217,800
square feet of commercial space and 553,340 square feet of office space.
The land use policy consistency of this alternative is considered to be worse than the
proposed project because not only would the entire site be inconsistent with the adopted
iviaster Plan, but traffic and air quality generation would exceed SCAG's growth forecasts.
Under this alternative, the number of vehicular trips generated by the site would be 81
percent higher than that generated by the proposed project. This suggest that both onsite
and offsite sensitive receptors would experience a greater ambient noise level than
anticipated under the proposed project. The air pollutant emissions would exceed
SCAQMD's significance thresholds and are much greater than the emission levels expected
under the proposed buildout of the subarea. In terms of consistency with the AQMiP, this
alternative is considered to be inconsistent because it would generate a higher rate of daily
emissions than anticipated under the sito's current industrial park designation.
The demand for police protection under Alternative 3 would be greater than the proposed
project because commercial and office land uses typically generate more calls for service
than industrial uses. In addition, water supply impacts under this alternative would also
be greater than those generated by the project. Although Alternative 3 would generate less
stormwater runoff than the project to the Archibald Avenue drainage area, it would
generate more runoff to the Cucamonga Creek drainage area. This alternative would not
meet all of the objectives of the proposed project.
Alternative 4: Low-Medium ResidentiaI/Office
Under this aiternative, the western portion of Subarea 16, including the Cucamonga
Covnerpointe site and the Cook and Blessent properties, would be withdrawn from the
Industrial Area Specific Plan and would be redesig-nated for Low-Medium Residential Use
with a five-acre public park. The maximum residential buildout would be the same as the
proposed project. The remaining 46 acres of the subarea would also be withdrawn from the
Industrial Area Specific Plan and would be redesignated for an 858,350-square foot office
building.
The land use policy consistency Lmpacts of Alternative 4 would be greater than that of the
proposed project because this alternative, by not retaining any industrial park lands, would
be completely contrary to the City's intent in setting aside lands for industrial
development. The air poiiutant emissions under Alternative 4 would exceed SCAQMD's
significance thresholds and are substantially greater than the emission levels expected
under buildout of the proposed project. In addition, the number of vehicular trips generated
by this alternative would be four percent higher than that generated by the proposed
project. This suggest that both onsite and offsite sensitive receptors would experience a
greater ambient noise level than anticipated under the proposed project. The demand for
police protection is also considered to be slightly greater than what is expected under the
proposed project because calls for service by the office uses are expected to be greater than
that of the industrial park uses.
Alternative 4 would generate more water supply Lrnpacts than the proposed project. Also,
stormwater runoff to the Cucamonga Creek drainage area would be greater than that of the
proposed project. Finally, this alternative does not meet all of the objectives of the
proposed project.
VII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
'I"ne California Envirommental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines provide
that:
'CEQA requires the decision-maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project
against its unavoidable adverse risks in detevmj~ng whether to approve the
project. If the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the t.mavoidable adverse
envizortmental effects, the adverse impacts may be considered acceptable.
Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects
which are identified in the final EIR but are not at ieast substantially mitigated,
the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on
the final ELR and/or other information in the record. This statement may be
necessary if the agency also makes a finding under Section 15091(a)(2) or (a)(3).
If any agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should
be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the
Notice of Determination." (Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines.)
Project benefits are defined as those improvements or gains to the community that would not
occur without the proposed project.
1. Impacts from Proposed Project
As stated in Section V, the proposed project would result in significant unavoidable
impacts relative to traffic/circulation, air quality, noise, and solid waste.
2. Proiect Benefits
The City of Rancho Cucarnonga finds that the following substantial environmental
benefits will occur as a result of approval of General Plan Amendment 95-03A, and
associated Development District Amendment 95-02, Lndustrial Area Specific Plan
Amendment 95-04, and Tentative Tract 15727:
Tentative Tract 15727, an 82-acre, 342 lot subdivision will provide an added
beneficial residential character to the existing single family neighborhood
north of Sixth Street. The inclusion of a five-acre neighborhood park as a part
of the tract project will provide recreational activity potential in a residential
neighborhood where little presently exists.
Applicants for development will be required to mitigate all onsite impacts and
specified offsite impacts through installation of frontage improvements
consistent with the City of Rancho Cucarnonga General Plan's Circulation
Element, as well as contribute to the City's Nexus Fee Program for offsite
impacts.
Project applicants shall be condifioned to participate in City waste
minimization programs to reduce the flow of municipal solid waste to landfills.
Project applicants shall be conditioned to provide methods to facilitate the
recycling of solid waste material by contract trash haulers.
The land use amendments, while redesignating a total of 92 acres for
residentiai development, retains a significant portion within Subarea 16;for
industrial and commercial related activities that will provide a positive cost
benefit to the City when ultimately developed.
Also, the redesig-nation of land on the southwest portion of Sixth Street and its
ultimate residential development should provide a greater degree of land Lu~e
compatibility with the residential neighborhood north of Sixth Street, than would
the development of an industrial center. The proposed development standards
contained in industrial Area Specific Plan .zx~mendment 95-04 should aid significantly
in the mitigating nuisance potential for the adjacent residential areas.
3. Statement of Overriding ConsideratiOns
The City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby finds that despite the incorporation of all the
mitigation measures outlined in the Findings of Fact on the proposed project, certain
environmental impacts remain which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
The City finds that these unmitigable impacts are outweighed by the project benefits
described above and are therefore acceptable. Furthermore, for the reasons discussed
above, the project alternatives identified in the EIR will have greater environmental
impacts than the project, will not meet the project objectives, or will not provide the
project benefits to the same extent as the project. Therefore, for the reasons described
in detail above, these economic, social, environmental, and other considerations make
the project alternatives identified in the EIR infeasible.
1!.0 .NHT CAT!ON MONITOriNG AND .~PORTu'N'G PL.a2,.'
11.0 M2 11GATION MONITOKING AND REPORTING PLAN
tn compliance witln PubLic Resource Cede Section 21081.6 (enacted by passage of AB3180
[Co~ese]), public agencies approvLng projec~./s wb/c]-~ have the potential to cau~ sig-nificant
envL-orunental i/npacts must adopt a rnoD/tor4.ng ~-~d report*ring prograin for the adooted or
required measures which wou/d mitigate or avoid ~",e sigTificant effects. Tnis section of ~he
eons~tutes the Mitigation ,.X, lo~toring and Repor~'ing Plan for the Subarea 16 Redesio~nation
proiect.
A project manager will be assigned by the Ra. ncho Cuc~_.monga Plar~ang Dh'ector to suoervise the
L'r~plementat/on of the monitoring plan throughout all phases of project development, from the
lin~e the project ts approved to the time the certL/icates of occupancy are issued. The project
manager wL!/have the authority to stop the work of construction con~-actora he compliance with
any aspects of the mitigation is not occurf',ng a~er written notification has be~_n issued. The
project mmnager will also have the authority to refLne, replace or add mitigation measures as
necessary which achieve the sa_me goals as ~he adopted mitigation measures.
Table ll-1 is a master check/ist wk/dn iden~i. qes the mitigation measures to be hnolemented and
how they are to be monitored. At the poLnt each mitigation measuxe ls Lmptement~d, a reporting
and i. mp!ementa~on form (Table 11-2) shall be filled out, dc<tu:ne-tting the adequacy of
mitigation compliance..As a mitigation measure is completed, the project manager can "check
off" that measure on the master checklist. Certificates of occupancy for any aDDroved phase of
development within Subarea 16 shall not be issued ~n~ compliL~ce'with all' m/dgation measures
has been verLfied.
It should be noted that there wLl! be multiple developments .wit.gin Subarea 16 wkich will have
to comply wiCq this mitigation monitoing plan. .1.5 such, a "fresh" mitigation monito~.ng
chedclist and set of reporring forms must be completed for each development widnin the subarea.
RANCHO CUCAMOXGA IXDU5TR!.-'.r.. AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
SUBAREA !6 REDES!GNAT!ON E[R
2LA~LE 11-1
Milil;aliCm Mira rinl,/vlaslur Chucklisl
IASI' Subarea 16 I(udusi~;natiol~ L:IR
Veri/icallon of
Compliance
Party Fiehi Parly
Miligalhm/vleasure Adnlinislrative Action Timing Responsible Monitoring/ Responsible Signalure Date
for Reporling Schedule for
Verlficalion Verificalion
[LU-IJ The Cily ~l~all adopt land use anlendments and Cily Io amend InduStrial Prior Io Planning None None
deveJopmenl slandartls for Subarea 16 of Ihe A'rea Specific Plan and Ct~call~onga Department
h~dustrial Area Specific Plan which will Citywide Masler Ptan of C0rne~olnle
supersede Ihe provisions contained in tl~e Storm Drains. Final Tract
adopted Master Plan for .Subarea 16. 'FIle Map Approval
citywide Masler Plan of Sk~rm Drains shal
shall take place prior Io final trnc[ mnp
;q~J}rova{ e( tile C ~c tlt';I C(~rnerpoilxte
Cornerpoinle checked against
shall be verified
Nt~ It~ading dol~rs/facilitles, ouldtx) prit~rlolssuanceof
st~bjecl indush'ial btfilding.
[LU-,II For Ihe 3-1 lots wilhin Ihe Ctlcalllollga Ctlcalnonl~a Cornerpoinle Prior h) Planninl~ hnplemenlalion of l'lannin):
perception of neighbt~ring industrial park
IAI~LE 11-1 fcl,~12
Verificalion o[
Compliance
Parly Field Party
Mitigalion Meas.re Adminlslrative Action TJmh~g Respo,~ible Monilorln~ Respot~ible Signalure Dale
for Reporting Schedule tot
Verification Verification
which separates th~ residential and on parcels which abu~ bulkling shall be verified
bas~ of ~he wall shall be planled with a 16- Subdivision shall
evergreen trec. s (eight fedt of landscaping ~n buffer.
each side of Ihe property line wall}.
sh.dl be double-pimed.
[T-I] Each development in Subarea 16, including the Applicm, for each Prior to Engineering None Nmm
responsible for mitigating IraHie impacts by building
the Cily's policies regarding Iraffic impact
Verificatitnl
Compliance
· I'arly Field l'arly
/vlillgalim~ Measure Admh~l:~lralive Acllon Timln8 Respm~sible Monilorin~ Respm~sible Signature
fur l~epurllng Schedule for
Verlficallol Verification
Arch/bald Avenue/Fourth Street
Add tree ~veslbound Through lane
'. Addtmes~mthbtmntl~ight-lurnlane
l lelh~Can Avenue/Fourth Sireel
Signalize inlerseclim~
I lelhnan Avenue/Sixth Streel
Signalize interseclim~
Add one m~rlhbmmd I~ight-lurn lane
Add one soulhb{mnd Righi turn lane
Add one southbtmnd 'l'hrt~ugh
Upgrade exisling interseclitm signal
['lelhnan Avem~e/Ftmrth Slreet
Signalize inlerseclion
I lelhnan Avenue/Sixth Slreet Signalize Intersectim~
AQ-I] Dust generated by file devek~pmeal activities ~pplicant to lisf dust ~rlor to Plam~ing :mr check/respond luildlng
TAIH.E 11-1
Verificalion uf
ComEtlathe
Parly Fiehi Parly
Mitigation Measure Adminislrative Aclion Timing Responsible Monitorin~ Responsible Signature Date
for Reporlhtg Schedule for
Verlflcalion Verificaliot
[AQ-I} cosxL
a, DutYrig clearing, grading, earlh movin~
m;flerials, ~valer Irt~cks or sprinkler
systems shall ~ u~t to prevent dt~l fron
lenvin~ the site and Io creaie a ~st afler
sprinkler systems ~hall ~ u~ to keep all
pickup of Ihe soil unlil Ilxe area is paved or
d. Soil stockpiled for/note than two days
shall ~ covered, kepl nxoisl, or ireated
e. Trucks Ir;1nsporthl~ soil, salltl, cul or fill
h'tHn Ihe site shall be larped frcHn the poinl ,
{AQ-2] All devel¢~pmenl wilhin the subarea shall be
subjt~l to applicable provisions ~f the City's
No. 522 nl~d 523, Adtq~led April 6, 1994) as
];~IH,E 11-1
Cgn!pl__i~.c~
l'arly Field Party
Mitigalion Measure Administrative Aclian 'Hming Respoz~ible Monitorin~ Responsible Signature Date
for RepoSing Schedule for
Veriflcatlot Verification
IAQ-2~ conL
hldu~lrjal_E~E~l~l~lt~lH Site plans of fulure Prior h} Plannh~g hnplemenlatim~' Building
a. Office parks with 1J~)0 employees or morn induslrial developmen[ issuance of Deparhnenl shall be verified Deparhnent
shal~ provide on-sile video conference: shall be checked agains~ building ~rior ~o issuance of
/acili ties. slandards. permils occupancy cerlificale.
b..hxdus[rial development over 325,~} square
shower facilily accessible to boH~ mu~ and
w~m~c~ for pe~o~ waking or bicycling lo
c. Bicycle s[orage facilities a[ [he rate of
~ Ihree-biku rack) shah be provided willtin
~ lind vxisling bicycle irails in accordance
d. Off-sh'eel parkh~g close Io the buildlug
shall be provided for office/indus[rial
faciliHes at H~e tale of 10 percenl nf 1he
hHal parking area as designated for t~ by
public sireels, park ~ areas and public
E~i~milia~l~Pm~nt Cucamonga Cornerpolnle prior Io final [qanning , hnpleme;Halicm Engineerin~l
f. Cucamt}nga Cornerpointe's roadway Subdlvislcm applicant to Iract map Duparhnent shall be verified Department
[g. Single:fl y development of 5(X) or more Cticnmonga Cornerpoln[e Prior h~ Plannin[~ None None
:IL~LII.E 11-1 (ellaLl
Parly Field Parly
Miligalion I~,leasure Adnlhfisiralive Adlon Thairig Respos~sible Monllorill~ Respmlsible Signalure Date
for Repoah~g Schedule for
Veriflcalion VeriItcallon
he;wy eqHipmell~ shall be ~'eslrlcletl to Monday
m less iha 65 ~ B CNEL, idealily the building
CNEI,, a~xd verify lhe adequacy of millgallon
measures inclt~ded in Ihe b~ilding plans. Any
pr~po~d ~tu~d barriers shall ~ desij~ed in a
bHilding plans will ~ checked for confom~ance
vlH'im~s ~R~tkJ barrier heights altorig Ihe
Vedficatiozt of
__ Coml~!iance
/'arty Field Parly
Mitigation Measure Admhdslrallve Action *l'hnlng Responsible Monilorin~ Responsible Signalure Date
for Repo~ing Schedule for
VerlficaHo= Verificalion
[FI'-I} All properly wilhin the present boundaries of Subarea 16 landow~xcr~ Io 'Prior to I~at~cho Ntme Ntme
Subarea 16 shall ~ annexed i:xto Mcllo Rtx~s file ant~exalion papers. recordaton of Ctlcanlollga
Dislrict 85-1 in t~rder It} assist in funding Fire Cucamonga Fire
Sialion 112's relc~calitm and/c~r hiring of , Cornelpoinle's I'roluciicm
additional personnel. Annexation of the fitul tract Disirict
subarea shall be completed prior to recordalitm
of Cucamonga Corncrpoinle Final Tract Map. Illap.
Subarea landowners ~hal[ each contribute their
IP*I) All develt~pment in Ihe subarea shall include Each development Prior to Plannin~] hnplementation Planning
· Slreet and night lighting; ~hould be which include these perndl~
· The t~ of louvered wirelows should ~
prtfldbited.
IS-11 Each residential tlevelopmL. nl w~lhin Subarea I{esidential devel~pcr It~ Prit~r
16 shall ~ couditioned Io participnle in lhe sign CJUSHD's sssuance of Deparlment
CJUSHD's CFD No. 2 as well a~ pay CSD's miligatitm agreement building
property lax increme~t thrtmgh existing impact and deposit CFD pro- ~ermlts
payment.
Residential developer
pay property lax
~]'Al11.I'.'11-1
__, Verificalit~n of
Com~_lilu~)ce
Party FIeld l~arty
/vlillgallon lvleasure Admhdslratlve Aclimx Timtrig llespm~ible Monil~rin~ Resposisible' Signature Dale
for Repoaing Schedule for
Veriflcatbn Verlficaliog~
In addilit~n h3 paying conn~liot~ fees and First ma~or derelict>menI ~Prior to Building hnplementalicm Building
installing all required waterlines on Ihe project applicant to submit tract issuance t~f Department shall be verified Deparhnent
site, the Cucanmnga Cornerpoinle or the first map/site l>lan wilh grading permit prll~r Io final
1T' wilier nlaill in Fourth Sireel between indicaled,
Ciicilllltlllga Creek Clumnel and Archibald refund agreemenl with
Avenue. If Cucanumga Comerpt~inleis Ihe flrst~CCWD.
major developmenl of the sile, Ihen Ihe
water mai~ shall be inslalled prior Io final
inspection al>prowll. If Ihe induslrial
subarea shall be sepa~aled trot ~ as to bulkling
'[S~V-21City mainlenance ~f Ihe public park shall None None None Periodic sp~l check Engineering
shall t~ designed with adequale include design felllure in Issuance of Deparhnenl shall be verified Department
Corn iliarice
Party Field Party
Miligallon Measure Adntlnlslrative Aclion Timing Responsible Monilorin~ Responsible Signature Date
for Ilepo~ing Schedule for
Verification Ver[ficalion
flo~ding Ihat wouki be generated S ;~r~i~ > Iracl map Deparhnenl shall be verified Deparhnent
Sireel, buikling pads pn}posed along Sixlh properlles shall include approval priorlosign-~fffon
Sh'ee[ shall ~' r~fised in accordance will% Iheseprovlsions, based
Ordinance 545. In addition, it is Ihe Cily's upon Ihe restdis of a sile- building penflits.
policy float slorm drains ~ installed specific drainage study.
capacily of a street (curb-'to-curb); a l{}{}-year
sh~rm runoff overflows fl~e street righDiff-way;
{,r street ~anes are n~[ kept "dry" during a
slorm drain will be requireci wifidn Sixth
Sireel.
[SD-2] h% order h> avoid Ihc impacls of Ihe existing 100 Grading and t rainage Prior Io final Engineering [ml~lementalim~ Building
Avenue and al any prt~jt~'t ingress/egress
shape of Ihe raised building pads.
ISD-3] In order Io avoid inlernal flooding problems Cucan~onga Comerpt~inle Prior Io final Engineering hnplemenlatlon Building
project. This report must identify Ihe size and
VerH'icallol~ of
l'arly Field l'arty
for Repoding Schedule for
Verification Verificaiiol
ISD-3I c~n~L
discharge ~vithin eiil~er the Archibald Avetxt~e
prclinfi~ary d rni~n}~e pliln f~r the project sh all
sweeping l~rt~i~rnn~ h~r all paved st~rfaces whicl~
'I'A IsT,E H-~ (4;rHIL),
Verification of
Compliance
Party Fiehi Party
Mitigalhm/vleasure Aclmin[slralive Aclioz~ Timing Ilesponsible Mosllloring/ l(esptmsible Signature Date
for Reporting Schedule for
Verification Verification
~vill ~ prevenled from discharging oilIll the
[CR-1] Pur~uan[ to Ihe conlmm/ity c es gn element of All developers within Prior to ]'lannillg hnplementation Planning
the City of I~illlcho Cucamonga's General Plan, Subarea 16 to submit ~ issuance of Department shall be verified Deparlment
all new develt~pment within Ihe subarea building elevations ~vilh grading permit prior Io issuance of
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA_MONGA ' ~
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 9, 1996
TO: Chairman and Members of the Plannin9 Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-03A -
CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC - A request to amend the General Plan Land
Use designation from Industrial Park to Low Medium Residential (4°8 dwelling units
per acre) for 77 acres of land at the intersection of Fourth Street and the
Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel bordered by Sixth Street on the north,
and the City will also consider an alternative designation of Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre). APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33.
With this application the City will also consider amending the Industrial Park
designation to alternative land uses for the remaining land bounded by Sixth Street
on the north, Archibald Avenue on the east, Fourth Street on the south, and
Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek on the west as follows:
1. For approximately 15 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Sixth
Street and Hellman Avenue and bordered on the west by the Cucamonga
Creek Flood Control Channel the City will consider Low Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre) and Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-05, 06, and 39.
2. For approximately 45 acres of land bordered by Sixth Street on the north,
Archibald Avenue. on the east, and Fourth Street on the south the City will
consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), Low Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre), Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, and
Office as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-08, 10, 11, 13, 28, 31, and 34.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT 95-04 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC - A request to remove
82 acres of land at the intersection of Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek
Flood Control Channel bordered by Sixth Street on the north, from the Industrial
Area Specific Plan for the purposes of rezoning the land to Development Code Low
Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18,
19, 26, 32, and 33.
With this application the City will also consider amending the Industrial Area Specific
Plan, Subarea 16 to alternative land uses and amending development standards for
the remaining land bounded by Sixth Street on the north, Archibald Avenue on the
east, Fourth Street on the south, and Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek
on the west as follows:
ITEMS I - K
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 95-03, ISPA 95-04, & DDA 95-02 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE
October 9, 1996
Page 2
1. Removing approximately 15 acres of land located at the southeast corner of
Sixth Street and Hellman Avenue and bordered on the west by the Cucamonga
Creek Flood Control Channel from the Industrial Area Specific Plan for the
purposes of rezoning the land to Development Code Low Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre) or Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as
alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-05.06, and 39.
2. Removing approximately 45 acres of land bordered by Sixth Street on the
north, Archibald Avenue on the east and Fourth Street on the south from the
Industrial Area Specific Plan for the purpose of considering Development Code
Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), Low Medium Residential (4-8
dwelling units per acre), Commercial. Neighborhood Commercial, and Office
as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-08.10, 11, 13, 28, 31, and 34.
3. Consider changing the development standards and land use activities for
Subarea 16 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
AMENDMENT 95-02 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC - A request to amend
the Development District Map designation from Industrial Area Specific Plan to Low
Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 82 acres of land at the
intersection of Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel
bordered by Sixth Street on the north. and the City will also consider an alternative
designation of Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). APN: 210-062-02, 11,
13, 17, 18.19.26, 32, and 33.
~,4th this application the City will also consider amending the Industrial Area Specific
Plan designation to alternative land uses for the remaining land bounded by Sixth
Street on the north, Archibald Avenue on the east, Fourth Street on the south, and
Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek on the west as follows:
1. For approximately 15 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Sixth
Street and Hellman Avenue and bordered on the west by the Cucamonga
Creek Flood Control Channel the City will consider Low Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre) or Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as
alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-05.06, and 39.
2. For approximately 45 acres of land bordered by Sixth Street on the north.
Archibald Avenue on the east, and Fourth Street on the south the City will
consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), Low Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre), Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial and
Office as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-08.10, 11, 13, 28, 31, and 34.
An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the above described
projects.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 95-03, ISPA 95-04, & DDA 95-02 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE
October 9, 1996
Page 3
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq:
North Single family residential tract; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
South - Drainage facilities, vacant, and apartments; City of Ontario - Open Space, Single-
Family, and Multi-Family Residential
East Food plant; Industrial Area Specific Plan. Subarea 5 (General Industrial)
West Single family residence/construction storage yard (unimproved); Low Medium
Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre); and vacant, City of Ontario - Limited
Industrial
B. General Plan Desiqnations:
Project Site - Industrial Park
North Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
South - City of Ontario - Proposed Recreation/Open Space/Park, Low Medium Residential
(5.1~11 dwelling units per acre), and Medium Residential (11-16 dwelling units per
acre)
East General Industrial
West Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). City of Ontario - General
Industrial
C. Site Characteristics: The project site gently slopes southward at less than 2 percent gradient.
The site primarily consists of fallow fields of annual grasses and forbs and vineyards that are
in decline. In addition to the abandoned fields and vineyards. the site contains eight
residences: one is near the Cucamonga Creek Channel, two are located at the northwestern
corner of the site, one is at the northeast corner, and four are along Archibald Avenue.
Remnants of eucalyptus windrows dot the project site, as well as specimen trees associated
with existing residential landscaping.
LAND USE ANALYSIS: This land use amendment has been submitted by the applicant in
anticipation of consideration of Tentative Tract No. 15727, a 5-acre neighborhood park and 342
single family lot subdivision designed to the Low Medium Residential standards. The following
analysis addresses the issues in this context as well with the underlying residential ranges:
A. Appropriateness of the existinq designation: Subarea 16 is the most southwesterly portion
of the Industrial Area and is adjacent to industrial and residential land in both Rancho
Cucamonga and the City of Ontario. With the Industrial Park designation allowing the least
intensive industrial uses. the subarea's roadway perimeter, and the increased residential
development standards to buffer the site, staff believes an industrial park project within the
present subarea can be made compatible to this surrounding area.
A Fiscal Analysis was developed (included in Appendix "H" of the EIR) for the project. It was
included to provide the Planning Commission and City Council a relative measure of the costs
and revenue of each alternative land use scenario. The present, alPindustrial designation
provided the highest anticipated annual net fiscal impact (+$620,759) to the City when
developed as compared with the other alternatives.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 95-03, ISPA 95-04, & DDA 95-02 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE
October 9, 1996
Page 4
B. Appropriateness of the proposed project: The development of a large residential project
combined with the single-family neighborhood to the north would significantly strengthen the
residential character along Sixth Street. Also, the inclusion of the neighborhood park will also
aid in creating an enhanced neighborhood identity for the area. At 4.68 units per acre,
TT 15727 exceeds the high end of the Low Residential (2-4 dwellings units per acre)
designation. The neighborhood north of Sixth Street was developed at approximately 4.2
units per acre under the County.
On the negative side, the potential for nuisance to future residents from industrial activities
is significant as a common property line would be the dividing line of the two dissimilar land
uses. In addition, performance standards (noise, etc.) would become more stringent on the
industrial businesses as, typically, minimum levels change to the more restrictive at the
property line. Staff believes, however, in concert with the EIR, that additional development
provisions are needed if the residential designation is to be approved. These provisions
would include additional setback areas for both residential and industrial structures,
modification of some industrial activities that could potentially be nuisances (i.e., light
industrial, crematory services, etc.), and location and orientation limits for industrial structures
(refer to ISPA Resolution Section 4.b-0.
The Fiscal Analysis of this scenario (land use) shows an annual net fiscal impact to the City
of +$267,683 when developed. This results in a 56.9 percent decrease from the existing
subarea designation. The annual net impact from 'IF 15727 alone is estimated at +$10,785.
Also, the project was evaluated in light of the Southern California Association of
Government's (SCAG's) current Regional Growth Management Plan which estimates the
future population, housing, and employment in the region. SCAG's growth projections for the
City are based upon the buildout potential in the City's General Plan. The proposed land use
changes would be inconsistent with the projections contained in the Regional Growth
Management Plan. But with an anticipated 2 percent increase to the present City population
and a 1 percent increase at buildout, staff believes that the level of change in the areas listed
above will not be significant.
C. Alternative Land Uses: The review of alternatives centered on potential uses for the out
parcels next to the requested residential. Alternatives for the tract only involved one other
designation, that being Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre).
1. Low Residential - With a lower residential density, staff believes it is appropriate to
generally view the impacts as no greater than, and sometimes less than, that of the
proposed Low Medium Residential. Therefore, Low Residential would be an acceptable
alternative wherever Low Medium Residential is determined to be acceptable. At just
over four dwelling units per acre, TT 15727 is close to the high end of the Low
Residential range.
Adjacent Land Alternatives:
2. Low Medium & Low Residential - One alternative that should be viewed as an essential
part of the land use decision is the similar redesignation of the out parcels (Cook and
Blessent) at the southeast corner of Hellman Avenue and Sixth Street. It is for this
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 95-03, ISPA 95-04, & DDA 95-02 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE
October 9, 1996
Page 5
reason that the EIR specifically includes these parcels as total Low Medium Residential
area in the project description. Staff anticipates some of the properties' access would
come off the nor[hem portion of "A" Street. Staff does not believe that these parcels
should have a different designation than that of the proposed tract. Their smaller size,
odd configuration, and location, potentially surrounded by residential uses, raise many
questions about their viability with a different designation (refer to 'IT 15727. Exhibit
Low Medium Residential was also considered for the remainder of the subarea. In most
of the environmental issues, this alternative was listed as a superior alternative. In this
scenario, the two large northeast parcels could be designed as a separate residential
development. The smaller parcels along Archibald Avenue would need to be included
in the design of TT 15727 as they are undoubtedly too small to meet all the
development requirements for a separate residential tract.
Fiscal Analysis of Low Medium Residential for the entire subarea indicates an annual
net fiscal impact to the City of +$57,411 when developed This results in a 90.8 percent
decrease from the existing subarea designation. An all Low Residential designation
would result in an annual loss of $22,182 when fully developed. This equates to a
103.6 percent decrease from the existing subarea designation.
3. Office - This designation is viewed as an appropriate commercial use neighbor to
residential development, often as a buffer from more intense activities. Also, it was
deemed as a potential alternative because of the significant amount of business suppor~
office activities that have been included in industrial park projects. The General Plan
encourages integrated complexes "to provide areas where related and support offices
can be located" while discouraging "the proliferation of individual isolated offices." A
sizeable office development along Archibald Avenue would be compatible with this
direction and might be viable as local office support for the industrial activities on the
east side of the street,.
~iscal Analysis of this alternative, in conjunction with Low Medium Residential on the
west portion, resulted in an annual net fiscal impact to the city of +$111,848 when
developed. This results in an 82 percent decrease from the existing subarea
designation.
4. Commercial - Consideration of this land use was solely to explore the potential to
provide retail/service businesses to the expanded residential neighborhood. As a result,
EIR alternative analysis provided for a commercial area of the approximate size of a
neighborhood shopping center with the office alternative. Neighborhood Commercial
districts are intended to meet the retail and services needs for a cluster of
neighborhoods of about 10,000 residents. Convenience Commercial (2-3 acres), a
category with Neighborhood Commercial, allows for small, localized retail and service
businesses that provide goods and merchandise to the immediate surrounding area.
As the commercial activities on the east side of Archibald Avenue are mostly business-
support related, providing for future residents' retail needs within the area may be
appropriate. Staff believes the area at the intersection of Archibald Avenue and Sixth
Street has the potential for such uses.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 95-03, ISPA 95-04, & DDA 95-02 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE
October 9, 1996
Page 6
The City-wide economic study, completed late last year, cautioned regarding the
significant increase in the City's inventory of commercial land. This study, however,
focused on major commercial developments. The study's consultant indicated that
expansion of neighborhood commercial development should not threaten major
commercial activity, as small centers are established where the immediate population
can support the local businesses.
Fiscal Analysis of this alternative of office with 16 acres of retail commercial and Low
Medium Residential on the west portion, resulted in an annual net fiscal impact to the
City of +$417,700 when developed. This results in a 32.7 percent decrease from the
existing subarea designation.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The environmental analysis for the subject applications is
contained in the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 16 Redesignation Environmental Impact
Report (EIR). All of the above listed alternatives have been evaluated in the EIR and may also be
considered for adoption as well as the specific amendment request. The mitigations included in
the monitoring program are tailored for the recommended scenario of Low Medium Residential with
Industrial Park for the remaining land bordering Archibald Avenue and Sixth Street. If any of the
other land use alternatives are selected, however, staff recommends a continuance so the
Mitigation Monitoring Program may be studied for possible modifications.
CONCLUSIONS: Staff believes that the residential tract developed at Low Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre), neighborhood park proposal, and accompanying land use changes
are appropriate within the following expanded provisions:
1. The 15 acres at the southeast corner of Hellman Avenue and Sixth Street is also changed
to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre); and
2. The Subarea 16 Development Standards for the remaining industrial land be amended to
increase setbacks, modify potential nuisance activities, add neighborhood commercial uses,
include building orientation criteria, and modify the master plan requirement (refer to ISPA
Resolution for specifics). Also, the project would create a remnant substandard lot at the
northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Fourth Street because of the ISP's 300 foot
minimum lot width (narrowest frontage) requirement for off-special boulevards. Because of
the extensive +900 foot Archibald Avenue frontage and examples of development possibilities
for industrial and of'rice development shown to staff for this site, it is recommended that an
allowance for a reduced frontage be included for the property (refer to items listed in the ISPA
Resolution, Section B.4).
Finally, staff would also recommend allowing (subject to a conditional use permit) up to 5 acres of
neighborhood commercial uses at the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Sixth Street
(ISPA Resolution, Sections B.4.c. & d). While the Office/Commercial EIR alternative indicated
increased levels of impacts in some areas (traffic, noise, police protection), these estimates were
based upon the entire remaining subarea potentially changing to those designations. Staff beiieves
that the 5 acres reserved for neighborhood commercial would not significantly affect the proiect's
impacts, but would provide a convenience to the area residents.
Refer to the Exhibit "A" with each resolution for a map reflecting the changes based on the above
COnclUSions.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 95-03, ISPA 95-04, & DDA 95-02 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE
October 9, 1996
Page 7
FACTS FOR FINDING: Based on the facts and conclusions listed above, staff believes the
Planning Commission can make the following facts for findings regarding these applications:
A. The properties are suitable for the uses allowed in the proposed land use and Development
District designation in terms of access and size, as evidenced by the site's location adjacent
to existing single family residential development and the tract design's conformity with Low
Medium Residential District development standards;
B. The proposed amendments will have significant adverse impacts on the environment as
described in the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 16 Redesignation EIR, but the
potential positive impacts of other environmental aspects to the adjacent residential areas will
provide sufficient benefits, as listed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, to approve
the amendments; and
C. The proposed amendments are in conformance with the General Plan, Industrial Area
Specific Plan, and Development Code because of the site's capacity to promote the goals and
objectives for single family residential development and allow for the development of industrial
park land in the remaining portion of Subarea 16.
CORRESPONDENCE: These items have been advertised for public hearing in the Inland Valley
Daily Bulletin newspaper, the properties have been posted, and notices were sent to all property
owners within 500 feet of the project site. Nine letters were received in response to the EIR and
another from an adjoining property owner in December 1996.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached
Resolutions Recommending Approval of GPA 95-03A, DDA 95-02, and ISPA 95*04 with Subarea
16 text amendments, as outlined in the Conclusions section of this report.
City Planner
BB:AW/jfs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Existing General Plan Land Use Map
Exhibit "B" - Existing Development District Map
Exhibit "C" - Letter from George T. Assanelli
Exhibit 'D" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "E" - Tentative Tract 15727
Resolution Recommending Approval of General Plan Amendment
Resolution Recommending Approval of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment
Resolution Recommending Approval of Development District Amendment
RESIDENTIAL ~ '.
!: .-':,i,, iVERY LOW <2 DU's/AC v.v.'.:
::::::::::::::::::::::::LOW 2-4 DU'S/AC
!:,,:,.,iLOW-MEDIUM 4-8DU's/AC
!~?i:i:i:E:~:i:iJMEDIUM 8-14 DU's/AC
iiiii!~i~!!i!MEDIUM-HIGH 14-24 DU's/AC
~ HIGH 24-30 DU's/AC
® MASTER PLAN REQUIRED
COMMERCIAL/OFFICE
COMMERCIAL
b:::::::::i::~ COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
~ * ~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMM.
~ REGIONAL COMMERCIAL
!::::::::::!:: OFFICE
INDUSTRIAL
~ INDUSTRIAL ,PARK
~ GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ~pA
2'77ZZ~ HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ~ "
OPEN SPACE
..:-,!i.!;!~.~ HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL
~ OPEN SPACE
:'?-::-:::-:~'-:'.' FLOOD CONTROL/UTILITY CORD.
~ SPECIAL BOULEVARD
PUBLIC FACILITIES
~ EXISTING SCHOOLS
~e,u/h,PROPOSED SCHOOLS ~
~ PARKS I(EXISTING PARKS SHOWN 'P')
~'- i CIVIC/COMMUNITY
CITY OF R~i~I~Gi~U'~AMONGA Title: i~'lrl"lk-~-T I.¢tdD
PLANRIN'~'bt~I~ION Exhibit: ~ Date:
RE~DENTIAL
~ MEDIUM-HIGH ~-24 ou/~c 2 ,
~ HIGH 24-30 DU/AC
COMMERCIAL/OFFICE LM
1' ;~z" ' ....
~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL
""""" "'""""""""""'""i
. ' ........
I HR I HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL LM
~ OPEN SPACE
~ ~c ~ F~oo~ co.~.o~ L_ ~'( 'i'
[ V~ I UTILITY CORRIDOR
SPECIFIC PLANS
:2'~'~,: INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN ,
: E.S.P.: ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN
:~.%~P~': FOOTHILL SPECIFIC PLAN I
PLANNED COMMUNITIES j~ , ~:
a~baa
~.~. VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY
~..,~ TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY
OVERLAY DISTRICTS
~ ~ASTER PLAN
[~s~o~l SENIOR HOUSING
[~:::>'1 EQUESTRIAN
~ ~ Project: :PPA,
CITY OF R~;-!~'~:~AMONGA Title: F--X~"r'/AJ~ D/ST~/c'7~
PLANhlI~i:Di~'I~ION Exhibit: ~ Date:
i!i:.i!:i:i~ .........
ii ":~:'I!~,:'',~*'':'~
December 6, i995
RECEIVED
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION DEC ! 1 1995
CityofRa~ho Cucamonga
RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 95-03A Planning Division
Dear Mr. Buller,
Thank you for your letter of 11-28-95. As an adjacent
property owner, I would like to provide some input to help
you in your decision on a possible zone change for subarea
16.
For the past 20 years my mother has lived in the large
house. I have lived in the front house with my wife & 3
children. The third house has always been used as a rental.
We are all happy living here and since this is our primary
and only residence, we would naturally welcome a zoning
change back to residential so we could blend in with the
surrounding properties.
However after being a real estate agent for the past 20
years and presently a long time owner of single family
rental properties in Ontario, Upland and R-C.(Rancho
Cucamonga), I feel I should make you aware of a situation
which exists in regards to resident'ial properties below
Foothill Boulevard.
I currently own 5 rental properties in R.C. which are
below Foothill. As recently as last year(before I retired in
I995) I managed 5 other properties inR.C.(specifically in
the tract between 6th and 7th streets and just west of
Archibald Ave.).
Now here is the problem. Whenever I had or have a
vacancy, the calls from my advertisement in the paper
inquiring about the location of the property almost always
go like this; "Gee thanks, but we really want to live above
Foothill." Translation; PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO LIVE BELOW
FOOTHILL.
I now realize that the tract (between 6th & 7th) should
have never been built. Another example would be the Daisy
Apartments on the SW corner of Archibald & 4th in Ontario.
~at a waste of an excellent commercial corner. And with the
upcoming expansion of the airport i can already hear the
complaints from the homeowners about the noise and why
weren't they told that this is an industrial area and why
are you building that office building over there and why
can't we have a park here, etc.
Again, even though I would prefer residential zoning,
the existing Specific Plan was well thought out and should
not be changed. I know R.C. needs money now, but we should
wait for the right development which will surely come.
EXhIBiT "C"
T- IO
R.C- and this country have been very good to me and my
family (we are immigrants from italy) and we will support
whatever the City decides.
Sincerely, _ / -. -
George T. Assanelli 9510 Archibald Ave.
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91730
APN 0210-062-10
cc; Councilmember James V. Curatalo
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-03A, REQUESTING TO CHANGE THE
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM INDUSTRIAL PARK TO LOW
MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR
APPROXIMATELY 92 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF SIXTH STREET, NORTH OF FOURTH STREET, AND EAST OF
HELLMAN AVENUE AND THE CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 210-062-02, 05, 06, 11,
13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, 33, AND 39.
A. Recitals.
1. Cucamonga Cornerpointe LLC has filed an application for General Plan Amendment
95-03A as described in the title of this Resolution for 77 acres of land, to which the City of Rancho
Cucamonga considered an additional 15 acres of adjacent land. Hereinafter in this Resolution. the
subject General Plan Amendment of 92 acres of land is referred to as "the application.*'
2. On October 9. 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. Concurrent to the hearing on this
application, the Planning Commission considered the adequacy of an Environmental Impact Report
for the application.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on October 9, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The appfication applies to approximately 92 acres of land, located on the south side
of Sixth Street, north of Fourth Street, and east of Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek
Channel which is presently vacant and underdeveloped. Said properties are currently designated
as Industrial Park; and
b. The properties to the north of the subject site are designated Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre) and developed with a single family neighborhood. Some of the properties
to the west are designated Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and are occupied
by an undeveloped construction storage yard. The remaining properties to the west are in the City
of Ontario, designated General Industrial, and are vacant. The properties to the east are designated
Industrial Park and are pdmadly vacant with remnants of a vineyard. The properties to the south are
in the City of Ontario, designated Proposed Recreation/Open Space/Park, Low Medium Density
Residential (5.1-11 dwelling units per acre), and Medium Residential (11-16 dwelling units per acre)
and are developed with drainage facilities and apartments; and
::-K
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
GPA 95-03A - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 2
c. The application is part of a series of applications relating to Tentative Tract 15727
which proposes the development of 342 single family residential units and a 5-acre neighborhood
park; and
d. This application does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan
and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and
with related development; and
e. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and
f, This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent
properties and an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and. concurrently with this
application by separate Resolution, is recommended to the City Council for certification.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a That the subject properties are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed
distdct in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and
b. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and will not
result in any internal inconsistences with the General Plan and would not have significantly greater
impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties than would be expected under the
existing land use designation.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment 95-03A to amend the land
use element of the General Plan including the map from industrial Park to Low Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 92 acres of land, located on the south side of Sixth Street, north of
Fourth Street, and east of Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek Channel (see Exhibit "A") and
all other applicable maps, tables, charts, and text of the General Plan to provide consistency with
the change.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1996.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
'El:::
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
GPA 95o03A - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 3
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission for 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 9th day of October 1996, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
RESIDENTIAL ~ :.: ......v.v....:
!:.i:::~i.:lVERY LOW <2 DU's/AC
::::::::::::::::::::::::LOW 2-4 DU's/AC .':':*
i':,:"~LOW-MEDIUM 4-8DU's/AC
Fi:!:!:!:i:E~MEDIUM 8-14 DU's/AC
i!!Z',Z!!iiiiijMEDIUM- HIGH 14-24 DU's/AC
~ HIGH 24-30 DU's/AC mm
® MASTER PLAN REQUIRED
COMMERCIAL/OFFICE
COMMERCIAL
~.:,.:.:-:.:iCOMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
~ ' }NEIGHBORHOOD COMM.
~ REGIONAL COMMERCIAL j
i:::::::::::;OFFICE
t 4th
INDUSTRIAL
~ INDUSTRIAL PARK
~ GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ~ i r_.pA ?S °034
F/Z/'/~ HEAVY INDU,~;TRIAL ~
OPEN SPACE
E:-!7~i~HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL
'~ OPEN SPACE
~-":::'<:::';FLOOD CONTROL/UTILITY CORb
~ SPECIAL BOULEVARD
PUBLIC FACILITIES
~ EXISTING SCHOOLS
'. ~-,'i.'h:PROPOSED SCHOOLSt
~ PARKS I(EXISTING PARKS SHOWN 'P')
, '..i CIVIC/COMMUNITY
ClTY OFR~RD~2~':~AMONGA Title: ~,~'L~ER~L, pL-~AJ
PLAN~IR:G,:D[~I~ION Exhibit: A Date:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 95-04, REQUESTING
TO DELETE 97 ACRES OF LAND FROM SUBAREA 16 OF THE
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
SIXTH STREET, NORTH OF FOURTH STREET, AND EAST OF HELLMAN
AVENUE AND THE CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL, AND AMENDING
THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA 16, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF-APN: 210-062-02, 05, 06, 11, 13, 17,
18, 19, 26, 32, 33, AND 39.
A. Recitals.
1. Cucamonga Cornerpointe LLC has filed an application for Industrial Area Specific Plan
Amendment 95-04 as described in the title of this Resolution for 82 acres of land, to which the City
of Rancho Cucamonga considered an additional 15 acres of adjacent land. Hereinafier in this
Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment of 97 total acres of land is referred to as "the
application."
2. On October 9, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. Concurrent to the hearing on this
application, the Planning Commission considered the adequacy of an Environmental Impact Report
for the application and associated applications for General Plan Amendment 95-03A and
Development District Amendment 95-02.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW. THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on October 9, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to approximately 97 acres of land, located on the south side
of Sixth Street, north of Fourth Street, and east of Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek
Channel which is presently vacant and underdeveloped. Said properties are currently zoned as
Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 16, Industrial Park; and
b. The properties to the north of the subject site are designated Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre) and developed with a single family neighborhood. Some of the properties
to the west are designated Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and are occupied
by an undeveloped construction storage yard. The remaining properties to the west are in the City
of Ontario, designated General Industrial, and are vacant. The properties to the east are designated
Industrial Park and are primarily vacant with remnants of a vineyard. The properties to the south are
in the City of Ontario, designated Proposed Recreation/Open Space/Park, Low Medium Density
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
ISPA 95-04 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 2
Residential (5.1-11 dwelling units per acre), and Medium Residential (11-16 dwelling units per acre)
and are developed with drainage facilities and apadments; and
c. The application is part of a series of applications relating to Tentative Tract 15727
which proposes the development of 342 single family residential units and a 5-acre neighborhood
park; and
d. This application does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan
and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan,
Development Code, and Industrial Area Specific Plan and with related development; and
e. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and
f. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent
propedies and an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and, concurrently with this
application by separate Resolution, is recommended to the City Council for certification.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a That the subject properties are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed
distdct in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and
b. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and will not
result in any internal inconsistences with the General Plan, Development Code. and Industrial Area
Specific Plan and would not have significantly greater impacts on the environment nor the
surrounding properties than would be expected under the existing land use designation.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1.2. and 3 above, this
Commission hereby recommends approval of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04
deleting from Subarea 16 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, 97 acres of land located on the south
side of Sixth Street, north of Fourth Street, and east of Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek
Channel and amending the text. tables, and maps relating to Subarea 16 as follows:
a. Part IV, Subarea 16, Pdmary Function, shall read as follows with strikcouts indicating
deleted text and bold print indicating text additions:
"This Subarea serves as a transition zone from more intensive
industrial or commercial activities to residential areas in the southwest
comer of the City. As such, new development must be sensitive to the
surroundings with appropriate architecture and site planning to mitigate
potential conflicts. Land uses within the industrial area should be
compatible with surrounding uses north of Sixth Street and along
Archibald Avenue to provide for use activities associated with airports
such as tourist commercial. This subarea is located between Sixth
Street and Fourth Street snd, west of Archibald Avenue ^-"' ,~ [c~',msn
and contains property substantially undeveloped. It lies adjacent to a
direct access to the Ontario International Airport and is located at a
gateway to the City."
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
ISPA 95-04 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 3
b. Pad IV, Subarea 16, Permitted Uses, shall read as follows with stfikcouts indicating
deleted text and bold print indicating text additions:
Administrative and Office
Profe.ssional/Design Services
Research Services
Light Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution
Building Maintenance Services
Business Supply Retail Sales and Services
Business Support Services
Communication Services
Eating and Drinking Establishments
Financial, Insurance and Real Estate Services
Medical/Health Care Services
Recreation Facilities
Administrative Civic Services"
c. Part IV, Subarea 16, Conditional Uses, shall read as follows with strPKcsuts
indicating deleted text and bold print indicating text additions:
"Custom Manufacturing
Light Manufacturing
Automotive Rental/Leasing
Automotive Service Station
Convenience Sales and Services
Entertainment
Fast Food Sales
Food and Beverage Sales
Hotel/Motel
Personal Services
Cultural
Public Assembly
Public Safety and Utility Services
Religious Assembly
Uses listed ("permitted" or "conditionally permitted") in the
Development Code's Neighborhood Commercial District subject
to a 5oacre maximum and site constraints as listed in the
Special Considerations."
d. Part IV, Subarea 16, Special Considerations, second paragraph shall read as
follows with strikccuts indicating deleted text and bold print indicating text additions:
"A revised conceptual Master Plan (revises the master plan of
Development Review File Number 82-16) which outlines access,
circulation, drainage and timing of improvements has bccn spproved
required prior to approval of development plans. All new
development must be consistent with this Master Plan, or the
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
ISPA 95-04 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 4
appropriate revisions approved. Neighborhood Commercial uses
(listed as "permitted or "conditionally permitted" in the
Development Code) may only be considered within a 6-acre area at
or near the southwest comer of Archibald Avenue and Sixth Street
subject to approval of a master plan for those uses within a larger
industrial park project. In the event of a conflict between whether
a use is permitted of conditionally permitted, the Industrial Park
requirement applies. It is not the intent to allow neighborhood
commercial uses to be scattered throughout an industrial project
nor to permit such uses within any existing complex designed
solely for industrial uses."
e. Part IV, Subarea 16. Special Considerations, fifth paragraph shall read as follows
with str~kcc, uts indicating deleted text and bold print indicating text additions:
............................ a~jsccnt .... - 115 ..........
Attractive screening of outdoor work, loading, storage areas and roof
and ground mounted equipment from significant residential and public
right-of-way frccway points of view shall be required."
f. Part IV, Subarea 16, Special Considerations, new paragraphs shall be added as
follows:
"Building height limit shall be 25 feet within 100 feet of abutting
residentially designated property. No loading doors or facilities
may face, unobstructed, towards any residentially designated
property. No outdoor activities/storage or mechanical equipment
shall be located beyond the rear wall of any building that faces,
unobstructed, towards any residentially designated property or
public right of way.
The remaining portion of Subarea 16 at the northwest corner of
Archibald Avenue and Fourth Street, created by adoption of
Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04, is authorized to
have a Fourth Street single property line frontage of less than 300
feet. No further reduction of the Fourth Street property line is
permitted, except for the acquisition of public right-of-way."
g. Part III, Table II1-1 shall be amended to reflect the above text changes.
h. Part IV, Subarea 16, Figure IV-18, shall be amended as shown in Exhibit "A."
i. All other applicable maps, tables. chads and text to provide consistency with the
above changes.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall cedify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1996.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
ISPA 95-04 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 5
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 9th day of October 1996, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
Z
s~barea 4
4th 0'0"70 ®:70 ®:
CIRCULATION TRAILS/ROUTES
120' R.O.W. C) 0 0 0 Pedestrian ~so*~ Creeks & Channels
~ 100' R,O.W, · ® ® ® Bicycle
88' or less R.O.W. ~F'~E~ Regional ~ park1
Multi-Use
RAIL SERVICE
I !
Bridge
J ~ ~ J } Existing I I ~ Special Streetscape/
~ Landscaping
-+-F-F++-- Proposed ,~ Access Points
0 400~ 800~ 1600~ 1The sites shown may not be c~-rently owned nor is the
location s~te speci~ Tt~e depiction of a site is an
Note: Parcel lines and lot configurations hd~cation of a projected hYojre need that may be
are shown as approximation only. IV-94 adjusted over time as the City develops.
CITY OF R~!~a~"~AMONGA Title: SO~IEA
PLANi',IIN~i:DI~I~ION Exhibit: A Date:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 95-02, REQUESTING TO
AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP FROM INDUSTRIAL AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN, SUBAREA 16, INDUSTRIAL PARK TO LOW MEDIUM
RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 97 ACRES OF
LAND, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SIXTH STREET, NORTH OF
FOURTH STREET, AND EAST OF HELLMAN AVENUE AND THE
CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF oAPN: 210-062-02, 05, 06.11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, 33, AND
39.
A. Recitals.
1. Cucamonga Cornerpointe LLC has filed an application for Development District
Amendment 95-02 as described in the title of this Resolution for 82 acres of land, to which the City
of Rancho Cucamonga considered an additional 15 acres of adjacent land. Hereinafier in this
Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment of 97 total acres of land is referred to as "the
application."
2. On October 9, 1996. the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. Concurrent to the hearing on this
application, the Planning Commission considered the adequacy of an Environmental Impact Repod
forthe application and associated applications for General Plan Amendmen 95-03A and Industrial
Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the Cit~/of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Pad A,
of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on October 9, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to approximately 97 acres of land, located on the south side
of Sixth Street, north of Fourth Street, and east of Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek
Channel which is presently vacant and underdeveloped. Said properties are currently zoned as
industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 16. Industrial Park; and
b. The properties to the north of the subject site are designated Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre) and developed with a single family neighborhood. Some of the propedies
to the west are designated Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and are occupied
by an undeveloped construction storage yard. The remaining properties to the west are in the City
of Ontario, designated General Industrial, and are vacant. The properties to the east are designated
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DDA 95-02 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 2
Industrial Park and are primarily vacant with remnants of a vineyard. The properties to the south are
in the City of Ontario, designated Proposed Recreation/Open Space/Park, Low Medium Density
Residential (5.1-11 dwelling units per acre), and Medium Residential (11-16 dwelling units per acre)
and are developed with drainage facilities and apartments.; and
c. The application is part of a series of applications relating to Tenlative Tract 15727
which proposes the development of 342 single family residential units and a 5-acre neighborhood
park; and
d. This application does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan
and will provide for development within the distdct in a manner consistent with the General Plan and
Development Code and with related development; and
e. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and
f. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent
properties and an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and. concurrently with this
application by separate Resolution, is recommended to the City Council for certification.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a That the subject propedies are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed
district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and
b. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and will not
result in any internal inconsistences with the General Plan and Development Code and would not
have significantly greater impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties than would be
expected under the existing land use designation.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set fodh in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby recommends approval of Development District Amendment 95-02 to amend the
Development Districts Map from Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 16, Industrial Park to Low-
Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 97 acres of land, located on the south side of
Sixth Street, north of Fourth Street, and east of Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek Channel
(see Exhibit "A").
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall cedify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1996.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DDA 95-02 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 3
ATTEST:
Brad Buffer, Secretary
I, Brad Buffer, 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 9th day of October 1996, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
RESIDENTIAL
vERY Low.
~ LOW 2-4 DU/AC
~ LOW-MEDIUM 4-8 DU/AC
~ MEDIUM .8-14 DU/AC I.S.P.
~ MEDIUM-HIGH 14-24 DU/AC
~ HIGH 24-30 DU/AC 2
COMMERCIAL/OFFICE
~ HG I NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL ).-
I QP I OFFICE/PROFESSIONAL
i HB I HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL .
( Os } OPEN SPACE 5
{ FC I FLOOD CONTROL
[ ~C I UTILITY CORRIDOR ~:~ ~-
SPECIFIC PLANS DDA
· LS.P. m INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN '
= E.S.P. = ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN
PLANNED COMMUNITIES
~p.~ VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY
~?~?,.~ TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY ....
OVERLAY DISTRICTS
r ~) i MASTER PLAN
I~s-ooq SENIOR HOUSING
[ .... ] EQUESTRIAN
;!~ Project: DOlt
CITY OF R~'~:~'~U"EAMONGA Title: Ds'U,L~.e/:~r-,d'r
PLANhlN'~:~:D~I~ION Exhibit: A Date:
TENTATNETRACT15727
CUCAMONGACORNERPOINTE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORN~
October9,1996
OuUined below is a list of modifications and/or clarifications to the Conditions of Approval
relating to the Tentative Tract as presented by the City staff for review and consideration by
the Planning Commission:
Page Condition
No. No. Comments
L 21 Planning We request that the construction of Perimeter Walls a long "A"
#2 Street be required on a Phased basis as the adjacent homes are
constructed.
L 22 Planning We request that the landscaping and walls relating to the private
#3b & 3c drainage easements be installed prior to final inspection rather
than prior to release of the building permits.
L 23 Engineering We request that the in-lieu foe for undergrounding of existing
~6 overhead lines on 6th Street be paid prior to the recording of the
Final Map for lots 179-196 or commencement of the Park
Construction, which ever first occurs.
L 24 Engineering We concur with the need for a traffic signal on 4th Street however,
~8 the warrants do not exist for · traffic signal on 6th and request
that this requirement be removed. In addiUon, we foel that the
actual cost of the signals on 4th Street and / or 6th (if required) be
a credit against the $1,710 per lot trafec foe.
L 25 Engineering This condition should be clarified to indicate that the 8' and 5'
#14a & 14b distance between the curb and sidewalk is from the "face of curb"
as shown in the landscape exhibits.
L 26 Engineering We request that the landscaping in all Landscape Maintenance
#18 District areas be installed on a phased basis as the adjacent
homes are constructed.
L 27 Time Limits We request that this condition be modified to require that the
~, developer shall negotiate and enter an agreement with the
Cucamonga School District for school impact miUgation prior to
issuance building permite.
L 34 Fire The requirement for 3500 GPM for fire floor plan is typical for
#2 commercial and industrial development. Per Mr. Ron Nee of the
Fire Deparlment, 1000 GPM is adequate and we request this
condition be corrected to reflect this.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIX4ONGA -- ~
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 9, 1996
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15727
CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC - A total residential development of 342
single family lots and a 5 acre neighborhood park on a total of 82 acres on land to
be rezoned to the Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located at
the intersection of Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel
bordered by Sixth Street on the north. APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17.18, 19, 26,
32, and 33.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Proiect Density: 4.68 dwelling units per acre.
B. Surroundinn Land Use and Zoninq:
North - Single family residential tract; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
South - Drainage facilities, vacant, and apartments; City of Ontario - Open Space, Single
Family, and Multi-Family Residential
East - Vacant, underdeveloped; Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 16 (Industrial Park)
West - Single family houses, underdeveloped; Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 16
(Industrial Park) - NOTE: Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwellinq units per acre) has
been recommended and vacant; City of Ontario - Limited Industrial
C. General Plan Desiqnations:
Project Site - Industrial Park (application change to Low-Medium Residential)
North - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
South - City of Ontario - Proposed Recreation/Open Space/Park, Low Medium Residential
(5.141 1 dwelling units per acre), and Medium Residential (11-16 dwelling units per
acre)
East - Industrial Park
West - Industrial Park - NOTE: Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwellinq units per acrel has
been recommended and City of Ontario - General Industrial
D. Site Characteristics: The project site gently slopes southward at less than 2 percent gradient.
The site primarily consists of fallow fields of annual grasses and forbs and vineyards that are
in decline. Remnants of eucalyptus windrows dot the perimeter of the site and eight
residences/farmsteads are just outside the project boundaries: one is near the Cucamonga
Creek Channel, two are at the northwestern corner, one is located at the northeast corner,
and four are along Archibald Avenue.
ITEM L
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT 15727 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
A. Backqround: In mid-1995, the applicant began the process for formal consideration of a
single family development in Subarea 16 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, Preceding the
review of the tentative tract application has been the formal consideration by the Planning
Commission of an Environmental impact Report (EIR), and General Plan and zoning
amendments. Recommendations for EIR certification and general plan/zoning approvals
must be made by the Planning Commission in order to act on the tentative tract application.
B. General: The applicant is proposing to develop 342 single family lots on 82 acres of land
between Sixth and Fourth Streets, east of Hellman Avenue, The proposed tract is to contain
142 lots with an average size of 6,448 square feet, 84 lots averaging 6,932 square feet, and
116 lots averaging 7,269 square feet. In total, the lots average out to 6,845 square feet.
Many larger lots are adjacent to the out parcels along Archibald Avenue to provide greater
setbacks from the industrial land to the north and east. The design meets or exceeds
minimum development standards of the Low Medium Residential District. No model house
plans have been submitted at this time,
As a part of the project, a five-acre park is to be developed at the tract's Sixth Street
entrance. The park will provide an enhanced entry statement southerly along the central
spine street, connecting to a northerly entry off Fourth Street. On August 15, 1996, the Park
and Recreation Commission approved a preliminary design concept for the park.
C. Desiqn Review Committee: On July 2, 1996, the Design Review Committee (Lumpp, McNiel,
Fong) reviewed the application and felt that the layout of the tract was acceptable and
recommended approval to the Planning Commission. The Committee recommended
conditions relating to streetscape design, enhanced sound attenuation, larger lots next to
industrial park land, and inclusion of a Master Plan of Walls and Fences. The Committee's
minutes are attached (Exhibit "E"),
A Conceptual Landscape Plan for Fourth and "A" Streets has been submitted by the applicant
for Planning Commission consideration. Staff believes revisions are still needed before
approval by the Commission. The Master Plan of Walls provides a hierarchy of fences and
walls throughout the tract. Generally staff feels that the plan is acceptable, but feels specific
details still need to be worked out prior to Planning Commission approval. The attached
resolution provides for the Conceptual Landscape Plan and the Master Plan of Walls to be
returned to the Planning Commission for further review prior to approval.
Acceptance of landscape easements along rear and side yards fronting the central spine
street into the Landscape Maintenance District, in addition to the Fourth Street frontage, is
appropriate. It is recommended that these be installed with the first development phase, to
assure consistent landscape treatment and to minimize required points of connection for the
irrigation system. The public park will be maintained by a separate Park Maintenance District.
Typically we require park installation before 50 percent of the units are occupied. Therefore,
the Sixth Street frontage and the east side of "A" Street, north of lot 196, will not be
landscaped initially, although curb adjacent sidewalk will be installed. The west side of "A"
Street north of lot 227, which fronts a vacant parcel to be developed by others, is proposed
with an interim 6-foot graded parkway. It will not be accepted into the Landscape
Maintenance District until the adjacent property develops. The Design Review Committee
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT 15727 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 3
has recommended completing the project entry off Sixth Street. Full right-of-way is not being
required. Any installation of landscaping would be temporary and privately maintained.
D. Gradinq Committee: The Conceptual Grading Plan was approved on October 1, 1996, for
technical compliance with the City's codes and policies. Detailed analysis focused on the
facilities needed to handle off-site storm water through the tract, and their location and
appearance from within the development (refer to tract Resolution of Approval Section 4.3)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The environmental analysis has been provided in the
Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 16 Redesignation Environmental Impact Report (EIR). If the
Planning Commission has recommended certification of the EIR to the City Council, it would be
appropriate for the Planning Commission to take action on the tentative tract.
One request raised by the City of Ontario, is to limit the starting hour of construction to 7 a.m.,
instead of Rancho Cucamonga's usual 6:30 a.m., to reduce nuisance noise in the morning. The
Ontario residents most exposed to the potential construction noise are on the south side of Fourth
Street, at least 100 feet, from the tract boundary. Staff does not believe the V-hour grace period
will significantly affect the area's ambient noise levels given that rush hour traffic should begin
flowing along Fourth Street by 6:30 a.m. If the Commission agrees with Ontario. it would be
appropriate to add this condition to the tentative tract's Resolution of Approval for City Council.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley
Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices were sent to all property
owners within 500 feet of the project site.
RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council the
approval of the land use amendments which change the land use to Low Medium Residential (4-8
dwelling units per acre), staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached
Resolution Recommending Approval of Tentative Tract 15727 to the City Council. If the land use
amendments have not been recommended for approval, then the Planning Commission should not
act on the tentative tract application.
BB:AW/jfs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization
Exhibit "B" - Tentative Tract Map
Exhibit "C" - Conceptual Landscape Plan
Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Grading Plan
Exhibit "E" - Design Review Committee Minutes of July 2, 1996
Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 16 Redesignation Environmental Impact
Report (previously distributed)
Resolution Recommending Approval of Tentative Tract 15727
Cucamonga
CornerPointe
Streetscape Elevalions
TRA C T No. 15727
CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
CItY O*~ RANClIO C~C~ON~A
................................. Z"'T'C ...........~]~j [,- "' .,
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:10 p.m. Alan Warren July 2, 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT li5727 CUCAMONGA
C RNERP L - A proposed residential subdivision of 342 lots and a neighborhood park on 82
acres of land to be developed to the Low-Medium (4-8 dwelling units per acre) Residential Development
District standards, generally located north of Fourth Stteet, west of Archibald Avenue, south of Sixth Street
and west of Hellman Avenue presently within Subarea 16, Industrial Park District of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan.- APNs: 2~:0-060-002, 011, 013, 026, 032, 033. Related Files: Environmental Impact
Report Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 16 Redesignation, Generai Plan Amendment No. 95-03 A,
Industrial Specific Plan Amendment No. 95-04, Development District Amendment No. 95-02.
The approximately 82-acre site is situated between Fourth and Sixth Streets in the middle of the 153 acres
of Subarea 16 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (ISP). Subarea 16 gently slops southward at less than
2 percent gradient. The site primarily consists of fallow fields ofarmual grasses and forbs and vineyards
that are in decline. In addition to the fields and vineyards, Subarea 16 contains eight
residences/farmsteads. Remnants of Eucalyptus windrows dot the area, as well as specimen trees
associated with the existing residential landscaping.
Residential development is not now authorized in Subarea 16, except for the legal non-conforming
farmsteads developed before the adoption of the ISP. With the Tentative Tract application, Cucumonga
Cornerpointe LLC and Griffm Industries are processing the required General Plan, ISP and Development
District Amendments needed to authorize this project. The Design Review will focus only on the tract
design with the requested Development District Low-Medium standards. Land use issues will only be
discussed as they may relate to development standards between different districts. The applicants have
been advised that ultimate approval of the tract is dependent on adoption of the land use changes and that
any approval of the tract design does not infer approval of the land use change.
The tract design generally conforms to the Low-Medium District standards with a density range slightly
more than four units to the acre. No product types are being provided at this time.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion.
Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this
project:
I. Tract Layout: The neighborhood will take access off Fourth and Sixth Streets by a north/south
central spine street. This street, while designed to local standards, is intended to function as a
collector. Staff believes the layout is generally acceptable. However, Engineering recommends that
only side-on lots be allowed along the "A" Street in order to limit the mount of area to be
maintained by the landscape maintenance district. Lots 335 through 342 back-on to the street and
22I and 226 effectively back on. Significant alteration to the layout would be required in this area
to provide side-on lots.
DRC COMMENTS
TT 15727 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
July 2, 1996
Page 2
2. Land Use Relationshivs: The developer's land use applications propose to change only the
properties encompassed within the tract. City staff has expanded the appiication to include land use
master planning of the entire Subarea 16 area (out parcels) in order to provide the Planning
Commission and City Council with an area wide comprehensive view. For the properties off
Archibald Avenue, the land use options include residential, commercial, office and the existing
industrial park. The EIR will include mitigation measures requiring extended setbacks for those lots
abutting industrial land. The lots along the east property line have depths greater than normal to
accommodate the recommended setback. Lots 31, 35, 36, 45, 46, 55, 56, 56, 66, 187, and 188,
however, side-on to the industrial land. Staff recommends these lots be recon/igured to back-on to.
the tract boundary to provide a greater structural setback.
3. Park: As part of the tract project, a 5-acre park is planned along the Sixth Street frontage. The park
has not gone through the City's program development process, but staff believes the proposed
location (as provided in the General Plan) and access is acceptable to serve the area. Any comments
concerning its location and access will be forwarded to the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee
will discuss the following secondary design issues:
This section should list more detailed corn.merits relative to site plan, architecture, landscaping, and
grading.
I. WallS: Discussion of a hierarchy of perimeter and side lot line walls/fences should be discussed.
Should the rear lot lines off the park be provided with a wall or ',wought iron fence? What type of
walls or fences should be called out for along "A" Street?
The EIR suggests that sound barriers (subject to a final noise study) may be needed along Fourth
Street, and the western and eastern tract boundaries. The Committee should discuss design concerns
of a combination sound attenuation wall and berm of 8-feet or higher (ie., landscaping, materials,
etc.).
2. Landscanln.~: The conceptreal Landscape Plan has not be reviewed by Engineering staff but is
presented for the Committees consideration. Ifapproved by the Committee, any significant changes
after complete staff review will be brought to the attention of the Plarming Commission.
3. Grading: A significant amount of fill is being proposed, more than 5 feet in places (along Fourth
St.). Also, the drainage along the north property lines (interior) does not seem able to meet the 2
pement minimum gradient. It would appear that drainage facilities will be needed at each cul-de-sa6
to collect drainage from the properties to the north. A revised Grading Plan needs to be submitted
to the Grading Committee that reduces the amount of fili along Fourth Street and solves the north
DRC COMMENTS
TT 15727 - CUCmMONGA CO~\TERPOINTE LLC
July 2, 1996
Page 3
Policy ISSues: 'The following items are a matter of Planning Cornmission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
I. A minimum of 5 feet should be provided between the back of sidewalk and block wails along the
streets to allow sufficient room for landscaping.
Staff RecommendationS:
It is recommended that the project be approved by the Comntittee with any outstanding items included as
Conditions of Approval for the Subdivision Map. Any tract approval is subject to approval of the
accompanying General Plan and Development District amendments by the Planning Commission and City
Council.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Alan Warren
The Committee recommended approval of the application subject to the following conditions:
1. Pedestrian access is to be provided from the central spine street to the adjacent cul-de-sacs.
2. The lots that side-on to the noaheast out parcels shall have a minimum width of 75 feet and a minimum
sideyard structural setback from the out parcels of 30 feet with RV parking accommodation. Noise
auenuation features will be included in the house wails facing the out parcels to ensure interior ambient
noise levels required by the Development Code.
3. The Committee recommends that the landscaping within the central spine street be maintained by the
Landscape Maintenance District. The conceptual Landscape Plan should be revised to incorporate more
cost efficient design (drought resistant species, harriscape, etc.).
4. Planting should be provided along the west side of the Sixth Street entry along the central spine street
(at the initial street development) similar to that provided on the east side of the street.
5. A master plan of wails and fences, that incorporates the latest City policies, shall be submitted for
Planning Commission review.
6. Grading Committee approval of the conceptual Grading Plan is required prior to Planning Commission
Review.
L/q
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15727, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF
342 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK ON 82 ACRES
OF LAND WITH AN APPLICATION FOR REZONING TO THE LOW MEDIUM
RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) DISTRICT. LOCATED
AT THE INTERSECTION OF FOURTH STREET AND THE CUCAMONGA
CREEK FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL, BORDERED BY SIXTH STREET ON
THE NORTH, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF *
APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13.17, 18, 19, 26, 32, AND 33.
A. Recitals.
1. Cucamonga Comerpointe LLC has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract
Map No. 15727, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafier in this Resolution, the subject
Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application."
2. On October 9, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. Concurrent to the hearing on the
application, the Planning Commission considered the adequacy of an Environmental Impact Report
for the application and associated applications for General Plan Amendment 95-03A and Industrial
Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE. it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on October 9, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property generally located at the intersection of Fourth
Street and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel, bordered by Sixth Street on the north with
a street frontage of 625 feet on Sixth Street and 1,835 feet on Fourth Street and a lot depth of 2,565
feet and is presently unimproved; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with single family
residential, the property to the south consists of apartments and open space flood control facilities,
the property to the east is primarily vacant and underdeveloped and designated for industrial park
uses, and the property to the west is largely underdeveloped; and
c. The project, together with the conditions of approval, will comply with all applicable
standards of the Development Code; and
d. The application proposes development at 4.68 dwelling units per acre, which is
within the unit density range of the requested Development District; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 15727 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 2
e. The project is an in-fill piece with single family residential development to the north
at similar density ranges and; hence, is a logical addition to the neighborhood.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan. Development Code, and
any applicable specific plans; and
b. The design or improvements of the tentative Iract is consistent with the concurrent
General Plan Amendment and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment under consideration by the
City, and
c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and
d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and
e. The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and
f. The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the
public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed
subdivision.
g. This application would not be materially injurious or detri'mental to the adjacent
properties and an Environmental Impact Repod has been prepared and. concurrently with this
application by separate Resolution, is recommended to the City Council for certification.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1.2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the application subject to each and
every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference.
Planninq Division
1) All applicable Mitigation Measures listed in Table 11-1 of the "Industrial
Area Specific Plan Subarea 16 Redesignation Environmental Impact
Report," as certified by the City Council, shall be completed as
described in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program. The mitigation
measures include, but are not necessarily limited to the following items
listed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit "A"):
T-l, AQ-1, AQ-2, N-l, N-2, SW-1, SW-2, SW-3, SW-4, LU-1, LU-
2. LUo3, LU-4, LU-5, P-l, FP-1, S-1, W-l, SD-1, SD-2, SD-3, SD-
4, and CR-1.
2) A Master Plan of Walls shall be submitted and approved by the
Planning Commission prior to the recordation of the final tract map.
Perimeter tract walls, side and rear lot line walls shall be constructed
along "A" Street prior to the final release of any buildings.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 15727 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 3
3) Drainage easements provided on Lots 16, 35, 45, 55, 65, and 227
through 230 shall be improved as follows:
a) The drainage easement at the end of "F" Street shall be totally on
Lot 35, the drainage easement at the end of "H" Circle shall be
totally on Lot 45, the drainage easement at the end of '1" Circle
shall be totally on Lot 55, and the drainage easement at the end
of "J" Circle shall be totally on Lot 65.
b) The drainage easements on Lots 16, 35, 45, 55, 65,227, 228,
229, and 230 shall be improved with irrigation systems and
extensive plantings, the continuous length of the easements, prior
to the final release of building permits on each lot and subject to
City Planner approval.
c) Lots 16. 227, 228,229, and 230 shall be improved with 6-foot
high property line walls adjacent to each drainage easement from
the rear property line to a point in alignment with the front house
wall nearest the property line. and with an 18-inch high property
line wall from the front properly line to the beginning of the 6-foot
property line wall, All walls shall comply with an approved Master
Plan of Walls, subject to Planning Commission approval.
d) Mini sumps shall be provided along the nodhefty extent of the cup
de-sacs (within a right-of-entry easement of the nodhern
properties) at Circles "J," "l," and "H" and "F" Street (between
Lots 35 and 36, 45 and 46, 55 and 56, and 65 and 66), and the
northerly extent of "R" Street (rear of Lots 227, 228, 229. and
230).
4) Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in all public right of way
and landscape easement areas along Fourth Street, Sixth Street, and
"A" Street within the tract in compliance with a Conceptual Landscape
Plan to be approved by the Planning Commission and construction
plans approved plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City
Planner. Installation shall be completed prior to final release of Phase
I. Landscaping shall be included along the future parkway area on the
west side of "A" Street, between Sixth Street and Lot 227.
5) Where rear lot drainage to a public facility can be achieved along "A"
Street. the lot should be lowered with a rear lot grade break and
depressing the pad the maximum amount possible below the street
fronting the lot.
6) Lots 35, 36, 45.46, 55, 56, 65, and 66 shall have a minimum width of
75 feet and a minimum side yard structural setback from the out parcels
to the northeast of 30 feet with RV parking accommodations. Noise
attenuation features will be included in the house walls facing the out
parcels to ensure interior ambient noise levels required by the
Development Code.
7) Pedestrian access is to be provided from "A" Street to the adjacent cul-
de-sacs.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 15727- CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 4
Engineerinq Division
1) Install ultimate street improvements on the north side of Foudh Street
from Archibald Avenue to Cucamonga Creek Channel including curb
and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, a bus bay west of the existing entry
monument, the intersection curb return, relocation of the most southerly
catch basin on Archibald, and any traffic signal upgrades. Off site street
trees may be deferred until development of the adjacent property. The
developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover the cost
of permanent off site improvements from future development of the
adjacent property. If the developer fails to submit for said
reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public improvements
being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement
shall terminate.
2) Widen the west leg of the Fourth StreetJArchibald Avenue intersection
to accept three westbound through lanes from the Major Divided
Artedal section east of Archibald Avenue. Transition to a Major Arterial
width (2 westbound lanes, single left turn lane) a sufficient distance
west of the intersection, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
3) Relocate up to eight 66 KV power poles as needed to accommodate
the Fourth Street/Archibald Avenue intersection widening and lane
drop.
4) The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical,
except for the 66 KV electrical) on the project side of Fourth Street shall
be undergrounded from the first pole on the east side of Archibald
Avenue to the first pole on the west side of the Cucamonga Creek
Channel, prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy.
whichever occurs first. All services crossing Fourth Street shall be
undergrounded at the same time.
5) Install full frontage improvements along Sixth Street, from the east tract
boundary to the west side of "A" Street. Provide a cross gutter across
"A" Street and a temporary AC curb return on the west side, within the
existing right-of-way. Widen the south side of Sixth Street, as needed,
west of "A" Street, install A.C. berm, and reconstruct affected drive
approaches to contain street flows, as determined by the final drainage
study. Extend the widened section and berm from "A" Street to
Hellman Avenue. Transition to existing pavement east of the east tract
boundary to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The developer may
request a reimbursement agreement to recover the cost of permanent
off-site improvements from future development of the adjacent properly.
if the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within
six months of the public improvements being accepted by the City. all
rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate.
6) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the
existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except for
the 66 KV electrical) on the opposite side of Sixth Street shall be paid
to the City pdor to approval of the Final Map. The fee shall be one-half
the City adopted unit amount times the length of the project frontage.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 15727 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 5
Unnecessary power poles on the south side of Sixth Street shall be
removed.
:7) Install "A" Street full width, including sidewalk and street lights. from
Fourth Street to Sixth Street, with Phase I development. Sidewalks
along the park frontage shall be curb adjacent. The developer may
request a reimbursement agreement to recover the cost of permanent
improvements west of the centedine on "A" Street and north of Lot 227,
from future development of the adjacent properly. If the developer fails
to submit for said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the
public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the
developer to reimbursement shall terminate.
8) Install traffic signals at Fourth Street and "A" Street and at Sixth Street
and "A" Street. The traffic signal at Fourth Street shall be operational
prior to occupancy of the 100th unit. The traffic signal at Sixth Street
shall be operational prior to occupancy of the 150th unit or opening of
the park, whichever occurs first.
9) Each development phase shall have two points of access and no
temporary "dead end" streets shall be longer than 600 feet.
10) Prepare a final drainage study which addresses the following, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer:
a) Revise the Master Plan of Storm Drains to reflect the new land
uses resulting from the General Plan Amendment. Identify all
connections to Cucamonga Creek Channel which may be
required upon full development of Subarea 16.
b) Substan'tiate that the existing facilities in Fourth Street can
accommodate all flows reaching them in the ultimate (developed)
condition and that Fourth Street is not adversely impacted by the
lack of a storm drain lateral to pick up the sump east of "A" Street.
Determine the size of RCP needed to replace existing CMP.
c) Provide a section through the flow line high point in "A" Street
south of Sixth Street, to determine whether any Q100 flows will go
south in "A" Street.
d) Provide hydrologic and hydraulic calculations. On site storm
drains shall be sized to accommodate all tributary areas in the
ultimate (developed) condition.
e) Revise the preliminan/drainage study to reflect the "P" Street
catch basin between nodes 15 and 16. Also include pages 8 and
9 missing from the printout for Catchmerit Area C.
O Determine the width of the surface overflow easement needed on
Lot 16 to convey Q100 flows for the area tributary to the sump at
the B/F knuckle.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 15727 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 6
11) Construct all master plan and local storm drains within the tract
boundaries and/or Fourth Street, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. Standard drainage fees for the site shall be credited to the
cost of permanent master plan facilities. as determined by the final
drainage study, and the developer shall be eligible for reimbursement
of any costs in excess of fees, in accordance with City policy. The
developer may also request a reimbursement agreement against future
development for oversizing local facilities. If the developer fails to
submit for said reimbursement agreements within 6 months of the
public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the
developer to reimbursement shall terminate. Eliminate cross gutters
where storm drains are available and install catch basins upstream of
intersections.
12) Replace the existing CMP in Foudh Street, between Archibald Avenue
and "A" Street, with appropriately sized RCP. Reconstruct both catch
basins as determined by the final drainage study and install energy
dissipation devices at the pipe outlet on the south side of Foudh Street.
13) The surface overflow drainage easement on lot 16 shall be graded to
convey Q100 overflows in the event of blockage in a sump catch basin
and provisions shall be made for overflows to pass through any walls
placed across the easement. Grade lots 15 and 16, adjacent to the
surface overflow drainage easement, to drain to Fourth Street through
improved devices. Also design lots A, B, C, D and E to convey surface
overflows.
14) Landscape Maintenance District plans shall incorporate cost efficient,
low maintenance designs. including drought resistant species,
substantial areas of rockscape. etc., to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. The maximum slope within pubficly maintained landscape
areas shall be 3:1. Where slopes occur, a 1-foot flat area behind the
sidewalk shall be provided. Slope widths should be minimized through
the use of 30-inch maximum height free standing retaining wails and up
to 4 feet of retaining beneath perimeter walls. Low maintenance wall
treatments should be used. Planting areas for shrubs should have a
minimum width of 3 feet, clear of screen and/or retaining wall footings.
Trees will require wider planting areas, as determined by the City
Engineer. The following parkway treatments are agreed to:
a) The planting area between the curb and sidewalk shaft be 8 feet
along "A" Street south of "D" Street. Both sidewalk and
landscape easements are required to accommodate this.
b) The balance of "A" Street may have 5-foot tree planting areas
between the curb and sidewalk, with tree species as approved by
the City Engineer.
15) A parkway beautification master plan, including sections reflecting tree
clearances required by Southern California Edison, shall be developed
for Fourth Street which expands upon the existing designated street
trees.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 15727 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9. 1996
Page 7
16) Interim facilities to drain the north property line will not be publicly
maintained. They shall be located on individual lots and there shall be
no public drainage easements. Private cross lot drainage easements
shall be provided as required by, and the design of the facilities shall be
approved by, the Building Official.
17) Rear lot drainage to "A" Street, through improved devices including
undersidewalk drains, will be allowed wherever reduction in the width
of publicly maintained landscape easements can be achieved.
18) Install all Landscape Maintenance District irrigation and landscaping
with PHase I development.
19) The Park on lot G shall be installed prior to occupancy of 50 percent of
the units or prior to building permit issuance for 70 percent of the units.
whichever occurs first. The park design. including grading, shall be
approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission prior to final map
approval. Parcels provided for park development shall be a minimum
of 5 acres, based on net yield for useable park open space. All
dedicated park lands are to be located on non-restricted developable,
unencumbered lands. This includes, but is not limited to: clear title. no
easements, no seismic faults, no grades greater than 10 percent and
free from flood hazard.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall cerLify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1996.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker. Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller. Secretary
I, Brad Bullet. Secretary of the Planning Commission for 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 9th day of October 1996, by the following vote-to-wit: :
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT#: TENTATIVE TRACT 15727
SUBJECT: A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 342 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
APPLICANT: CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
LOCATION: FOURTH STREET & CUCAMQNGA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL
ALL OF THE.FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
Time Limits completion Date
1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission. if building permits are not
issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval.
2. Approval of Tentative Tract No. 15727 is granted subject to the approval of General Plan
Amendment 95-03A, Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04, & Development District
Amendment 95-02.
3. The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced,
participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire
station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to all
specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the District's
property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with
its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and
regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation
of the final map occurs.
4. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first,
the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community
Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However.
if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant
shaH, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such
existing District prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and
sc-3~ I
Project NO. TT 15727
Completion Date
prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said proiect, this
condition shall be deemed null and void.
This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school
districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts
as a result of this proiect.
5. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to the issuance of building permits when no map is
involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water
facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the
Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water district
within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of
permits in the case of all other residential projects.
B. Site Development
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include
site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and
grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein. Development Code
regulations. and the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
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. Aft 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.
7. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the
adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map.
8. The Covenants, Conditions. and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall not prohibit the keeping the equine
animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual
lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of
appealing to boards of directors of homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&R's.
9. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or dwelling
unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of a solar energy
system, The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for the subdivision
which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the final map or issuance of permits.
whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of shadows by vegetation,
Project NO. lT 15727
Completlon Date
structures, fixtures, or any other object, except for utility wires and similar objects, pursuant to
Development Code Section 17.08.060-G-2.
10. 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.
C. Trip Reduction
1. Telecommuting center shall be provided for single-family development of 500 or more units or
contribute toward the development of one in an amount satisfactory to the City Council.
2. Transit improvements such as bus shelters, bus pullouts, and bus pads shall be provided.
D. Landscaping
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping
in this case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior
final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in
accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The
location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be
shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's
recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods.
3. All pdvate slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger size
shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks
in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or
larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered
clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a
permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
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 corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development
Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting.
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.
Project NO. T~ 15727
Completion Date
8. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If rocated in public maintenance areas, the / /
design sharl be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
9. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of / /__
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
E. Environmentai
1. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the __/ /
issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation
to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if
appropriate, verity the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked
for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report.
F. 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.
APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
G. Site Development
1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical /
Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes,
ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact
the Building and Safety Diyision for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable
handouts.
H. 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.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
I, Dedication and Vehicular Access
1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets,
community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment
and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map.
Project No. Tr 15727
Compietion Date
Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be
reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map.
2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from __/__ __
street centerline):
50-60 total feet on Fourth Street /
44 total feet on Sixth Street /
3. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. /
4. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for /
approved openings: Fourth & Sixth Streets.
5. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or
noted on the final map.
6. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quitclaimed or delineated on the
final map.
7. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall
be dedicated to the City.
8. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along the bus bay on Fourth Street, to provide
a minimum of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. Curb adjacent sidewalk shall be used
along the bus bay.
9. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests
necessary to construct the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do so, the
developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an
agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such
time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement
shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site
property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these
costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained
by the developer, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior
to commencement of the appraisal.
J. Street Improvements
1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped
areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards.
Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement,
drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees.
2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike Other
Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail
Fourth Street ,/ ,/ c / ,/ e f
Sixth Street ./ ,/,b g ,/ V'
Project No. TF 15727
Completion Date
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked. sidewalk shaJl
be curvi[inear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided
forthis item. (e) Class II Bike Lane in street. (f) Bus bay per Standard 119. west of entry
monument on Fourth Street. (g) Sixth Street sidewalk along Park frontage shall be curb adjacent.
3. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans. including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights
on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be
posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City
Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior
to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way. fees shall be paid and a
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any
other permits required.
c.Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and
interconnect conduit shah be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction
proiect along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and
interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside
of BCR, ECR or any other locations approved by the City Engineer.
Notes:
(1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200
feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel
with pull rope or as specified.
e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with
adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded
upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be
installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots.
h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check.
4.Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in
accordance with the City's street tree program.
5. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with
adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project
intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or
industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required.
Project NO, TT 15727
Completion Date
Public Maintenance Areas
1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall
be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance
of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians
paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance
District: Fourth Street and "A" Street. south of the north property lines for Lots 196 and 227, ant
Lots A, B, C, D, E, and F.
2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting
Districts shall be flied with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
3. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the
developer until accepted by the City.
L. Drainage and Flood Control
1. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map
approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall
be installed as required by the City Engineer.
2. A permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District and the Army Corps of Engineers
is required for work within their rights-of-way.
3.Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured
from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk.
4. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey oven3ows in the event of a blockage in
a sump catch basin on the public street.
M. Utilities
1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas,
electric power, telephone. and cable 'iV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.
3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from
the CCVVD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first.
N. General Requirements and Approvals
1.Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way: Southern
California Edison and the City of Ontario.
2. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all .__
new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building
permit issuance if no map is invorved.
sc- 319~ 7
Project No, TT15727
Completion Date
3. Prior to ~nafization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed __ __/__
beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot tines shown on the
approved tentative map.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
O. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. __ __/
2. Fire flow requirement shall be 3,500 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
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 the fire department personnel
after construction and prior to occupancy.
3. Fire hydrants are required. All required pubtic or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed /
and operahie pdor to deliver~ 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" riser with a 4"
and a 2-1/2" 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 Districrs fire lane standards, as noted:
X All roadways.
X Other: See Ordinance No. 22 reqardinq cuPde-sacs, lenqths, and turnaround.
7. Plan check fees in the amount of $__0 have been paid. An additional $. 125.00 shall be paid:
X . Prior to final plan approval.
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.
8. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, /
UPC, UMC. NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15.