Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/02/09 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 9, 2000 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman McNiel Vice Chairman Macias __ Com. Mannerino Com. Stewart Com. Tolstoy .-. II, ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 12, 2000 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIE"~N 99-60 - CARPENTER'S TECHNOLOGY - The development of a 56,200 square foot industrial building on 4 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area specific Plan, located on the west side of Milliken Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 229-011-031. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-63 CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES - The development of a 70,620 square foot industrial building on 4.25 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industri;~l Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Tacoma Drive and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-11. Related file: Development Review 99-62. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. C. VACATION OF A STORM DRAIN EASEMENT - A request to vacate ~ storm drain easement located northerly and on Caltrans proposed frontage road approximately 285 south of existing Highland Avenue centerline. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of tl~e 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 D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15993--WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING -A residential subdivision of 94 single family lots on 18 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 227-091-21 through 24. Related File: Development Review 99-45. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. (Continued from January 12, 2000) E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-45 - WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for Tentative Tract Map 15993, consisting of 94 single family lots on 18 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) ol the Victoria Community Plan, located on the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard APN: 227-091-21 through 24. Related File: Tentative Tract 15993. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. (Continued from January 12, 2000) F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15963 .. PKT PROPERTIES LLC - A residential subdivision of 13 single lamily lots on 4.37 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located south of Banyan Street, on the east side of Archibald Avenue and the west side of London Avenue - APN: 201-251-01. Related files: Development Review 99-42 and Tree Removal Permit 99-13. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Page 2 G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-42 - PKT PROPERTIES LLC - A design review of 1:' building elevations and detailed site plan for Tentative Tract 15963, consisting of 13 single family lots, on 4.37 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located south of Banyan Street, on the east side of Archibald Avenue and on the west side of London Avenue - APN: 201-251-01. Related file: Tentative Tract 15963. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. VI. NEW BUSINESS H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-62 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES - The development of three industrial buildings totaling 82,3/6 square feet on 4.12 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Arrow Route, approximately 300 feet east of White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-02 and 209-471-03. Related file: Development Review 99-63. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. VII.PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the genera/public to address the commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS I. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROGRESS - Oral report IX. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. I, Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on February 3, 2000, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga. / Page 3 VICINITY MAP CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA the cit~ of l:2a ncho Cucamo~sa Staff Report DATE: February 9, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, ACIP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-60 - CARPENTER'S TECHNOLOGY - The development of a 56,200 square foot industrial building on 4 acres of land in the Industrial Park District ~Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area specific Plan, located on the west side of Milliken Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 229-011-031. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North Vacant land; Industrial Park (Subarea 7), Industrial Area Specific Plan South : Vacant land planned for industrial buildings by Catellus; General Industrial (Subarea 8), Industrial Area Specific Plan East Vacant land planned for Lowe's Home Improvement store and GATX distribution center now under construction; Industrial Park (Subarea 7) and General Industrial (Subarea 6), Industrial Area Specific Plan West Vacant land and existing industrial buildings; Industrial Park and General Industrial (Subareas 7 and 8), Industrial Area Specific Plan B. General Plan Desi~]nations: Project Site - Industrial Park North Industrial Park South - General Industrial East Industrial Park and General Industrial West Industrial Park and General Industrial C. Site Characteristics: The site is a vineyard located within theCatellus Master Plan area, which was approved by the Planning Commission in April of 1999. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 2 percent. There is an existing industrial building and rail spur to the west of the site. The GATX Building "A" is under construction to the east acrossMilliken Avenue. ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 99-60 - CARPENTER'S TECHNOLOGY February 9, 2000 Page 2 D. Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Square Parking Spaces Spaces Type of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Office 2,770 1 ~250 11 11 Manufacturing 22 ,'060 1 ~500 44 44 Warehouse 31,370 1/1000 (1st 20,000) 26 37 1/2000 (2nd 20,000) Total 56,200 81 92 In addition to the above parking requirements, one semi-trailer parking space is required per each dock high loading door. The project is in conformance with this required ratio. ANALYSIS: A. General: '['his project is part of the Catellus Master Plan; hence, the City Planner has final approval authority following adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The building design incorporates the basic geometric and archway patterns that were established by the · GATX buildings. The anticipated business activity involves large container truck loading which would occur within the building on the south side. The building will be visually prominent from Foothill Boulevard, especially while the land to the north remains vacant. An at-grade loading door is proposed on the east elevation, facing Milliken Avenue, to be used for routine maintenance of the large equipment. Typically, loading doors are required to be located away from stree! frontages. In this case, afree-standing architectural element is proposed to be placed out in front of the door to minimize the visual impact of the door. B. Design Review Committee: The Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Coleman) reviewed the project on January 4, 2000, and recommended that the developer return for further review of the treatment of the loading door enhancement. The Committee (McNiel, Stewart,Coleman) again reviewed the project on January 18, 2000, and recommended approval. Please refer to attached Design Review Committee Action Agendas (Exhibit "J"). C. Technical and Grading Review Committees: The Committees reviewed the project and recommend approval subject to the conditions outlined in the Resolution of Approval which will be executed by the City Planner. D. Environmental Assessment Part I of the Initial Study was completed by the applicant and staff completed Part II. There are no further anticipated potential environmental impacts beyond those ident;fied and mitigated per the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Catellus Master Plan and Tentative Parcel Map. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 99-60 - CARPENTER'S TECHNOLOGY ._ February 9, 2000 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration by minute action. City Planner BB:BLC:Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map/Master Plan Map Exhibit"B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Grading Plan Exhibit "D" - Landscape Plan Exhibit"E" - Floor Plan Exhibit"F" - Elevations Exhibit "G" - Screen Walls Exhibit"H" - Sections Exhibit "1" - Business Description Letter dated January 10, 2000 Exhibit "J" - Design Review Action Agendas dated January 4 and 18, 2000 Exhibit "K" - Initial Study RANCltO CUCAMONG~ CORPORATE I I 30 FT, RECIPROC4[ CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN \~i}~ \' vicinity map project information tabulations site plan keynotes, sl~e legend L.,.~.,.~,~ ~X ....... o~*~ lilly __ ._ = ndustrlal Fac .... ~ ...... e ~=~ ....... for Carpenter Technology , .......... C~tellus Oevelopmen~ Corporation hill plnckert erchllects, Inc. .,~_.., ..... , __ -. .---~___ ' ~ -- ....... ,~~r ~ ~ .......-- ~~,. ~'__ ~ ~_ ' .... * ~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~ ~ CORPORATE PARK CATELLUS Planting Legend ........ CONCEPTUAL ~NOSCAPE P~N vicini~ map ~'~" .... h/~- _ / project Info~ation C ~ T ~ L I, U S ......... thai tl~ ~ m ,m,=,= Indus Fac "~ ~~ ~ ~, --~. ~ [or Ca.enter Technol~ : ' Eme~ld~slgn '.~',;..... ..~. "' :~ i "i' 'l'i''i ~'1-~-' -~i-J '"' I 56,490 S.F. I I ~ ',..~ -~-~ ! ?- i i "' ..~. ~. ~,i .,. i i",~ !: Jt ..... · .... .~ . ~e)=- ..... "~ I ,~-.,., ~ '. '.~ .... 3,455 S [ ' '" n ~:'~' ' ~,' ~1 ~ ~e- L~ PI -" ................. '-" ~ r ..... - - ~ ,..i I~-I. 1.- ..................... ~-.--- - --- ~ ,E,,~ ' - ..~1~-:.~= ..~-- ' . ~-. * ' ~ ............. ~ ~ ~ :: .... Ill ........ usfr a "'~"""" "'~ ' /'~' '/' -' '': -- -::~:~ C~ ~ pent Tech ,,, - , .. ~ .*: -- T~LLUS for ar er nology I ~ I 2 3' .4 ......... ~m~ C~ C C all ..... atellus Development orpor on ENLARGEO SOUTHEAS[ OFFICE~ ............ . hill plncke~rchl~ects, Inc. , FLO0~ ........................ · ..... ~"' ~--~'""~'~T '."~~-' ;' ~ ~. _ Industrial Facility for Carpenter Technology Cateflus Development Corporation hill plnckerl architects, Inc. ' ' ' ' ~ Industrial Facilily ~ ~ T ~ L L U S for Carpenfer Technology ~ ~t'~ Celellus Oev~l~p~e~t~rporeUon WROUGHT IRON FENCES hill plncker~hltects, Inc. L...J ........................ i...i..- ~'-'./ .... .. .-.-. ]il IndustrIal Facility (~ ~ T ~: I. I. U S for Carpenter Technology Calellus Oevelopmenl Corporation SITE SECTIONS hill plnckerl architects, Inc. .- CARPENTER Specialty Alloys Carpeflcer Technology Corporac,on PO. Box 14662 Reading. PA 19612-5662 Tel.. 6102082000 January 10, 2000 Catellus 4000 Westerly Place, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attn: Greg Halverson RE: Carpenter Warehouse Rancho Cucamonga Warehouse Dear Greg: Last week Jim Scott from Colliers asked Carpenter to provide you with information concerning the access into our facility along the east wall. This access is required for us to allow maintenance/service vehicles to enter the facility. In addition, the access will be used for UPS deliveries. We anticipate the use of this entrance for UPS to be about a maximum of about I to 2 times a day, depending on the number of UPS shipments required. Because of the size and weight of the material handled at the facility (steel bars and coils), the use of UPS will be · minimal. We do not usually ship. by this manner, but that depends on our customer shipping requirements. We also will use this entrance for some maintenance and service trucks that require access in the facility at grade instead of the depressed loading docks. The frequency of these services will about once every two to three weeks depending on the maintenance needs of the facility. The type equipmer, t that needs this type of service is the cranes, saws, mobile equipment and storage racks. These maintenance services also require floor space for their equipment (high reach and lift trucks, etc.) to perform maintenance that cannot be easily accessed form the loading dock area. The operations: of the facility require us to locate the overhead door along the east side. We could not locale the access on the west side for several reasons. The entire west bay and the entire west wall of the facility contains storage racks and due to the building code requirements for exit doors no space was available. In addition, the turning radius available from the access road along the west side ~vould make it difficult or next too impossible to make the turn into the building. We also could not locate the door along the north wall of the facility. The location of the storage racks in the west bay and the location of the cutting saws and bar bundling area in the center and east bays prevent access for the service trucks and service equipment. We hope this adequately answers all of your questions concerning the location of the east access door at our facility. Should you have any additional questions or comments, feel free to call me 610-208-3156. Sincerely yours ' David A. Wolf P. E. Cc; D Weiger (Carpenter) R Reber (Carpenter) J Scott (Colliers) DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:10 p.m. Brent Le Count January 4, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-60 - CARPENTER'S TECHNOLOGY - The development of a 56,200 square foot industrial building on 4 acres of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the west side of Milliken AvenuE; south of Foothill Boulevard -APN: 229-011-031 Design Parameters: The site is located within the Catellus Master Plan area which was approved by Planning Commission in April of 1999. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 2 percent. There is an existing industrial building and rail spur to the west of the site. The GATX Building A is under construction .to the east across Milliken Avenue. The building design . incorporates the basic geometric and archway patterns that were established by the GATX buildings. The anticipated business activity involves large container truck loading which would occur within thE; building on the south side. The building will be visually prominent from Foothill Boulevard, especially while the land to the north remains vacant. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee ;discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Provide the enhanced wall treatment design shown at the northeast corner of the building on the northwest corner as wetl given it's visual prominence relative to Foothill Boulevard. 2. Eliminate loading door on east elevation. Secondary Issues: Once ali of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Increase the amount of sandblasted concrete. Suggest providing sandblasted concrete in most or all of the square features along the parapets. 2. Provide enhanced entry/driveway designs per the Catellus Master Plan provisions including , landscaping, specialized paving and hardscape features, and artwork. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. All roof and ground mounted equipment shall be fully screened from surrounding properties and streets. This may pose a challenge given that the site is visible from Foothill Boulevard which is several feet higher in elevation. 2. Screen wails shall not exceed an exposed height of 8 feet visible from surrounding properties of streets. Suggest sloping ground level up to screen walls to conceal height. 3. Provide at least one tree per 30 linear feet of building wall exposed to public view plus one tree per 30 linear feet of site perimeter, and one tree per 3 parking spaces to provide shade. This is a minimum landscaping requirement. Additional trees to enhance the main entry points and complement the building architecture shall be provided. 4. Provide an employee out door eating area including seating and shade. The design of the outdoor eating area features shall match that established by the GATX project/Catellus Master Plan. DRC COMMENTS DR 99-60 - CARPENTER'S TECHNOLOGY .. January 4, 2000 Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval subject to the above comments. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Para Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee reviewed the project and requested that the project be brought back for further review in light of the following: 1. The Committee is not opposed to locating the at-grade loading door on the east (Milliken Avenue) elevation so long as it can be demonstrated that there will not be excessive outdoor activity near the door and that a trellis or other overhead type of structure be built in front of the door to minimize it's appearance. The door shall also be painted to match the adjacent building wall. 2. The Committee is in favor of providing no landscaping along the west side of the building to accommodate future rail service to the building and to minimize maintenance burden. 3. The applicant agreed to the above items as well as the other items identified by staff. CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS 7:10 p.m. Brent Le Count January 18, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND .DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-60 - CARPENTER'S TECHNOLOGY - The development of a 56,200 square foot industrial building on 4 acres of land in Subarea 7 (industrial Park) of the Industrial Area specific Plan, located on the west side of Milliken AvenuE: south of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 229-011-031. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee reviewed the revised design. The applicant shall provide a written description of the maintenance activity associated with the at-grade loading door n the east wall of the building. If the activity level is anticipated to be of short duration and of an infrequent nature than the Committee will accept the free-standing panel design shown. ENVIRONMENTAL ......... INFORMATION FORM C, o,R.n oC c.mongo (Part I - Initial Study) Planning DM~on (909) 477-2750 The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the proposed project so that the City may review the project pursuant to City policies, ordinances, and guidelines; the California Environmental Quality Act; and the City's Rules and Procedures to Implement CEQA. It is important that t. he information requested in this application be provided in full. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the lime of submitlal; City staff will not be available to perfon'n work required to provide missing information. Application Number for the project to which this [orm pertains: Project Tit/e: Carpenter ' s Technology Name & Address of project owner(s): Catellus Development Corporation 4000 Westerly Placer Suite 200 Newport Beachf CA 92660 Name & Address ofdeveloperorproject sponsor;. 'Hoqle-Ireland, Inc. 4200 Latham Street, Suite B Riverside ~ CA 92501 ContactPer$on&Addres$: Pamela Steele - Ho~le-Ireland. Inc. 4200 Latham Streett Suite B Riverside, CA 92501 Telephene Number: 909-787-9222 Name & Address of person preparing this form (if different from above): Telephone Number: Information indicated by ,~stedsk (*) is not required of non-construction CUP's unless othen~,ise requested by staff. '1) Provide a full scale (8-1/2 x 11) copy of the USGS QUadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project site, and indicate the site boundaries. 2) Provide a set of co/or photographs which show representative views int.~o the site from the no~th, south, east and west; views into and from the site from the pdmary access points which se~e the site; and representative views of sig._n..i_fi.c, ant features from the sire. Include a map showing location of each photogreph. 3) Project Location (d~.scdbe): Site is on 'the west side of Hi[liken Avenue~ south o£ Footh±l! Boulevard, north of Arrow Route in the City o£ Rancho Cucamonc/a. 4) Assessor's Parcel IVumbers (attach additional sheet if necessary): 22 ~) - 011 - 31 '5) Gross Site Area (aatsq. ff,): Property is 3.96 acres/172~308 square feet · 6) Net Site Area (total .site size minus area of public streets & proposed dedications): 3.96 a c r e s 7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessary: ~ Includeade$c~tionofa#permitswhichwillbeneces~a~ ~mtheCityofRanchoCucamongaandothergovemmental agencies~o~erto~l~implementthep~ect: Gradinq, Building~ Development Review approval and update to Catellus Master Plan. [NITSTDI.WPD- 4/96 '~ ](~ Page 2 9) Descdbe the ph~al se~ing of the s~e as it ex~ be~m the p~ject ~cluding ~rmat~n on topog~phy, so~ atabilit~ planta and an~a~, mature trees, ~ and ~ads, d~age coupes, and scen~ aspects. Descdbe any exist~g st~ctums on site ~nduding age and con~ and ~e use of the st~ctums. A~ach photog~phs of s~nificant ~atums desc~ed. ~ ad.ion, site afl souses of ~ation ~e., geological ancot hydmlog~ studies, biotic and a~heological su~eys, t~ffic studies): The site exists as an abandoned grape vineyard on a relatively flat lot, sloping gradually from north to south. There are a few small shrubs scattered throughout the vineyard. No animals were present at the time of the site visit and photo documentation. On the western border are industrial.buildings and a railroad line. The site has a few roughly graded pathways and no structures. No mature trees were found on this site. The Epicenter Sports Park is visible to the east and the San Gabriel Mountains are visible to the north. 1 O) Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Site all sources of information (books, published reports and oral history): No known cultural or historical aspects. proposed uses: Normal traffic along Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue are adjacent to the site and are the current noise source for the site. 12) Descdbe the proposed project in detaiL This should provide an adequate descdption of the site in tenns of ultimate use which will result frere the prosed project. Indicate if there are proposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur with each phase, arid the anticipated completion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary: SEE ATTACHED PROJECT DESCRIPTION 13) Desc~be the surreunding preperties~ inc~uding inf~n~na~i~n ~n p~ants and anima~s and any cu~tura~' hist~~caL ~r scenic aspects. Indicate the type ol' land use (residential, coremercial, etc,), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.): Directly north across Foothill Boulevard is vacant land and on the northeast is Rancho San Antonio Medical Center. To the south is vacant land to Arrow Route. To the east is primarily vacant with a parcel in the grading process and further east is the Quake Stadium. To the west are two industrial buildings: Prime Press and Supreme Distribution Center. 14) WTII the proposed project change the pattern, scale or character of the surrounding general area of the project? NOt the proposed project is keepin~ with the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the approved Catellus Master Plan. INITSTD1.WPD-4/96 '~<:~0 Page4 15) Indicate the type of short, term and Iong-ten-n noise to be generated, including source and amounL How will these noise levels affect adjacent properties and on-site uses. Wi~at methods of sound proofing are prcposed? An increase.in noise and vibration from construction equipment may be evident in the immediate vicinity during the construction phase of the project~ Noise and vibration will not be evident upon com- pletion. '16) Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic trees: NO mature or scenic trees on site. 17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water suppfies) into which the site drains: No hod i e s o f water present on site. 18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further cladlTcation, please contact the Cucamonga County Water Distdct at 987-259 I. a. Residential (gal/day) Peak use (gal/Day) b. Commercial, find. (gal/day/ac)6 ~O00 qal/day Peak use (gal/min/ac) l g) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. --. Septic Tank X Sewec If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation lests, ff discharge to a sanita~ sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (See Attachment A for usage estimates). Forfurther cladficetion, please contact the Cucamonga County Water Distdct at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal/day) b. Commercial/Tnd. (gal/day/ac) 8r000 qa[/day RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Number of re$idential units: Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: N / A INITSTD1 ,WPD. 4/96 Page Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): 'N / A 21) Anticipated range o,' sale prices and/or rents: Sale Price(s) $ to $ .- Rent (per month) $ to $ ' 22) Specify number of bedreoms by unit type: N/ A 23) Indicate anticipated ,bousehold size by unit type: N/ A 24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project: Contact the appropriate School Districts as shown in Attachment B: a. Elementary: b. Junior High: c. Senior High COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Descdbe type of use(s) and majorfunction(s) of commercial, industrial orinstitutional uses: Rece ivinq ~ warehousing and distribution of finished steel rods with precision cutting to specification for distribution. 26) Totalfloorareaofcomme~ial,~dustfial, orinstitutionalusesbytype: Warehouse equals approximately 31r370 square feet. Manufacturinq equal approximately 22r060 square feet. Office equals approximately 2r270 square feet. INITSTD1 .WPO- 4/96 ~ ~ Page 6 ,. 27) Indicatehour~ofepera#on: 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. (estimate) 28) Number of employees: Total: 16 (includes 5 drivers) (estimate) Maximum Shift: 1 2 - 1 4 Time of Maximum Shift 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. - .... 29) Pr~videbreakd~wn~fanticipatedj~bc~assi~cati~ns~inc/udingwa~eandsa~aryranges~aswe~~asanindicati~n~ftherate of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary): Facilities Manager $44,000/$56,000 Foreperson: 32,000/ 40,'000 Warehouse Person 27,000/ 34,000 Drivers 27,000/ 32,000 30) Estimation of the numberofwor~ers lo be hiredlhat currenllyreside in the City: Unknown at this time. Possibly 2-3r as most of our people may commute to Rancho Cucamonga or they may choose to move to Rancho Cucamon9a. '3 I) For commercial and industrial uses only. indicate the sou,ce, type and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be verified through the South Coast Air Quality Management District. at (818) 572-6283): Emissions associated with truck and vehicle traffic for this use. ALL PROJECTS 3~ H~velhewate~$ewe~fi~and~d¢on~/a~enciesse~in~thep~jectbeenc~nlactedt~te~ethe~ab~t~p~v~e adequatese~icetothep~posedp~ject?lfso, please~catethe~$ponse. CCWD has reviewed the Master Plan regarding provision of sewer and water. With the development of the Master Plan and first phase sewer and water infrastructure is being installed. Additionally, the off-site improvement plan for the Master Plan addresses drainage. INITSTE)I.WPD - 4/96 ' ' ~ ~4..'..~ Page 7.. 33) In the known history of this property, has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic mate#a/s? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include, but are not limited to PCB's; radioactive substances; pesticides and hedoicides; fuels, oils. so/vents, and otherflammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage of any of lhe above. P/ease list the materials and descdbe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the proper~y, as well as the dates of use, if known. No known use or discharcje of hazardous az~d/or toxic materials. 34) w~// the proposed project involve the temporary or long-term use, storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic malerials, including bul not limited lo those examples listed above? If yes, provide an inventory of ali such materials lo be used and proposed reethod of disposal. The localion of such uses, along wilh the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. NO temporary or loncj term use~ storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials will occur on the proposed property. I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for adequale evaluation of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct tot he best of my knowledge and belie~ I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of' Rancho Cucareonga. Date: ~::~/7.~ -- $ignature:{~~J~~ INITSTD1 .WPD. 4~96 Page 8 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Development Review 99-60 2. Related Files: Development Review 99-11 (Catellus Master Plan), Pamel Map 15295 3. Description of Project: The development of a 56,200 square foot industrial building on 4 acres of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the west side of Milliken Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 229-011-031 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Hogle Ireland Inc 4200 Latham Street, Suite B Riverside, CA 92501 (909) 787-9222 5. General Plan Designation: Industrial Park 6. Zoning: Industrial Park (Subarea 7) Industrial Area Specific Plan 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project is part of the Catel~us Master Plan approved by the Planning Commission on April 28, 1999. Vacant land and the Rancho San Antonio Medical Center lie to the north, vacant land to the south planned for industrial development, vacant land to be developed with the Lowe's project to the east, and a rail line and rail served industrial building lie to the west. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Brent Le Count (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-60 Carpenter's Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant impact Unless Mitigation Inccrporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning (x) Transportation/Circulation (x) Public Services Population and Housing (x) Biological Resoumes (x) Utilities and Service Systems (x) Geological P,'oblems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (x) Aesthetics (x) Water (x) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources Air Quality (x) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (x) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Signed: ~ ~¢)..~.~ ~ BrSnt Le Count, AICP Associate Planner ,January 12, 2000 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for s. II 'Potentially Significant Impact,' 'Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) (x) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) (x) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) (x) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-60 Carpenter's Page 3 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (x) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (x) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (x) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ) (x) b) Seismic ground shaking? ) (x) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ) (x) d) Seiche hazards? ) (x) e) Landslides or mudflows? ) (x) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ) '(x) g) Subsidence of the land? ) (x) h) Expansive soils? (x) ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) (x) Comments: h) According to Figure V-5 of the General Plan, the site contains Tujunga-Delhi soil association which "may have soil bearing capacities that could limit some development. Structures proposed on this soil type should be permitted only after a site specific investigation has been performed that indicates the soils can adequately support the weight of the structure." A surface soil evaluation was performed (Southern California Geotechnical, January 11, 1999). A subsurface soil evaluation shall be required prior to issuance of grading and building permits. The impact is not considered significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-60 Carpenter's Parle 4 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) b) E×posum of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? . ( ) (x) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ) (x) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ) (x) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ) (x) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ) (x) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ) (x) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ) (x) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ) (x) Comments: a) The absorption rate will be altered because of the paving and hardscape proposed. All runoff will be conveyed to approved drainage facilities which have been designed to handle the flows. No other improvements beyond the master plan of drainage are necessary to accommodate the project. The impact is not considered significant. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposah a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) (x) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) (x) c) AIt6,r air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-60 Carpenter's Pa[le 5 d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) (x) ) ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) (x) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) (x) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) (x) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( (x) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( (x) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( (x) Comments: a) A Congestion Management Program/Traffic Impact Analysis (CMP/'rlA) study was prepared for the overall Catellus Master Plan project (Development Review 99-11 ) to determine whether the development anticipated within the Master Plan will cause increases in vehicle tdps or traffic congestion in excess of projections for the adopted land use. The CMP/TIA (Transtech Engineers, Inc. Mamh 15, 1999) recommends certain roadway and freeway improvements to accommodate the traffic generated by the project. The project will be required to install frontage street improvements in their ultimate configuration, per City ordinance, and to pay Transportation Development fees for improvements within the City limits and CMP mitigation fees for improvements outside the City limits. The project design includes applicable frontage improvements. With the mitigation, the impact is not expected to be significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-60 Carpenter's Parle 6 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants; fish, in.~.ects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comment's: a) ThE: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identifies the area to the north and west of the subject site as potential habitat for the Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly (DSF). As a result, a habitat assessment and biological survey was required to determine potential impacts to DSF habitat. The study was conducted by a biologist permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct surveys for DSF. Results of the habitat assessment (LSA Associates, December 10, 1999) indicate that the site does not contain adequate DSF habitat since there is a lack of actual Delhi series soils present, the site has been disturbed through grading and agricultural use, and there are not extensive areas of exposed sand. While the subject site is outside the limits of the DSF area, the findings of the study indicate that the nearby designated area does not contain adequate habitat. No other unique, rare, or endangered animal species are known to be located on the project site. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) (x) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) (x) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resoume that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-60 Carpenter's Page 7 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to.' oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ( ) ( ) (x) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ( ) ( ) (x) d) Exposure of people to existing soumes of potential health hazards? ( ( ) ( ) (x) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: The various materials that may be used in the fabrication of metal items could pose a risk of accidental release of hazardous substances or fire hazard. Special permits will be required from the Fire Protection District if these types of materials are to be stored. The impact is not considered significant. 10. NOISE. Willtheproposalresultin: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) The project will increase existing noise levels because the site is currently vacant. The increase however, will not be in excess of that anticipated by planned land uses and there are no sensitive receptors existing or planned in the project vicinity. The noise will also be nominal in relation to existing development and roadway noise. The impact is not considered significant. b) The project is subject to traffic noise levels greater than 70Ldn according to the City's General Plan Figure V-9. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally reduce noise levels to acceptable levels. Initial Study for' City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-60 Car~)enter's Parle 8 11. PUBLIC SERVICES.. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) b) Police protection? _ ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) M~intenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) The use of various industrial materials can pose a risk of accidental release of ha::ardous substances or fire hazard. Special permits will be required from the Fire Protection District if these types of materials are to be used/stored. The impact is not cor~sidered significant. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) (x) b) Communication systems? ( ) (x) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) (x) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) (x) e) Storm water drainage? (x) ( ) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) (x) g) Looal or regional water supplies? ( ) (x) Comments: e) Storm drain improvements will be necessary to accommodate the project. This does not result in substantial alterations to the master plan of storm drainage. The impact is not considered significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-60 Carpenter's Parle 9 13, AESTHETICS, Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ) ( ) (x) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ) ( ) (x) c) Create light or glare? _. ( ) ) (x) ( ) Comments: c) The project will create new light and glare because the site is currently vacant, A Standard Condition of Approval will require the preparation of a photometric diagram to demonstrate that light and glare will not be cast onto surrounding properties or public rights-of-way, 14, CULTURAL RESOURCES, Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( (x) b) 'Disturb archaeological resources? (x) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? (x) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (x) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (x) 15, RECREATION, Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-60 Carp.gnter's Parle 10 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the polential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife ' ' species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) (x) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long- term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices. 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (x) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981 ) (x) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-60 Carpenter's Page 11 (x)Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981 ) (x) Negative Declaration for Development Review 99-11 and Tentative Parcel Map 15295 adopted by Planning Commission April 28, 1999 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES: Transportation: 1. The Congestion Management Program/Traffic Impact Analysis (CMP/I'IA) for the overall Catellus Master Plan development identified traffic impacts at six locations, which will result in an unacceptable level of service unless mitigated. The TIA has also determined the amount of the project's fair share construction for these mitigations. A cash payment in-lieu of construction as contribution for the following future projects shall be paid, prior to the issuance of building permits or final Parcel Map approval, whichever occurs first, in the following amounts: Amount Recipient Aqency Future Proiect $19,575 City of Ontario Widening Milliken Avenue to four through lanes and right turn lane northbound plus three through lanes southbound and related signal improvements south of Fourth Street $19,247 City of Ontario Widening Milliken Avenue to three through lanes and two right turn lanes northbound and three through lanes and two left turn lanes southbound on both sides of Ontario Mills Road and related signal improvements $8,430 Caltrans Additional southbound right turn only lane for 1-15 Freeway off ramp $18,085 Caltrans Additional northbound right turn only lane for 1-15 Freeway off ramp $251,256 Caltrans ^dditional northbound lane on 1-15 Freeway between the 1-10 Freeway and Foothill Boulevard $195,576 Caltrans Additional southbound lane on 1-15 Freeway between Foothill Boulevard initial Study for City of Rancho Cuc.~monga D,R 99-60 Carpenter' Page .12 , APPLICAr.~'I' CERTIFICATION I certify th~=~t I am the applicant for ttle pro~ect described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that ] have read this lnitia{ Study and tl3e proposecl m~tlgetion measures, Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals andlol hereby agree to the proposecl mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to apolnt where dearly no siC~nil~cant environmental effects would occur 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. I~'oject Fii~ No.: Development Review 99-60 Public Review Period Closes: ~'February 9, 2000 Project Name: ' Project Applicant: Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the west side of Milliken Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 229-011-031. Project Description: The development of a 56,200 square foot industrial building on 4 acres of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) 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 am included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents am 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. February 9, 2000 Date of Determination Adopted By City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: Development Review 99-60 This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above-listed project. This program has been prepared in compliance with State-law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code). Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements: 1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project. 2. A procedure of compfiance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. 3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program. Program Management - The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project planner, assigned by the City Planner, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure theyare filled out correctly and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department. Procedures ~ The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1. A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant. 2. An MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting documentation will be kept in the project file with the department having the original authority for processing the project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following address: City of Rancho Cucamonga - Lead Agency Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Mitigation Monitoring Program DR 99-60 - Carpenter's Technology Page 2 3. Appropriate specialists Will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staff's is needed, as determined by the project planner or responsible City department, to monitor specific mitigation activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the project planner. 4. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the completion of each action item that was' identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of development. 5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP Reporting Form. 6. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions. An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City department and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel. 7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after written notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented. 8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department. The Department shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of . guarantee) with the City. These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the required pedod of time. 9. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of building permits. MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III) Project File No.: DR 99-60 Applicant: Hogle- Ireland / Carpenter's Technology Initial Study Prepared by: Brent Le Count Date: January 18, 2000 Trans ortatlonlClrculation., .,~.~...~ ~,~: .,.~ ~. f ..~ ,~. ~ ,., Developer shall pay traffic impact fees per the CE B FINAL MAP D i TI~CMP prepared for the Catellus Master Plan RECORD "~'~ Key to Checklist Abbreviations Responsible Person ,~ ~.',~ ;~: ~.~,"r '~:::''~ Monitoring Frequency 'i' .~, Method of Verlflcaflon l, ,- ' : ~' ' - Sanctlons'~?,' ~[~?' .,::, ;?~,~, ~,~,~ii:,~ CDD - Community Development Director A -Wi[h Each New Development A - On-site Inspection 1 - Withhold Recordation of Final Map CP - City Planner or designee B - Prior To Construction B - Other Agency Permit / Approval 2 - Withhold Grading or Building Permit CE - City Engineer or designee C - Throughout Construction C - Plan Check 3 - Withhold Certificate of Occupancy BO - Buirding Official or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submittal (Reports I Studies / Plans) 4 - Slop Work Order PO - Police Captain or designee E - Operating 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds FC - Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP 02/08/2000 16:59 FAX 7609180638 US FISH .~ RILl)LIFE ~002  United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2790 Lok~r Avenue West Carlzbad, C. alifomia 92008 Rudy Zeledon Associate Planner City of Rancho Cueamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Subject: Development Review 99-62 and 99-63, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bemardlno County, California Dear Mr. Zeledon: This letter provides our comments on the Notices of Intent for Development Review 99-62 and 99-63, received by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on January 20, 2000, for the development of industrial buildings inthe General Industrial District (Subarea 8). We ~mderstand that the proposals are to develop 4.12 acres located south of Arrow Route and east of White Oak Avenue, and 4.25 acres located at the southeast comer of Tacoma Drive and White Oak Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City), San Bernardinn County, respectively. indicated previously in our letter of May $, 199g (attached), we are concerned about the.potential impacts to the federally endangered Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatuz abdomtnalis, "DSF") that is known to occur ~Stinn sandy soils within the proposed project vicinity. The DSF is fully protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as mended. We provide the following comments in keeping with our aseney's m/ss/on to work "with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit oftbe American people." Moreover, we provide comment~ on public notice~ issued for a Federal permit or license affecting the Nation's waters pursuant to the Clean Water Act. We also aam~nister the Act Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies to consult with us, the Service, should it be determined that their actions may a_fleet federally listed species. Section 9 of the Act prohibits the "take" (e.g., harm, harassment, pursuit, injury, kill) of federally listed wildlife. "Harm" is further defined to include habitat modification or degradation where it ki!l~ or injures wildlife by impairing essential behavioral patterns including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Take incidental to otherwise lawful activities can be authorized under sections 7 (Federal consultations) and 10 (habitat conservation plar~) of the Act. 02/08/2000 17:00 F.~-[ 7609180638 US FISH .~ WILDLIFE ~003 Rud~ Zclcdon 2 We have reviewed the habitat-ba~ed evaluations 'conducted by Scott Cameron of Impact Sciences. As indicated in the report, DSF am capable of occupying sub-op~rn~l lmbitats and definitive conclusions relative to thc presence or absence es,not be ascertained absent conducting £ocu.wA surveys fox DSF. Therefore, '.ye disagre~ with Mr. Cam~on's conclu~ion~ that the proposed development will not likely result in adverse effects to the DSF. Thus, we arc providing the following comments and mcornm~dationa to enable the City and the project proponent to take proper a~tion with regard to the endangered species concerns on the proposed project sit~s. We conducted site visits from the side of the road on April 28, 1998, and again on February 3, 2000, and determ~,~.d that both sims contain appropriat~ soils that could support the DSF and native plant species associated with DSF-occupicd sites. Wc concluded that the sim ~ the pomntia] to support DSF in our previous letter and sltc conditions do nat appezr tn have changed sinc~ that ~rue, therefore, we still we recommend that protocol surveys for the DSF be conducted by a permitted biologist, or that appropriate authorization pursuant to the Act be obtained prior to any disturbance on thc site. In _,.d_aitlon, a habitat assessment should be conducted by a qualified biologist to dctc~,,,in¢ if the site contsin~ ewasngered San Bernard/no kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriam~ parvus; "SBY,-R'~) sign ox burrows. If so, the sit~ should 'oc trapped by a permitted biologist to dctermlne the status of the SBKR on the project site. Sites that co-t~, unconsolidated soils in the arco arc si~i6cant bccanse they play a critical role in the recovery of the DSF in thi~ recovery unit. The recovery plan for tim DSF identified thc establishment ora recovery unit in the Ontario area, wherein a secure lmbitat base will need to be conserved and restored to achieve population stability and recovery of the species. Further habitat loss in thin recovery trait by this project and others will increase the likelihood of extinction o£thc DSF in the Ontmio Recovery Unit. We arc now world,E with several cities within Sm Bernardino County to adckexs issues ml~ng to DSF regionally, including the cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario. TMs regional solution would id~tify lands that would be conserved for DSF and lands that could bc developed outsidc of thc ~e areas. Although the plan is still being developed, the uldmat~ plan may provide a solution for properties such as the subject sites in the near future. We are also concerned about the potential impa~ts of the proposed project to the sensitive burrowing owl (.4thcne cantcu/ar/a)~ and other sensitive species that occur in the general m-ca, snd raptors that use the area as foraging habitat. Due to urban and industrial development, DSF, SBKR, and burrowing owls haw declined throughout this area o*' $~-u Bcrnardlno County. Issues related to significant biological resources on thc proposed project site, such as development and loss of Delhi sands that either support or lmve the potent/al to support the DSF, SBKR, burrowing owl, and usc of thc site by foraging raptors, should be adequately addressed under the Callfomi~ Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). We apprcciat~ tlm opportunity to provide comments on the proposed projects and are available to work with the City and project proponent to avoid, m;,,iw, ize, and mitigate impacts to federally listed and sensitive species. Wc request thai :fi. ual approval of thc proposed project be deferred 17:00 F.~-~ ?609180538 US FISH ~%~ WILDLIFE ~004 Kudy Zelcdon 3 until the issues r~ised in this letter been resolved, l~you have ~ny questions regarding this l~ttcr, please cor~ M~y Beth Wou[fe of this office ~ (760) 431-9440. ~un~A_iBm'tel Assistant Field Supervisor Attachment 1.6-00-~[rrA-197 cc: City oflhncho C'uc~manss, CA (Arm: Brad Bullet/Lan7 Heuderso.) CDFG, Chino, CA (At'ar Rob'm MaLon~ Rames) Torrance, CA (Attu: Mm'k Capell;no) Impact Sciences, Aguora Hills, CA (Arm: Scott Cameron/Keith Babcock) CITY OFRANCHO CUCAMONGA ~ STAFF REPORT DATE: February 9, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-63 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES - The development of a 70,620 square foot industrial building on 4.25 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Tacoma Drive and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-11. Related File: Development Review 99-62 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North Vacant; Industrial Park (Subarea 8) South - Existing Manufacturing building; Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial (Subarea 9) East - Warehouse building under construction; General Industrial (Subarea 8) West Existing Manufacturing building; General Industrial (Subarea 8) B. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - General Industrial North Industrial Park South - Minimum impact Heavy Industrial East West General industrial C. Site Characteristics: The site is a previously rough graded pad within a Master Planned Industrial Park approved bythe Planning Commission in 1992. No significant vegetation and no structures exist on the proper'b/. Curb, gutter, and driveway approaches exist along the entire property frontages. Sidewalk and street trees, which have only been marginally maintained and will be replaced with development, exist along certain portions of the property frontages. The site slopes minimally from north to south. D. Parkinq Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footaqe Ratio Required Provided Office 5,620 1/250 22 Warehouse 65,000 1/1000 (1 st 20,000) 20 1/2000 (2nd 20,000) 10 1/4000 (40,000 plus) 6 TOTAL 70,620 58 68 ITEM B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 99-63 CAPELLINO AND ASSO. February 9,2000 Page2 ANALYSIS: A. General: This review is for consideration of environmer~tal clearance only. The City Planner will take [inal action following the environmental clearance. The applicant is proposing to develop a 70,620 square foot warehouse and office building. The building is oriented so the main office area and most embellished elevations face White Oak Avenue and. Tacoma Drive and the truck loading and storage area is located behind screen wails away from major thoroughfares. The existing drive approach on Tacoma Drive will be used as shared access with the existing warehouse building on the east side of the project site. The proposed drive approach on the southwest corner of the site will be utilized as the access for trucks and the existing drive approach on White Oak Avenue will used as a public and employee access. The overall architectural scheme is consistent with other existing buildings within the Master Planned Industrial Park. The proposed building design incorporates secondary material accents of sandblasted concrete and brick veneer areas, consistent with the established design elements used on existing buildings throughout the industrial park. The secondary materials, along with areas of glass with brick veneer accents, are being used primarily to frame th6. main entrance area at the northwest corner of the building, the area visible from White Oak Avenue and Tacoma Drive. In addition, other areas of the building will receive sandblast:ed concrete banding. B. Desiqn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Fong) reviewed the project on December 14,1999, and recommended approval of the project subject to conditions contained in the attached Design Review Committee Action Comments (Exhibit "G"). C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical and Grading Committees have reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to conditions. D. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study was completed by the applicant. Staff completed Part II of the Initial Study, the Environmental Checklist, and found that there could be a significant effect on the environment relative to drainage patterns and potential lost habitat for' the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSF). The site is identified on maps prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as potentially having the appropriate Tujunga-Delhi soil classification to support DSF. A Habitat Assessment Survey was prepared by a federally certified biologist to assess the soils, vegetation, and species composition on the site. Based on the reconnaissance-level habitat evaluation of the site's existing environmental conditions, the project site does not provide high quality habitat for DSF due to: (1) lack of substantial, open sandy areas; (2) relatively dense coverage of invasive, non-native vegetation; (3) lack of native plant communities; (4) exposure to grading and scraping, top soil removal, placement of import lill material, and soil compaction activities; (5) recurring exposure to an on-site weed abatement program (discing); and (6) Iow habitat linkage value due to surrounding land uses (e.g., Industrial development). No other potentially significant environmental impacts are identified in the Initial Study. The issue of potential drainage pattern impacts generated by the project has been addressed by requiring that sufficient drainage/flood protection facilities be provided to the project area. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 99-63 CAPELLINO AND ASSO. ._ ' February 9, 2000 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Development Review 99-63 through minute action. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:RZ:mlg Attachments: Exhibit"A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit"B" - Approved Master Plan Exhibit"C" - Site Plan Exhibit"D" - Landscape Plan Exhibit"E" - Grading Plan Exhibit "F" Building Elevations Exhibit "G" - Design Review Committee Action Comments dated December 14, 1999 Exhibit "H" Initial Study CENTER ORIVE ~ ' ~ · ~i'.6 ' · ' - ) ~ t ,.~ t~ , t ~ ~ ~ "~ ' ~ ' ' ~'"' .' ~ '.' ,'x '~' ,"..' .. ', Par. I ~' ' ~'~' , ., ,,~., · 5~.s~,~c.~ .// ' ,~/ , :. .. ,r. 9 N / "/ /~ .'./ ~ ~ 8.09A~.M/L 5 5.~ AC. . . l.Or~aC. · Pot. ~' PLAN . _ Pot. 4 600' R&DIUS...M~ so.os~ _, ~_,~ ...... TACOMA DRIVE I SCALE ~)VARIABLE HEIGHT CURB OUAIL~ - I-'~ .............. GRADING P~N DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:15 p.m. Rudy Zeledon December 14, 1999 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-63 - CAPELL1NO AND ASSOCIATES - The development of a 67,620 square foot industrial building on 4.25 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast comer of Tacoma Drive and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-11. Desiqn Parameters: The project site is part of a Master Planned Industrial Park originally approved by the Planning Commission in 1992 and as shown in Exhibit "A." The site has been rough graded previously and contains no significant vegetation. The perimeter of the site is improved with curb and gutter, driveway approaches and no sidewalk or street side landscaping. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 2 percent. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide ant outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad issues will be on the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: The proposed industrial building incorporates painted tilt-up concrete accented with sandblasted concrete band, bdck veneer, and fluted concrete materials. It is designed to be consistent with the architectural s~e established in the industrial park. Therefore, there are no major issues. However, the applicant should address the following secondary issues to further enhance the design of the project. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Provide sandblasted concrete banding, along the middle and top of the building plane at the east and south elevations. Continue the same sandblasted concrete banding along the top of the building plane of the south elevation. 2. The employee plaza area shall be relocated to an area, easily accessible to employees. The plaza area should be designed to be an integral part of the site design. Consider locating the employee plaza area along the north elevation of building and incorporating a walkway from the main entrance to the plaza area. 3. Redesign the existing driveway approach on Tacoma Ddve to provide a more convenient common ingress and egress, between the project site and the existing industrial building to the east. 4. The screen wall on the east side of the building should be setback approximately 17-feet from the proposed location, to provide a sufficient truck turning radius out of the rear trailer court onto the common ddve on the east. In addition, the proposed trailer parking spaces along the rear properly line and at the southeast comer of the building, should be eliminated and redesigned as angle parking along the rear property to provide better truck circulation. DRC COMMENTS DR 99-63 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES · ' December 14, 1999 Page 2 5. The screen wall design on the west and east sides of the site, should consist of sandblasted concrete with a reveal detail along the top portion of the wall, to tie in with the building design. 6. Undulating landscaped berms should be used in the streetscape areas to provide visual interest in areas exposed to public view, such as the parking lot along the west side of the project. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the conditions as recommended above. Attachment Desi.qn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner:. Rudy Zeledon The Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to staffs comments. In addition, the Committee recommended that the northeast entrance of the proposed building shall be architecturally enhanced to be consistent with the main entrance on the northwest comer of the building. Nov-Og-gg ].0: 27A p.12 ~ 99.~3 '- ~ ENVIRONMENTAL · . ~. - INFORMATION FORM c,~0~.o~o~.~.~o~0, ., .......... (Part I --Initial Study) The purpose of this form Is to Inform the City of the b,a. sic components of the proposed project so that the City may review'the pi;oj'e~t"~rsua~tit tO C~ity' i~ollcles, Ordln~n~;es, and guldellnes; the California Environmental Quality ACt;and the City's Rules and Procedures to rn, p ement CEQA, It is Important that the information requested in this application be prowded i~. ' '... · ' ' ':'!...:.::::::..'.;.i..::.:.., ,: .;i:~i':.!:.~:..':~i ':;:"~:'::":' '" "'" .... INCOMPLETE APPLICATION$ IA,?LL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that it Is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application Is complete et tile tkne of .~ubmltfel; City staff will not be available lo perform work required to provide mis,sing infom3alion. Application Number for the project to wilicl~ this form pertains: hR q ct - R ~{ Project Title: b'r"r~w Dn r'E Name&Ad(lressofProjectowneds): Capellino & Associates 2020 Del Ama B[vd.~ SuSie 105~ .~o~rancet C/~ 9~R1 Name & Address of Oovaloper or project sponsor;. Same C. ontectPer$on&Address: t6a3:k Capel [:kno Telephone Number: ( 310 ) 32 O- 1234 Name & A~1Ore$$ of pet3on preparing this form (if (lifferent from at~ove): Telaphot',e Namber; Nov-O9-99 10: ~!SA '' ' ~nf~rm~t~n ~ndicated by~`~steMsk (-) i$ n~ r~qu~rod ~f n~n-c~r~stn~cti~n CUP~s un~$$ ~therwfse requested by sta~ '1) Provide a full scala r8-I~ x f I) copy of the uSGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes Ihs project site, and Indicate the sito boundaries. 2J Provide a set of coke' photographs which 3how ro~ms~ntative views into the site from the north, south, east and west; views ~o and from the site from the p~maty access points which serve tl~e site; end representative views of significant features from the site. Include a map showti~g locetion of eecl~ photograpt~. 3) ProjectLocetion(desc~be): South ~.~- ~n~'n~ ?acoma Drive 4) As.~as.so~'s Parcel Number~ (attach additional sheet if necessary); 020~46111 Gross Site Ama (a~sq. fl.): _ 1 R '~ . 1 A ,~ ,~ f Net Site Ama (total site size minus ama Of pubfic streets & proposed dedications): Same ?) Oescdbe any prol~ad general I~lan amendment or zone change which would effect the pro~ect site (a~tech additional sheet ifnecessaO,' None mclude a de&cdptton of etl permits which will be necessary' from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in order to fully implement the project: Nov-0B-gB 10:25A P. 14 Oescdbe ~e physical se~ing of the site as it ex,ts be~m the p~eCt includ~g ln~ati~ off t~mphy, soil stab#iV, plants end annals, mature wes, trails and rcads, dminege coupes, end scenic aspects. Descdbe any exist~g sl~ctums on site [including age and con~t~n) end the use Of ~e s~ctums. .~ach phot~mph$ of slgnifi~nt ~atums ~escfibed. In eddit~n, site ail souses of in~etiol~ (i.e., geological ancot hyd~logic studies, biotic and archeological su~eys, t~ffic studies): improved with all subdivision improvements is pl~ce~ existtnq buildinqs in ArrQw Park which ~ncoroora~- ~and blasted concretef brick veneer and glass components. ~ 0] Descdbe the known cultural 8nd/or histodcel aspects of the $ile. Site all sources of inforrcation (books. puDlisl~ed reports end oral hi$1or'y): 1 I) Descn'be any noise sources and their levels that now effect the site (aircraft, roadway noise, etc.) an(l how they w~ll effect proposed uses: Nov-Og-99 10:2!~A P.15 12) Describe the pmpm;ed p~e~ ~ ~ta~ ~ shou~ pmWde sn adequate desc~t~n of the site ~ te~$ of ultimata use which Mil msu~ fro~ ~e ~,m~ad pmje~ ~dicste ~ ~sm em ~p~ed phases ~r development, ~a extent of development to occur ·wNh each pha~e, a~d ~e anN~pa~d complan of each ~cmment. A~ach additional s~eet(~ ifnece$$a~: dis~rlbutton u~es. 13] De$cr~be the $un-~unding p~p~r~es~ ~nc~uding inf~nnat~n ~n p~ants and anima~s and any cu~tum~ h~st~nca~ ~r $cenic aspec~$~ Indicate Ihe type t~f land use ~resfclential, commercial, etc.), intensity of lend use (one.femily, apartment houses, shops. department atoms, etc~) end scale of development (height, frontage, setbsck, reer yarcl, etc.]; The surroundin~ uses are all ~ndu~rrial. 14) ~11 fha proposed project change tl~e pattern, scale or ct~eracter of the surrounding general area of the project? Nov-09-99 10:29A 15) Indicate the ~ype of sho/f-term and long-term noise to De gene~ted, Incluc/ing source end e/nount. How W~ll these noise leve~ ~ffect adjacent pmpe~ies and on.site uses, ~et method~ of sound proofing em p~posed? '16) Indicate prOposed re/novels and/or mplace/nent$ of mature or scenic I/ess; N/A 17) Indicate any bodies of weler (Includtng domasfic water supplles) into which the site dreins: N/A 18) indicate exl~ected a/nount of wafer usage. (See Allach/nent A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District ef §87.259 a. Residential (gal/day) Peak use (gal/Day) ~. Com/neroia~Ind, (gal/day/ac) ~ .. 3[37 Peek use (gal//nih/aC). 1 Based on Genera[ Industrial for 4.2 ac. 1 ~) Indicate prOposed/nethod of sewage disposal, __ Septic Tank X Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation test.~, if di.~¢hs~:j= Ia · sanitary sewage system is proposed indicale expe~ta~ ~ally sewage gener~Eon: (See Attach/nenfA forusege estimates), Porfu~herclsdfication, please ¢ontsctthe Cuce/nongs County WaterDlst8ct at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal/day) b. Com/nerolaMnd.(gal/day/ac] 8:400 RR~ed c~n RESIDENTIAl. PROJECTS; 20) Number of m$1dentiel units! Detacl~e~ (indicate range of paroal sizes, minimum lot size eno maximum lot size: Aftachett (Indicate whether units em rental or for sale units): 21) Antlcipatecl lange ~;f sele p#ces am:i/or rent$: Sale Price(s) $ to Rent (per month) 22) Specify number of bedrooms by unit type: 23) Indicala anticipated household size by unit type: 24) Indicsle the expected number of school Children who w#l be residing within the project: Conlact the apl~ropffate School Districts as shown In Attachment B: a. Eiementao,: b. Junior High: c. Senior High COMMERCIAL. INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Desc6betype~fuse(=)andmej~rfuncti~n(s)~f¢~mme~ia~ndustrfel~r~n$titutl~n~e$! The buildinq will allow manufaet~:~tng~ and distribution uses. 26) Tolol floor area o! commerolal, industrial, or institutional uses by type: 67,000 s~ INITSTD1 .WPD. 4/96 ~ ~(~ Pa~e ~. 27} Indicate hour~ of operation: R'~11~c: ,mF n~'~..--.~,~..-.~, ,~t1'1 nO_.,2~,..,'ll_y 'r't~n 'FT,.-,rlI " "7:00AM 'co '7."00PH fo~ 5-~ da~,'s' per'we'e~'~ ...... ' ~ 28) Number of employee$; Total: T~ ~' ~ m= ~- prl Maximum Shift: Time of Maximum 29) F~r~v~de bmakd~wn ~f ent~c~pated j~ c~aa~i~c~n~ ~nc~uqing w~g~ ~nd sa~ary r~ng~ ~s we~ a= ~n ~ndicaE~n ~f the mte of i~im for eacfi classification (atlech additional sheet if nece$$aq/): To be p=ovided by *..he build£nq 9ccupant 30) Estimation of the number of wo~ers to be hired that cun'ently mslde ln the City: TO be provided by the building occupant '31) For commercial and industrial uses only, Indicate the source, type and amount of airpoflution emissions. (Dale ~hould be vaulted through the South Coa.~t Alr Quallp/ Management District, et (818) 572..6283): N~n~ ALL PROJEgT~ .12) Have ~he wa~er~ sewer~ ~1r~ and ~d c~n~ agencies serving the prcject been c~ntac~ed t~ de~en~nin~ their abi~i~)~ l~ prcvide adequate service to the proposed project? If so, please indicate their response. will provide adequate services for the DroDosed build~nq~. iNITSTD1 WC-D - 4196 J O~ Page 7 33I m the ~own mSt~q~ O! this property, has there ~een any use, storage, or discloses of i~aze~ou$ and/or toxic materials? Examples of Ilaza,"dcu$ end/or toxic mete#als include, but am not limited m PCB's; radioactive substances; pesticides and ..... heFoici~e$; fu.eI$, cil$, ,~olventa, end otherflammst~fe llqui¢l$ and gasea, Aisc note unda~Jround sloraga of sny of the above. Please list the materials and describe tlleir use, $1orage, and/or di$cha~e on Ihs pn~perty, as well as the dates of use. if 34) W~#~ the prop~$ed pmject invo~ve the temporaP/ ~r ~ng-te~m use~ st~r~ge ~r di$¢h~rge ~f hazerd~u$ and/~ t~xic mateMels, including but not limlled to those examples listed above ? If yes, provide an inventory of all such materials to be used end p~pose[t methocl of disposal. The location of such use% along with the storage and shipment stoas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. IlO I hereby certi~ that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data end infon'nsllon required for adequate evaluation of this p~oject to the best of my eblll~, that the facts, statements, end Information presented em In~e end con'~ct tot he l~est of my knowledge end ~ellef. I furlher under~tend thet a~ditional lnfon~atl~ may ~e requlred to be submillod before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Cily of Rartcho Cucsmonga. Title: Mark V. Capellinot Owner INiTSTD1.WPD. 4i96 Page $ · City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-63 2. Related Files: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-62 3. Description of Project: The development of a 67,620 square foot industrial building on 4.25 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Tacoma Drive and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-11. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Mr. Mark Capellino 2020 Del Amo Boulevard, Suite 105 Torrance, CA 90501 5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial 6. Zoning: General Industrial (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is a previously rough graded pad within a Master Planned Industrial Park with similar buildings already constructed south and east of the site. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner (909) 477-2750 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-63 Parle 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact".as indicated by the checklist on the following page~s. ( ) Land Use ancl Planning ( ) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing (X) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (X) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics (X) Water ( ) Hazards ( } Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of= this initial evaluation: (X) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATE D..t EGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Signed: '~[ I don,2000Assistant Planner EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ( ) (X) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) (X) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) (X) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established co/~munity? ( ) ( ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-63 Parle 3 . 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Erosion changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: h) The General Plan indicates the Tujunga-Delhi soil association for the site which "May have soil bearing capacities that could limit some development. Structures proposed on this soil type should be permitted only after a site specific investigation has been prepared that indicates that the soil can adequately support the weight of the structure." A soils report will be required by the Building and Safety Division prior to the issuance of building permits. The impact is not considered significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-63 Parle 4 4. WATEFI. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) (X) 0 ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) ( ) (X) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) (X) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) (X) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) (X) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) (X) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water :supplies? ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The project is expected to result in changes to absorption rates and drainage I:,attems. New inundation areas (separate document) will be recorded and old areas vacated, prior to the issuance of building permit. As mitigation, drainage/flood protection facilities will be provided for the project area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer as follows: · The run off (Q100) from the site shall not exceed the capacity of the existing public storm drain system to the south. The amount of on-site detention shall be based on a proration of available capacity of the undeveloped parcels on a per acre basis for the area tributary to the cul-de- sac at the south end of Vincent Avenue, just north of the A.T.S.F. railroad main line. Reference the hydrology/hydraulic study prepared for Parcel Map 12959 to the east on file with the City. · Easements shall be delineated and inundation rights dedicated, prior to the issuance of building permits. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-63 Page 5 · No public water shall be tributary directly to the inundation areas. · In automobile and truck parking and maneuvering areas, ponding depths shall not exceed 12 inches and 18 inches, respectively, and shall not exceed 6 inches for more than 4 hours. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (X) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (X) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (X) d) Create objectionable odors? (X) 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (X) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (X) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (X) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (X) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (X) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (X) g) Rail or air traffic impacts~. ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-63 Parle 6 7. BIOLOI'~ICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal ' result ir,, impacts to: a) i:-ndangered, threatened, or rare species or their I'~abitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, - ......... insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) (X) ( ) b) I_ocally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) (X) c) I_ocally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) (X) d) ~Netland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) (x) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) 'l"he U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identifies the project area soil type as Tujunga- Delhi Sand Soils which is a type of soil that is associated with the endangered Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (DSF). A habitat assessment was prepared (Impact 5',ciences, January 25, 1999) by a biologist permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct surveys for DSF. In summary, results of the habitat-based survey indicate that the site does not currently support optimal DSF habitat. According to the study, the site clearly is unsuitable for DSF due to discing (destroys surface crust), dense vegetation (greater then 60% cover overall), unsuitable soil types (fill material, gravel), and lack of indicator plant species (greater than 85% non-native). Based on the reconnaissance-level habitat evaluation of the site's existing environmental conditions, the project site does not provide high quality habitat for DSF due to: (1) lack of substantial, open sandy areas; (2) relatively dense coverage of invasive, non- native vegetation; (3) lack of native plant communities; (4) exposure to grading and scraping, top soil removal, placement of import fill material, and soil compaction activities; (5) recurring exposure to an on-site weed abatement program (discing); and (6) Iow habitat linkage value due to surrounding land uses (e.g., Industrial development). In addition, the study indicated that potentially occurring sensitive small mammal species, such as Los Angles pocket mouse and San Bernardino kangaroo rat, are not expected to occur on the site because of the site's exposure to grading, soil removal, filling and compaction. No diagnostic sign (burrows, fecal pellets, and tracks) of the aforementioned small mammals species were recorded on-site during the survey. Based on the information provided above, the proposed development of the 4.25 acre site will not likely result in adverse effects to DSF. No other unique, rare, or endangered animal species are known to be potentially located on the project site. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-63 Parle 7 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal'. a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( (X) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( (X) Comments: a) In conjunction with the manufacturing activities within the building, materials such as oil and other chemicals may potentially be used. Use of any such hazardous substances will require special permits to ensure safe handling, storage, and operation. The impact is not considered significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-63 Parle R , 10. NOISI-'. Willtheproposalresultin: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( (X) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( (X) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( (X) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) Manufacturing activities may include use of hazardous chemicals which would require special permits for the Fire Prevention District. The impact is not considered significant. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power and natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) , ( ) (X) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga,.,_ 9 DR 99-63 ,-'a~le Significant f) Solid waste disposal? ( ( ) ) (X) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ( ) ) (X) 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposah a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Comments: b) New light and glare will be created on the property with development of the vacant site. A condition of approval requiring an on-site Lighting Plan, including a photometric diagram of the entire property, to be required for review and approval of the Planning Division and the Rancho Cucamonga Sheriff's Department, prior to the issuance of building permits. The plan will be checked to ensure that it meets City policies relative to avoiding the casting of excess .light and glare onto adjacent properties. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ) (X) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ) (X) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change, which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) (X) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-63 Page 10 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) (X) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) (X) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) (X) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Ini~,al 5~udy [c*~ C~y o! Rancho Cuc~ OR 99-63 Pa~e 11 e~er ~ were ~ I~ ~et~ ~b ~1 ~udy ~ m ~ for m~ ~n ~ C~ (X) Gonoml P~n EIR (Ceffilmd April 6, 1~1) (~H ~t 15, ce~r~ ~a~ 4,1 ~9) ~) I~1 ~ea S~ P~n EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Env/ronmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. ProjeCt File No.: Development Review 99-63 Public Review Period Closes: February 9, 2000 Project Name: *Project Applicant: Capellino and Associates Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the southeast corner of Tacoma Drive and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-11. Project Description: The development of a 70,620 square foot industrial building on 4.25 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Related file: Development Review 99-62. 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: J'-I . 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 preposed 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 am included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents am 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. February 9, 2000 Date of Determine~tion Adopted By City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-63 This Miiigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above-listed project. This program has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code). Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements: 1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project. 2. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. 3. The MMP has I~een designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon r~commendations by those responsible for the program. Program Management - The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project planner, assigned by the City Planner, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project planner oversees the MMPand reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department. Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1. A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant. 2. An MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting documentation will be kept in the project file with the department having the original authority for processing the project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following address: City of Rancho Cucamonga - Lead Agency Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Mitigation Monitoring Program · - DR 99-63 January 26, 20,30 Page 2 3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staff's is needed, as determined by the project planner.or responsible City department, to monitor specific mitigation activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the project planner. 4. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the completion .of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each measure 'is verified for co'mpliance, no further action is 'required 'for the specific phase of development. 5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off as complet6~d by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP Reporting Form. 6. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions. An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City department and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel. 7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after written notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached hereto is not: occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to hold issuance of a business license until ail mitigation measures are implemented. 8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department. The Department shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of guarantee) with the City. These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the required period of time. 9. In those inst~nces requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular' mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of building permits. THE CITY OF ~ANCI~ 0 CUCAM 0 N CA S :ff Report DATE: February 9, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of t~e Planning Commission FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Henry Murakoshi, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: VACATION OF A STORM DRAIN EASEMENT. A request to vacate a Storm Drain Easement, located northerly and on Caltrans proposed Frontage Road approximately 285 feet south of existing Highland Avenue centerline. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Tentative Tract Map No. 15875 generally located at the southeast corner of Highland Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard, was approved by the Planning Commission on the 14m day of October, 1998, for a residential subdivision of 158 single family lots on 32.6 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential Designation within the Victoria Community Plan, The Developer, Kaufman and Broad has requested the vacation of a "Storm Drain Easement" that will not be needed as a result of Frontage Road (Highland Avenue) being completed. The vacation is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code because it is in excess of our standard street right-of-way. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the finding through minute action that the proposed vacation is in conformance with the General Plan. Respectfully submitted, Senior Civil Engineer DJ:HM:dlw Attachments: Vicinity Map Legal Description (Exhibit "A") Plat (Exhibit "B") ITEM C .. .... % HIGHLAND AVENUE (STATE HWY. ! ..,.,,....~~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ..!,=~.~ "'~' '~cou.T¥ oF s,~. :.CL-~',~ S TA~O F CALIFORNIA LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXISTING DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO BE QUITCLAIMED RE: TRACT NO. 15875 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BEING THAT PORTION OF THE NoRTHwEsT QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP I NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, STATM OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: -~COMMENCINO AT :THE.NORTHWEST CORNER'OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID EAST HALF, sOUTH 00°08'38" WEST 284.92 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST. CORNER OF AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES GRANTED TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AS PARCEL I PER DOCUMENT RECORDED MAY 16, 1983 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 83-105213, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; SAID NORTHWEST CORNER ALSO BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL l, NORTH 69004'45.. EAST 353.37 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL I; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID PARCEL I, SOUTH 00007'45" WEST 69.65 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL I; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL I, SOUTH 69°04'45~ 353.39 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL I; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LiNE OF SAID PARCEL 1, NORTH 00008'38" EAST 69.66 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 22,970 SQUARE FEET OF LAND, MORE OR LESS. MADOLE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. OF THE INLAND EMPIRE /~..: .. William Roaro Jasso " P.L.S. 4756 Exp: 9/30/2003 ' ;,.__ ~_. HIGHLAND AVENUE: C.STATP' HWY. 30:) ; N'LY. LINE SEC. 32, T. 1 N., R.6 W., S.B.M. [ ' P.O.C. E'LY. LINE, WEST 1/2, WEST 1/2, /LINE OF EAST 1/2, "W I/4, SEC. 52 m~ , PCL. 14780-3, DOC. #1998-0509500, ~ ~ mi ~ -' ~ O.R., REC. 11/30/98. (CALTRANS) ' ' ...... ': CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG~  ¢ EASEMENT QUITCLAIM q , MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. OF THE INLAND EMPIRE the city of ~ , Rancho Cucamonga b--' aff Re rt DATE: February 9, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT N0.15993 - WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING - A residential subdivision of 94 single-family Iot~ on 18 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 227-091-21 through 24. Related File: Development Review 99-45. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-45 - WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING - The Design Review of building elevations and detailed site plan for ¥entative Tract Map 15993, consisting of 94 single-family lots on 18 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 227-091-21 through 24. Related File: Tentative Tract 15993. BACKGROUND: This item was originally continued at the request of the applicant on October 27, 1999. On December 8, 1999, and on January 12, 2000, staff requested continuance of this item to allow time for the applicant's biologist to address issues raised by the Department of Fish and Game (see Exhibit "A"). To date, staff has not received any documentation from the applicant addressing the environmental issues. The applicant has been given sufficient time (two months) to address and prepare a detailed response to the environmental issues identified by the Department of Fish and Game. Staff cannot recommend issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration until all environmental documents and findings are completed as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. The project site is owned by the City's Redevelopment Agency and was under contract to be sold to the applicant upon approval of the project. On January 26, 2000, staff received a memo from Mitch Slagermen, Senior Redevelopment Analyst, indicating that the applicant has abandoned the project (see Exhibit "B"). In a letter dated December 15, 1999, the City's Redevelopment Agency received a letter from the applicant, Lamco Housing Inc., stating the company would no longer be acquiring and developing the property. Despite repeated requests, the applicant has not submitted a letter to formally withdraw their tentative tract map and development review application. ITEMS B & E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 15993 AND DR 99-45 · Page 2 Therefore, without the City's Redevelopment Agency's approval to develop the project site, and without all environmental documents and findings completed as required by the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning Commission cannot review and approve Tentative Tract 15593 and Development Review 99-45. 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 ownem within a 300-foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Tentative Tract 15993 and Development Review 99-45 without prejudice through adoption of the attached Resolutions of I::)enial. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:RZ~ma Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter dated November 24, 1999, from the Department of Fish and Game Exhibit "B" - Letter dated January 26, 2000, from the City Redevelopment Agency Resolution Denying Tentative Tract 15993 Resolution Denying Development Review 99-45 DFPARTW£NT OF F~$H AND Eastem Siena - Inland Dese~s Region 4775 Bi~ Fa~ Road Chino Hills, California 91709 (909) 39~0635 November 24, 1999 R E C E I V E D ............ ...... Rancho Rudy Zeledon City ot..;qq Oivi¢on City of Rancho Cu~monga Planning Division P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cu~monga, CA 91729 Re: Biological Studies Western Pacific Housing Negative Declaration Dear Mr. Zeledon: On October 28, 1999, the California Department of Fish and Game (Department) sent the City a letter regarding the proposed development of 94 single-family homes on 18 acres near the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard· in this letter the Department requested copies of biological studies, including habitat assessment studies for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys rnerriami parvus) and the coastal California gnatcatcher. The Depadment thanks you for submitting the studies and requests that copies of biological studies accompany any future Initial Studies or Negative Declarations. The Department has five issues regarding this project. First, in the October letter the Department requested that the City assess direct and indirect impacts to Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub and Coastal Sage Scrub. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration did not indicate what resources were on site (quantitatively or qualitatively), the direct impacts on these resources or the indirect impacts of the proposed development. The biological studies do not address this issue either. Second, neither the Negative Declaration nor the biological studies discuss the issue of mitigation for the loss of sensitive habitat. Third, the biological studies do not indicate whether the project would result in impacts to jurisdictional streambeds. Fourth, the biological studies do not indicate whether any mitigation is provided for historical habitat of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, a federally listed species. Fifth, the biological reports indicate that there is a drainage on site, and therefore, a 1601-1603 Streambed 2 ' Response to Biological Repods Western Pacific Housing A terat on Agreement may be required. This fact makes the Department a Responsible Agency, as well as a Trustee Agency. Sensitive Habitat Kirtland Biological Services conducted trapping studies for the presence of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat in 1999. The biological study describes the on-site vegetation as consisting of two communities: alluvial chaparral and alluvial fan scrub. There is no cai'cUlJ=Jtion c.f how'many a~e~ of each community are found on the site. Neither were locations of hese communities plotted on a map supplied to the Department. The BonTerra report on May 25, 1999 stat~s that extensive higher quality sage scrub habitat is present just beyond the northern and southern limits of the project site and along the eastern boundary. Department Recommendations The Department recommends that the alluvial fan scrub be mitigated for at a 3:1 ratio. The mitigaticn can take the form of off-site acquisitio.q, participation in a mitigation bank or on-site restoration. The Department's opinion as a Trustee and Responsible Agency is that the loss of alluvial fan scrub and loss of historic habitat of the San Bemardino kangaroo rat is a significant impact that needs to be mitigated. The requirement for mitigation is consistent with the formulation of a Multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan for the County of San Bemardino. Department Role as a Trustee/Responsible Aqency This section of the comment letter addresses the requirements of CEQA and the role of the Department as a Responsible Agency. It appears, from a reading of this document, however, that the lead agency does not know exactly what the project impacts are. Without documentation of specific impacts and specific mitigation measures, the Department cannot fulfill its role as a Trustee/Responsible agency. Regarding endangered species and species of special concern and their respective habitats, the Department is responding as a Trustee and/or Responsible Agency. Regarding impacts to jurisdictional streambeds and riparian habitat, the Department is responding as a Responsible/Trustee Agency. As a Responsible Agency under CEQA, the Department has a responsibility to ensure that potential project impacts are identified, alternatives are considered and potential impacts are avoided and/or mitigated. For this reason, the Department recommends that the lead agency include a comprehensive analysis of biological resources, project impacts and include measures to avoid or mitigate significant impacts to sensitive biological resources. Section 15002 of the CEQA Guidelines defines the purpose of CEQA to: ' Response to Biological Reports Western pacific Housing .- 1) Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities, 2) Identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced, 3) Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in project through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible, and 4) Disclose to the public the' reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved. In addition, Section 15126.4(a)(1)(A) of the CEQA guidelines discusses the role of the lead agency and/or responsible agencies regarding mitigation measures, it states: (A) The discussion of mitigation measures shall distinguish between the measures which are proposed by project proponents to be included in the project and other measures proposed by the lead, responsible or trustee agency or other persons which are not included but the lead agency determines could reasonably be expected to reduce adverse impacts if ' ;: required as conditions of approving the project .... The Department of Fish and Game is requesting that the lead agency and applicants consult with the Department, as a responsible agency, regarding mitigation of habitat, species of special concern, endangered species, and potential mitigation measures in the context of the ND and not defer mitigation measures to subsequent negotiations with the Department. As a responsible agency, it is the Department's position that the lead agency should consult with the Department in the context of the CEQA process as is required by the CEQA Guidelines, particularly when the project is in a species rich area. Department recommendations regarding 1601-1603 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements will be addressed later in this letter. The Department also requests, in the future, that impacts to Federally-listed endangered species and potential avoidance, alternative and mitigation measures be addressed in the context of the EIR and not solely in subsequent negotiations between the applicant and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). It is a common practice for lead agencies to have findings that future compliance with federal regulatory permit actions will mitigate potential impacts of the project on biological resources. This practice eliminates the Department's oversight and advisory role in fish and wildlife protection and a so effechvely ellm nates the pubhc s role ~n CEQA. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service is not a trustee agency under CEQA. It is the Department's understanding that the USFWS also prefers that the CEQA analysis .. 4 ' Response to Biological Reports Western Pacific Housing include impacts and mitigation measures tO federally listed endangered species. The Department can consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding their recommendations and the Service can be included in joint discussions concerning biological resources. Wildlife resource recommendations can then be analyzed in the altematives section of the DEIR. 'In the absence of such discussions, it is the Depadment's contention that the Department cannot fulfill its obligations as a Trustee and Responsible Agency for fish and wildlife resources and further that the lead agency cannot issue findings that compliance with future regulatory actions will mitigate project impacts to a less *,!',an significant level. It is the Depadment's position that permit negotiations conducted after and outsidE, of the CEQA process deprive the public of its rights to know what project impacts are and how they are being mitigated. At this time the Department has some specific recommendations. First, impacts to sensitive habitat communities (Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, Coastal Sage Scrub and riparian habitat), and state and federally listed species should be mitigated on a 3:1 ratio, if avoidance of impacts is not an option. Second, the Department recommends that impact..; to habitat occupied or utilized by species of special concern be mitigated on a 2:1 ratio if avoidance of impacts is not an option. Third, the Department recommends that impacts to raptor foraging habitat be mitigated on a 1:1 basis if avoidance of impacts is not an option, Foudh, as regarding Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub the Department prefers that avoidance measures and not off-site mitigation ':' '. be utilized. These recommendations are based upon the fact that unless an endangered species is involved, biological impacts to sensitive and rare communities and species of special concern are not being adequately mitigated for in San Bemardino County. The Service has concurred with this analysis, in verbal discussions with the Department and in previous comments on specific development projects. These recommendations are also based upon the fact th2.; available species-rich habitat is rapidly diminishing in some areas of San Bernarci,::-.) County and that development of a reserve system for a multi-species habitat conservation plan is being threatened by the pace and location of development, particularly for Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. It is also the Departmen['s 9pinion that in the absence of a multi-species habitat conservation plan current dev6,topment projects must include mitigation for projects involving coastal sage scrub, Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, and other communities which provide habitat for endangered species (such as the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, coastal California gnatcatcher) and species of special concern, including raptors. It is the Department's position that if adequate mitigation is not provided now it places an unfair burden on future applicants with species-rich habitat and compromises the County's ability to formulate a workable multi-species habitat conservation plan. 1601-1603 Lake and Streambed Alteration Aqreements ' Response to Biological Reports Western Pacific Housing .- The Department is a Responsible Agency regarding the issuance of 1601-1603 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements (Agreements). Potential impacts to waters of the United States, wetlands or jurisdictional streambeds should be determined during the CEQA process, not following it. The lead agency can consult with the Department on project impacts and mitigation and incorporate a discussion of recommended mitigation measures in the EIR. The Department is implementing new procedures for processing Agreements. In this regard, the Department is notifying lead agencies that projects which will result in impacts to lakes or jurisdictional streambeds must include the supporting biological studies and CEQA-required analysis in the text of CEQA-certified documents. Any information necessary to the issuance of an Agreement must be processed via CEQA. If the information necessary for the issuance of an Agreement is included with the CEQA documents and has been subject to CEQA and public review, the Agreement can be processed per Department procedures. Information which the Department requires for its issuance of an Agreement which has not been CEQA-certified must be again subject to the CEQA process for public review. In this scenario, the Department has several options: 1) the lead agency can initiate a subsequent CEQA document and forward it to the Department following completion of the CEQA process, or 2) the Department can become lead agency. This same process applies to other discretionary actions, such as CESA Incidental Take Permits. ~'~'. - The Department prefers that the applicant submit an Agreement application with information approved during the CEQA process. The Department is available for consultation on projects prior to submittal of an Agreement application. Ordinarily, the information required includes: a description of the direct and indirect impacts of the project on the lake or stream; a biological survey of the lake or stream and identification of the absence or presence of riparian resources (flora and fauna); a discussion of environmental alternatives; a discussion of avoidance measures to reduce project impacts; and a discussion of potential mitigation measures required to reduce the project impacts to a level of insignificance. The applicant and lead agency should keep in mind that the State also has a policy of no net loss of wetlands. The Depadment understands that this Agreement process is new to most applicants and lead agencies. The Department also understands that this is not the way Agreements have been processed in the past and that delays in Agreement processing may result. In order to avoid delays or repetition of the CEQA process, the lead agency should consult with the Department to discuss potential project impacts and avoidance and mitigation measures. This change in Agreement procedure is a result of litigation. The Department is under a writ of mandate from a State of California Superior Court regarding the processing of Agreements (Mendocino Environmental Center vs California Department offish and Game, Respondents, Bruce Choder, River Rat Salvage et al, Real Parties). The write of mandate states in part: · . 5 ' Response to Biological Reports Western Paci~c Housing A writ of mandate shall issue ordering the California Department of Fish and Gam~ on or before May 1, 1999, to prepare and implement a program or process that will incorporate a CEQA review into the Fish and Game Section 1603 process. The writ of mandate shall further order the California Department of Fish and Game to cease and desist entering into Section 1603 agreements after May 1 ~ 1999, unless such' agreements have been subject to a CEQA review. Therefore, the Department is.advising the lead agency that. al! pqtential impacts to biological resources and sensitive habitat areas be analyzed in the DEIR document, along with specific measures and alternatives to avoid or mitigate for the loss of sensitive biological resources. A 1989 statute requires that public agencies adopt reporting or monitoring programs to ensure mitigation measures are implemented. In this connection, mitigation measures have to be specific, have to be capable of being implemented and must be capable of being monitored. Finally, the Department requests that the Department be notified of any Notice of Determinaticn or approvals issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If you have any questions, please call Robin Maloney-Rames, Environmental Specialist III, Chino Hills at (714) 817-0585. Sincerely, Glenn Black Supervisor Habitat Conservation - South Region 6 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMORANDUM DATE: January 26, 2000 Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner -- TO: t/~ FROM: Mitch Slagerman, Sr. Redevelopment Analys SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map 15993 -NWC of Base Line and Day Creek In previous conversations, you have informed me that Western Pacific Housing, applicant for Tentative Tract Map 15993 and DR 99-45, has not contacted your department regarding its intentions to continue with its application. On December 20, 1999, Agreement RA 99-08 that the Redevelopment Agency had with Westem Pacific's parent company, Lamco Housing Inc. expired without being completed. The Agreement was executed to sell the Agency's property at the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Day Creek Blvd. to Lamco upon Western Pacific Housing obtaining approval for Tentative Tract Map 15593. In a letter from Lamco Housing, Inc. dated December 15, 1999 (attached) it states that the company is not acquiring the property and will not be developing the property. Upon obtaining this information, the Redevelopment Agency Board has directed staff not to proceed with the sale and wants the current state of entitlements on the property to remain pending a future decision for the disposition of the property. Agency staff is requesting that the Planning Department withdraw the application for Tentative Tract Map 15993 and DR 99-45 indefinitely. Thank you for your cooperation. Please contact me at x2052 if you need additional information. ms~hsg\design comp site\tract map wifl~drawal. 012600 LAMCO HOUSING, INC. 16940 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 200 IRVINE CALIFORNIA December 15, 1999 Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91720 Attention: Mitch Slagerman Re: Base Line - Day Creek Disposition and Development Agreement Dear Mr. Slagerman: This responds to your letter of December 9, 1999. I fear that you have misunderstood Jeff Robinson's inquiries of December 7. In light of the then-pending assignment to Van Daele Development Co., as well as the effect of the letter of November 24, 1999, addressed to the Planning Division of the City from the California Department of Fish & Game, Mr. Robinson inquired of you whether a further extension would be available, if requested. Given the assertions made in the letter from the Department of Fish & Game, Lamco Housing needed to consider whether, even if such an extension would be forthcoming, it would be prudent or advisable to proceed, and it did not want to consider the demands of the Department of Fish & Game unless it could reasonably expect a further extension. I understand from Mr. Robinson that you responded that, even if so requested, no further extension would be granted. That inquiry was intended to determine whether Lamco Housing, Inc. would have adequate time to review and address not only the pending assignment but also the demands of the Department of Fish & Game; in our judgment those demands represent a significant potential impediment to the transaction and the ability of Lamco Housing, Inc. (or any other developer) to develop the site. When you indicated to Mr. Robinson that no further extension would be forthcoming, even if requested, and when the Planning Division took no action with respect to the tentative map application at its meeting of December 8/ 1999, Lamco Housing concluded that, notwithstanding its prior activities and entitlement efforts, approval of the tentative map Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency DecenfDer 15, 1999 Page 2 was not timely available and that further efforts to entitle the site would not be fruitful. Hence, notwithstanding Mr. Robinson's inquiry, Lamco Housing did not apply and is not applying for~-any .further extension of~the,~isposition and Development Agreement. On December 21, 1999, the scheduled Closing Date, as extended, the tentative map will not have been approved by the Planning Division of the City. Among the Developer Conditions Precedent is that the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall have approved a tentative tract map for the site. Accordingly, the condition of tentative map approval will not be satisfied by the scheduled Closing Date. Section 504 of the Agreement provides that it may be terminated by Developer if any condition precedent has not been satisfied, any applicable cure period has expired and Developer gives written notice to Agency. Tentative map approval is one of the conditions to Developer's obligation, for which no cure period is provided; please consider this letter notice by Developer to Agency of termination of the Agreement. Secti6n 504 of the Agreement also provides that, upon such termination, Agency shall refund the Good Faith Deposit to Developer. Please send the Good Faith Deposit to Lamco Housing, Inc. at 300 Continental Boulevard, Suite 390, E1 Segundo, California 90245, to the attention of Thomas Connelly. Concurrently with the transmittal of this letter, we are separately transmitting copies of all plans and data concerning the Site in our possession. We regret that the acquisition and development of the site will not proceed and wish the Agency success in its future development and sale. Very truly yours, LAMCO HOUSING, INC. cc: Richards, Watson & Gershon ~' Thomas Connelly L. David Cole RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15993, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 94 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ON 18 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW-MEDIUM DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) WITHIN THE VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS iN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-091-21 THROUGH 24 A. Recitals. 1. Western Pacific Housing has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map 15993, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On October 27, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga continued the application at the request of the applicant. 3. On November 29, 1999, the Planning Division received a letter from the Depadment of Fish and Game, which raised issues related to endangered and threatened species. 4. On December 8, 1999, and on January 12, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga continued the application at the request of staff in order to allow the applicant to respond to issues raised by the Department of Fish and Game. The applicant has not submitted any new information in response. 5. On December 20, 1999, Agreement RA 99-08, with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Redevelopment Agency for the purchase of the land from the Agency, expired; hence, the applicant no longer has the property owner's authorization to process this application. 6. On February 9, 2000, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 7. 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 February 9, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the property located at the northwest comer of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard, with a street frontage of 685 feet on Base Line Road and 1,139 feet on Day Creek Boulevard and is presently vacant; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 15993 - WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING February 9, 2000 Page 2 b. The property to the north of the subject site is the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, the property to the south is Base Line Road, the property to the west is the San Bemardino County Flood Control District land, and the property to the east is the future Day Creek Boulevard; and c. The project site has been identified as a potential habitat for the Federally listed endangered California Gnatcatcher and San Bemardino Kangaroo Rat, and it has not been demonstrated 'that the project will not have adverse impact on the habitat or endangered species. 3. Ba.~ed upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The project may have adverse environmental impacts related to wildlife habitat; and b. The Tentative Tract application is incomplete for processing because 1) all environmental documents have not been completed as required by the California Environmental Quality Act, and 2) the property owner no longer authorizes this application. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby denies the application without prejudice. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVt--D AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Lam./T McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of February 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-45 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15993, IN THE LOW-MEDIUM DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND DAY CREEK BOULEVARD AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-091-21 THROUGH 24. A. Recitals. 1. Western Pacific Housing has filed an application for the Development Review of Tract 15993, 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 October 27, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga continued the application at the request of the applicant. 3. On November 29, 1999, the Planning Division received a letter from the Depadment of Fish and Game, which raised issues related to endangered and threatened species. 4. On December 8, 1999, and on January 12, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga continued the application at the request of staff in order to allow the applicant to respond to the issued raised by the Department of Fish and Game. The applicant has not submitted any new information in response. 5. On December 20, 1999, Agreement RA 99-08, with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Redevelopment Agency for the purchase of the land from the Agency, expired; hence the applicant no longer has the properly owner's authorization to process this application. 6. On February 9, 2000, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said headng on that date. 7. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set fodh in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above-referenced public headng on February 9, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the property located at the northwest comer of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard, with a street frontage of 685 feet on Base Line Road and 1,139 feet on Day Creek Boulevard and is presently vacant; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99..45 - WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING' February 9, 2000 Page 2 b. The property to the north of the subject site is the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, lhe property to the south is Base Line Road, the property to the west is the San Bemardino County Flood Control District land, and the property to the east is the futura Day Creek Boulevard; and ...... c., .. The project site has.been identified as a potential habitat for the Federally listed endangered California Gnatcatcher and San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat, and it has not been demonstrated that the project will not have adverse impact on the habitat or endangered species. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above-raferenced public headng and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The project may have adverse environmental impacts related to wildlife habitat; and b. The Tentative Tract application is incomplete for processing because 1) all environmental documents have not been completed as required by the California Environmental Quality Act, and 2) the property owner no longer authorizes this application. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission heraby denies the application without prejudice. 5. The Secratary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Lar~¥ T. McNiel, Chairman A'I-rEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a ragular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of February 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 9, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO.15963 - PKT PROPERTIES LLC - A residential subdivision of 13 single family lots on 4.37 acre:. of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located south of Banyan Street, on the east side of Archibald Avenue and on the west side of London Avenue - APN: 201-251-01. Related files: Development Review 99-42 and Tree Removal Permit 99-13. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-42 - PKT PROPERTIES LLC - A design review of 12 building elevations and detailed site pla. for Tentative Tract 15963 consisting of 13 single family lots on 4.37 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre),, located south of Banyan Street, on the east side of Archibald Avenue and on the west side of London Avenue o APN: 201-251-01. Related file: Tentative Tract 15963. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Proiect Density: 2.9 dwelling units per acre. B. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North - Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre); Vacant land South Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre); Existing single family homes East Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre); London Avenue West - Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre); Archibald Avenue General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) North Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) East Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) West Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) C. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and contains 8 Eucalyptus trees at the perimeters of the site and an existing single family home at the southwest portion of the site. The site has a natural slope of approximately 2 to 3 percent from north to south and is surround on all sides by single family homes. ITEM F & G PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TI' 15963 AND DR 99-42- PKT PROPERTIES LLC February 9, 2000 Page 2 ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant proposed to develop the site under the Basic Development Standards of Low Residential District. It subdivides 4.37 acres of land into 13 single-family lots. The lots will range in size from 8,301 square feet to 12,246 square feet, with an average size lot of 10,900 square feet. The lots are oriented in a north and south configuration, except for those along the west and northeast portions of the site. Lot 11 has an existing dwelling on it, which will continue to front onto Archibald Avenue; however, will have a new access from the proposed cul-de sac. Two single story house plans are proposed with two elevation styles per plan. Plan 101 is a 3,090 square foot home and Plan 102 is a 2,749 square foot home. The two elevation styles are Spanish (Elevation A) with s-pattern concrete roof tile and gable roof, and Traditional American (Elevation B) with a shake pattern tile and hip roof. All house plans will be provided with a three-car garage. B. Desiqn Review Committee: The purpose of Design Review is for the Committee to consider design elements such as, but not limited to, compatibility of the project to the surrounding propedies, relationship of the design and layout of the project to the site, architectural design and use of materials, grading, landscaping, screening and buffering techniques of adjacent properties, sign, and open space. The Committee must determine if the project adequately meets the City design guidelines and standards and make appropriate recommendations to the Planning Commission. On October 19, 1999, the Design Review Committee (McNiel and Fong) reviewed the project and did not recommend approval (Exhibit "G"). The Committee determined that the proposed two floor plans with their shapes and size were nearly identical and were lacking in variety. The Committee also determined that the two elevation styles, Spanish and American Traditional, did not have the variety and architectural interest because the only difference was the change from a "hip" versus a "gable" roof. The Committee found the rear and the side elevations have expanses of blank walls and no articulation to the building surface or building plane. Based on these determinations, the Committee directed the applicant to work with staff in resolving the identified design issues prior to coming back for further Design Review. Staff met with the applicant twice, October 28, and November 18, 1999, to discuss the identified design issues and provide examples of architectural treatment to guide the applicant in redesigning the project to meet the Committee's concerns. On November 30, 1999, the Design Review Committee (McNiel, Stewart and Fong) continued the project at the request of the applicant who informed staff that they needed additional time to prepare revised plans for Committee's review. On January 4, 2000, the Committee (McNiel, Stewart and Coleman) reviewed the revised plans and found that the applicant has added architectural treatments such as exposed rafters for the hip roof, pot shelf to the front window, and a slight offset to the one car garage for Plan 102A. The Committee acknowledged that some progress has been made; however, the changes were minimal and did not address the fundamental design concerns, which were variation to floor plans and elevations. However, the applicant at the meeting stated that they disagreed with the determination of the Committee that they have not fully addressed the design issues. They requested that their project be forwarded for Planning Commission review. Attached is Exhibit "H," which is a chronology of the development review process for the project for the Commission's reference. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 15963 AND DR 99-42- PKT PROPERTIES LLC February 9, 2000 Page 3 After working closely with applicant for the last four months, staff believes that the Design Review Committee's issues and concerns with the project design can be addressed with appropriate conditions of approval. Through the plan check process, staff can continue to work with the applicant to address the Committee's concerns. C. Gradinq and Technical Review Committees: Both Committees reviewed the project and recommended approval with conditions. D. Neiqhborhood Meetinq: On September 2, t 999, a meeting was held by the applicant to allow neighbors within the immediate vicinity of the project an opportunity to review the proposed subdivision layout and design of homes. A total of 6 residents attended the meeting. The residents did not object to the proposed subdivision or the design of homes. However, the residents along south side of proposed "C" Street raised concerns about the maintenance and irrigation for the parkway along the north side of their properties. They questioned who would be responsible to provide irrigation and maintenance of the parkway. Although it is not the responsibility of the developer, Engineering staff has placed a condition of approve requiring the developer to make a good faith effort to work with the adjacent owners in installing irrigation for the parkway, which will be tied to their private connections. If the owners choose not to work with the developer, then the parkways will be filled with river washed granite cobblestones, according to Engineering staff. Another concern was raised by a resident, John Wang, who owns two parcels of land at the northwest corner of the project site. He raised concerns regarding the project's accepting drainage from his properties and the ability for sewer hook up in the future. The developer addressed Mr. Wang's concerns in a letter attached for review and as shown in Exhibit "1." Besides drainage, Mr. Wang objected to the proposed subdivision layout as stated in his January 3, 2000 letter (Exhibit "J"). Mr. Wang felt the proposed subdivision layout would landiock one of his properties. Engineering staff responded to his concerns in a letter dated January 19, 2000 and as shown in Exhibit "K." E. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the initial Study was prepared by the applicant and staff completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist. Staff determined that the project could have a significant adverse environmental impact through short term air quality impacts during site preparation such as grading and equipment exhaust, and noise impacts to future residents within the subject tract from traffic along Archibald Avenue. A noise study was prepared which identified noise attenuation measures to reduce noise to acceptable levels. Mitigation measures will be required to reduce the short-term air quality and noise impacts to a less than significant impact, if the Planning Commission concurs, then the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order. FACTS FOR FINDING: Before approving Tentative Tract 15963 and Development Review 99-42, the Planning Commission shall make the following findings: A. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. B. 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. C. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT T-l'15963 AND DR 99-42-PKT PROPERTIES LLC February 9,2000 Page 4 D. The propc,sed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to propedies or improvements in the vicinity. 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 ~ 300-foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above analysis and findings, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Tentative Tract Map 15963 and Development Review 99-42 through the adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with conditions and the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Brad Buller City Planner BB:RZ:mlg Attachments:-'lSxhibit 'A" Site Utilization Map IExhibit "B" Tentative Tract Map ~.xhibit "C" Site Plan Exhibit "D" Grading Plan Exhibit "E" Landscape Plan Exhibit "F" Floor and Elevation Plans Exhibit "G" Design Review Committee Action Comments dated October 19, and November 30, 1999 and January 4, 2000 Exhibit "H" - Chronology of Development Review Process Exhibit "1" - Applicant's Letter Responses to Mr. Wang, dated September 9, 1999 Exhibit "J" - Mr. Wang's Letter to Staff dated January 3, 2000 Exhibit 'K" - Engineering's Response to Mr. Wang's Letter dated January 19, 2000 Exhibit"L" - Residential Design Guidelines Exhibit'M" - Initial Study Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract 15963 Resolution of Approval for Development Review99-42 LIMIT OF 600' RADIOS .-- I-----F---ll----I ~ I --4 × I I I I I '-. / I X / i L_l_J l,.__, i ~~l-Fl ~ ,\ \ I = \ ~"" '~ /[ i----i-- mil__ T_-F-~Ti / ll I I ] I I I I:I [---I I I i .I___l__41 r--T--iY'-~--T--O~l ~ ~--~-b ...... il I I I i I. il ~ I I -- | I-I---L--I--L~I-~-[I ~'~ I------ f---- ~--[- I I // Ill "-'l ,rl[-l--i- -----I----- '----~ [ i-H--HH---F--H-----/ II ------l [ [ I [ [ L ~----[----- I ~.:__~..~__~- ~ / [ ~ · I I I , I I I I , / -~.~ I ----t', I I I I .>~ ××[ ~.~ -._ I t I .~P~I~',1 I ~ ~' ~ TENTATIVE,_ ,. _ ...... TRACT NO. 15963 I ..~ ~~ '-=--'~; ~:~--. ~.-="~-.~. c,c:.__._.__~- '-~.._,,.,...~. -,~_"°~'~'~'~'"-' ',=.,"~ ---- .... p--] r.'ml_______"~'~'~ ,~.,.~ ....... iL jl Il t LJ I -- I (~__~ II ~--I L I I i.T-£-~-_-.'.. I "--~"--"°'"'"_., _ --_.,-_ ~,, II Il 1-800 422-4155 CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR' PRECISE GRADING PLANS TRACT 15963 .~-.-~.=~:.~-_=~.=_~==.---.---=. IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUOOMONGA '~~ .......... ___ ............. :~~-~~ -. . ............... -~ TITLE SHEET ~ ~ ~~ PREC/S~ ~AD/NC PLANS lO~B, - LEFT 81DE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:00 P.M. Rudy Zeledon October 19, 1999 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15963 - PKT PROPERTIES LLC - A residential subdivision of 13 single family lots on 4.37 acres of land in the Low Residential Dish ;ct (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located south of Banyan Street, on the east side of Archibald Avenue and on the west side of London Avenue - APN: 201-251-01. Related files: Development Review 99-42 and Tree Removal Permit 99-13. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIE~V 99-42 - PKT PROPERT ES LLC - A design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for Tentative Tract 1596:~ consisting of 13 single family lots on 4.37 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located south of Banyan'Street, on the east side of Archibald Avenue and on the west side of London Avenue - APN: 201-251-01. Related files: Tentative Tract 15963 and Tree Removal Permit 99-13. ~ Parameters: The project site is located on the east' side of Archibald Avenue, north of Lemon Street. The site contains 4.37 acres of vacant land with a few Eucalyptus trees on the perimeter of the site and an existing single family home on the south west portion on the site. The site has a natural slope of approximately 2 to 3 percent from north to south and is surround on all sides by single family homes. The site is proposed to be developed under the Low Residential Standards of Development Code. The proposal is for the subdivision of 4.37 acres of land into 13 single family lots. The lots will' range in size from 8,301 square feet to 12,246 square feet, with an average size lot of 10,900 square feet. Two single story house plans are being proposed. .Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad issues will be on the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. House plans 101-A & B appear to be a Spanish style design, however, additional architectural detail and treatment is needed to enhance the front elevations, which could include the following detail. (Please see attachment): a. Enriched eave detail such as exposed rafter tails. b. Corbel treatment on front windows. c. Provide decorative quatrefoil element below gable roofs. d. Enhancement of the front entry way, by extending the covered porch out about 6-feet on house plan 102-A 2. House plans 102-A & B are designed in a traditional American style. Additional architectural detail and treatment is also needed in the effort to enhance the front elevations. The additional architectural treatment and detail shall include the following (Please see attachment): a. Enriched eave detail, such as cornice detail. DRC COMMENTS TT 15963 & DR 99-42 - PKT PROPERTIES LLC October 19, 1999 b. Remove existing stucco wainscot treatment and replace with stone or bdck veneer. 3. Provide architectural treatment to all elevations (i.e., 360 degree architecture). Avoid expan:ses of blank walls, as shown on the dght and left side elevations. Provide articulation to the building plane to make it visua~y attractive Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Provide a minimum of 3-foot offset between the one and two garages, to offset wall plane on all proposed house plans. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends the project be revised' and returned to Design Review Committee, as a consent item, pdor to scheduling for Planning Commission. Attachment Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Nancy Fong Staff Planner:. Rudy Zeledon The Committee did not approve the project, and directed the applicant to work closely with staff to resolve the major and secondary issues presented. . I' I-'~I,--~,1 . , ~ ~ ..... ~. D~RS & ENTRY ' / I it~ ' E~ WIN~W T~EATMENT UNIQUE DETAILS PORCHES & BALCONIES DOORS & ENTRY ., WINDOW TREA'I':MENT" UNIQU.E DETAILS OVERHANG AT EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS .j · · ~ . ONC.'S' TILE OVERHANGS ~' ,¢'~4 ROOF PITCH & MATERIAL  ~ SMOOTH STUCCO ""~ ~ CHIMNEY EXTERIOR FINISH DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:10 p.m. Rudy Zeledon November 30, 1999 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15963 - PKT PROPERTIES LLC - A residential ~subdivision of 13 single family lots on 4.37 acres of land in the Low Residential Distdct (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located south of Banyan Street, on the east side of Archibald Avenue and on the west side of London Avenue - APN: 201-251-01, Related files: Development Review 99-42, '~'ree Removal Permit 99-13, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-42 - PKT PROPERTIES LLC - A design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for Tentative Tract 15963 consisting of 13 single family lots on 4.37 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located south of Banyan Street, on the east side of Archibald Avenue and on the west side of London Avenue - APN: 201-251-01. Related files: Tent.ative Tract 15963. Backqround: This item was reviewed by the Committee (McNiel and Fong) on October 19, 1999. The previous r)esign Review Comments and action have been attached for reference. At the October 19 meeting, the applicant was directed to work closely with staff to resolve the major and secondary issues presented. The Committee felt that all four proposed house design concepts were very simil,ar and therefore difficult to differentiate. Staff Comments: The applicant has meet with staff and worked on resolving the design issues. The applicant has resubmitted a new plan' that included the following changes to the proposed house products, however, staff feels that the applicant has not addressed the Committees concerns and the major and secondary issues presented at the October 19, 1999 meeting. 1. On house Plans 102 A and B, the dght elevations have been enhanced to include exposed rafter tails along the eaves, a stucco over tdm band below the gable pitch roof and a window with stuc~..o trim over, 2. On house Plan 10?-A, a pot shelf was added to the front bedroom window. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the applicant continue to work with staff in addressing the outstanding issues and return to Design Review Committee for fudher review. Attachment Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner:. Rudy Zeledon No action was taken. This item was continued, until the January 4, 2000 meeting, at the request of the applicant to allow time to address design issues. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Rudy Zeledon January 4, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO.15963 - PK-r PROPERTIES LLC - A residential subdivision of 13 single family lots on 4.37 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located south of Banyan Street, on the east side of Archibald Avenue and on the west side of London Avenue - APN: 201-251-01. Related files: Development Review 99-42, Tree Removal Permit 99-13. (Cont'd from November 30, 1999) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-42 - pKT PROPERTIES LLC - A design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for Tentative Tract 1596;~ COnsisting of 13 single family lots on 4.37 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located south of Banyan Street, on the east side of Archibald Avenue and on the west side of London Avenue - APN: 201-251-01. Related files: Tentative Tract 15963. (Coned from November 30, 1999) Backqround: This item was reviewed by the Committee (McNiel and Fong) on October 19, 1999. The previous Design Review Comments and action have been attached for reference. At the October 19 meeting, the applicant was directed to work closely with staff to resolve the major and secondary issues presented. The Committee felt that all four proposed house design concepts were very similar and therefore difficult to differentiate.., Staff Comments: The applicant has meet with staff and worked on resolving the design issues. The applicant has resubmitted a new plan that included the following changes to the proposed house products, however, staff feels that the applicant has not addressed the Committees concerns and the major and secondary issues presented at the October 19, 1999 meeting. 1. On house Plans 102 A and B, the right elevations have been enhanced to include exposed rafter tails along the eaves, a stucco over t~m band below the gable pitch roof and a window with stucco trim over. 2. On house Plan 10ZA, a pot shelf was added to the front bedroom w~ndo . Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the applicant continue to work with staff in addressing the outstanding issues and return to Design Review Committee for further review. Attachment Deslqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Para Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner, Rudy Zeledon The Committee did not approve the project and directed the applicant to continue to work with staff to resolve the design issues presented. The applicant declined to continue to work with staff to resolve the design issues. The applicant expressed his decision to go forward with the project to the Planning Commission as proposed, with a denial recommendation by the Committee. TT 15963/DR 99-42 A CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPEMNT REVIEW PROCESS DATE STAFF COMMENTS March 5, 1999 Applicant submitted Tentative Tract Map (TT). The application was a subdivision with no house products proposed. April 12, 1999 Staff deemed the application incomplete. A letter was sent to inform the applicant of the status, with a list of incompleteness items and identified technical and design issues May 11, 1999 Applicant submitted revised development plans. June 2, 1999 Staff found the application incomplete and again provided a detailed list of incompleteness items, technical and design issues. July 7, 1999 Applicant resubmitted the Tentative Tract and added a new Development Review (DR) I application for house products. August 9, 1999 The revised 'IT application and the new Dr applicatfon were found to be incomplete. A list of incompleteness items was provided to the applicant. September 7, 1999 Applicant submitted the two revised applications. September 9, 1999 Staff and the applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting. The summary of concerns were parkway irrigation and drainage concerns. September 13, 1999 Staff found the two applications complete for processing and scheduled for Committees' review. Staff also provided a list of technical and design issues to the applicant and recommended that he addressed them, prior to Committees' review. October 19, 1999 Grading Committee reviewed the project and directed the applicant to address a list of technical issues October 19, 1999 Design Review Committee reviewed the ~roject and did not recommend approval. The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff in addressing the design issues of ~roviding enough variation to the two floor; plans distinguishable architectural styles, and 360 degrees architectural treatment October 20, 1999 Technical Review Committee meeting. October 28, 1999 Staff met with the applicant and rewewed the design issues as outlined by the Design Review Committee, to help him prepared revised plans that could addressed their concerns. November 18, 1999 Staff met with the applicant again to review the revisions that they have made to the elevations. Staff found the changes were 'ninimal and did not meet the intent of the DRC's direction. Staff further explained to the applicant the DRC concerns and recommended that the applicant explored additional architectural changes. Staff also provided examples of the types of architectural treatments and changes. Applicant agreed to do that. Staff agreed to place the project back on the November 30 DRC meeting with the agreement that the applicant will bring in revised elevations at the meeting that addressed the Committee's design concerns. November 30, 1999 Applicant submitted revised grading plans for Grading Committee's review. The Committee recommended approval with conditions. November30, 1999 Applicant requested a continuance of his project to a later date so that they have more time to address the design concerns. December 14, 1999 Applicant submitted revised plans. January4, 2000 DRC reviewed the revised design and determined that it did not address their design concerns. The applicant disagreed with the Committee and requested that his project be forward to the Planning Commission. PKT PROPERTIES LLC Real Estate Developin~ 684 Dundee Ct. Brea, CA 92821 (714)990-0267 Fax(714)990-6248 RECEIVED Sept 9,1999 John Wang SEP I 5 1~J9 8316 Red oak Ave Suite 201 City of Rancho Cucamong Rancho, Cucamonga 91730 Ptanning Division Re: Sewer mad drainage at 6127 N Archibald Dear John Thank you for your interest in our presentation of our TT 15963 in Rancho Cucamonga on Sept 2, 1999. At that meeting you raised two questions. The first is the process of our tract accepting the existing sheet flow water from your property to the north. Our C. ivil Engineer is progressing on the precise grading plan to submit to the city when our tent map is approved. It will include open bottom joints in the wall to accept water into a slope swale and to a catch basin and drain to Liberty extension. The second issue raised was the fact you are now on a septic tank and would like to have a sewer accessible to your property. We would not be in favor or having a sewer easement in our side yards on our proposed tract 15963. Our company also owns two parcels east of your property and is going to have a southerly 5-fi utility easement recorded on the property for utilities to our second parcel next to a 20 fl driveway. There is an approximate fall of l0 feet from your westerly parcel to the sewer flow line in Liberty Street. We will be happy to Grant you an easement at the time we file our parcel map for that property. If you want, have your engineers draw the easement and then send it to us for signatures. I am sending you the required data. Your other opportunity would be the sewer in Archibald. We originally were going to serve the house we have below you at 6171 Archibald to that sewer. We met with Mr. Kieran Callanan of Metropolitan water in LA. I am sending you a copy of their guidelines for pipes over or under their water line, as well as who to contact. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Cordially, Member George B Taunton CC; BILL KIMBLE Enc; CHIH CHUNG WANG 8316 Red Oak Street, Suite 201 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Telephone: (909) 944-8181 FAX: (909) 944-1325 REC,~JVED January 3, 2000 C;t,, ~! RanchO Cucamonc~ -- Q!vision Rudy Zeledon Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. BOX 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: Tentative Tract Map #15963 Dear Rudy: Per my recent study, I found out the City will not allow any new housing to access through Archibald Avenue. This will put our parcels APN 201-251-47 & -48 in an awkward situation oflandlock if the City approves the proposed Tentative Tract Map # 15963. The developer of TTM 15963 owns both Parcels 1 and 49. Due to the City's requirement for Banyan Street improvement, they chose to develop only Parcel 1. We are strongly against the subject tract map layout which will hurt our future development potential and reduce our property value tremendously. Attached is a layout which I believe will better improve development prospects in this area. Please review this situation and give us your recommendation. Sincerely, Chih Chung Wang TENTATIVE TRACT "O. 15963 r ' ~'~'~ "'"~ '---' -----~., .,...~. ~.,..-.,~ ,-, I I i I T H E C I T 0 F R A'NC HO C UC AMONG A January 19, 2000 Mr. Chih Chung Wang 8316 Red Oak Street, Suite 201 Rancho Cuc~cmonga, CA 91730 SUBJECT: Tentative Tract 15963 relative to APN 201-251-47 & 48 Dear Mr. Wang: I have had the opportunity to review your correspondence of January 3, 2000. The subject tract has been designed in conformance with the City's current' slxeet standards. The owner of APN 201-251-49 is at no obligation, nor are you, to develop his property at this time. The requirement to improve Banyan with APN 201-251-49 is consistent with previous conditioning in that properties frnnting utility right-of-ways are historically responsible for improving a propm~ional share of the utility frontage. Unfortunately, in this case the utility frontage ran the entire length of the parcel. The developer was given the choice of pursuing the issue with Planning Commission and chose not to do so at this time. APN 201-251-47 & 48 are both under the sa~i~ ownership. In such a ~imation, if an access easement to the rear pamel doe~ not already exist, the ovmer may grant an aocass easement upon sale of the parcel in favor of the new owner. The owner may also create a flag lot by processing a Certificate of Compliaoce for Lot Line Adjustment. In the event that both of these possibilities are not to the owner's satisfaction, the potential exists for the owner to purchase right-of-way from the Metropolitan Water District for construction of a City Standard cul-de-sac accessing a subdivision of APN's 201-251-48 & 49. The subject Map is currently scheduled for review at the February 9 Planning Commission Meeting. Please understand that I and my staff have conditioned the project consistent with recent and current applications within the City. I can understand your concerns and encourage you to address them with the Planning Commission at the time they request public comment on the project. lfI can be of any fu~her assistance or you have other questions contact Maria E. Perez, Assistant Engineer or me at (909) 477-2740, extension 4024 or 4020 respectively. Cordially, COMMIJNI'Fir DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION Senior Civil Engineer DJ:MEP cc: Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner ~  Mayor William J. Alexander Councilmember Paul Bione Mayor Pro-Tern Diane Williams CouncJlmember Bob Dutton Jack Lam, AICP. City Mgnoger Councilmember James M Curofalo 10500 Civic Center Drive, * P.O. Box 807 * I~ancho Cgcomonga, CA91729 · (909) 477-2700 · FAX (909) 477-28'~9 Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section l 7. 08. 090 10. Fire Safety. Development should be designed in accordance with Fire District requirements for two points of safe and ready access. Areas designated as high fire hazard areas should minimize fuel buildup around residences through greenbelts or cultivated fuel breaks. 11. Transition of DensitY. The site plan should consider compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods through providing proper transition of density, particularly on infill sites adjacent to lower densities. Comparable densities, open space buffer zones, increased setbacks, and architectural compatibility are encouraged along common boundaries to provide proper transition of density. Clustering units can provide large open space areas as a buffer. 12. ~. Vary street pattern to reduce streetscape monotony. Curvilinear streets, cul-de-sacs, front yard landscaping, and single-loaded streets are encouraged to provide streetscape variety and visual interest, particularly in the Low-Medium District. 13. Hoose Plottina. Clustering houses around common space, zero lot line, reverse plotting, angling house to the street, and side entry garages may be permitted if they provide straetscape variety and visual interest, particularly in the Low-Medium District. D. Buildina Desian 2' ~. A recognizable design theme shall be established which is compatible with surrounding planned or existing developments and should be based upon prominent design features in the immediate area (e.g., trees, landforms, historic landmarks)· Subtle "'"~"~ ~ variations are encouraged which provide visual interest but do not create abrupt changes causing discord in the overall character of the immediate neighborhood. It is not intended that one style of architecture should be dominant but that individual structures shall create and enhance a high quality and harmonious community appearance. brchitecture. The architecture should consider compatibility with surrounding character, including harmonious building style, form, size, color, material, and roof line. Individual dwelling units should be distinguishable from one another and have separate entrances. Shadow patterns created by architectural elements such as overhangs, projection or recession of stodes, balconies, reveals, and awnings contribute to a building's character while aiding in climate control. Further, changes in the roof level or planes provide architectural interest. In particular, Low-Medium density and multi-family residential develooment should be designed with upgraded architecture through increased delineation  of surface treatment and architectural details. The architectural concept should also complement the grading and topography of the site. 3. O~:ale. The mass and scale of the building should be proportionate to the site, open spaces, street locations, and surrounding developments. Setbacks and overall heights should provide an element of openness and human scale. Multiple family product type (i.e., apartment, condominium, townhouse) is discouraged immediately adjacent to lower density single family areas. All attached projects adjacent to existing one-story single family developments shall be one story, unless the impact of two-story structures on the existing one-story neighborhood is fully mitigated with emphasis on pdvacy, views, and ,,..., general compatibility. Buildings should emphasize horizontal as well as vertical 17.08-50 3/96 Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.08. 090 appearance. This could be achieved by the use of projections or recessions of stories, balconies, windows and doors, and changes in roof levels and planes. In particular for multiple family product type, buildings over three stodes should consider stepping back. 4. ~. Colors, textures, and materials shall be coordinated to achieve total compatibility of design. The materials and colors chosen should complement the building character. 5, Sianino. Every building shall be designed with a precise concept for adequate signing. Provisions for sign placement~ sign scale in relationship with building, and readability shall be considered in developing the signing concept. While providing the most effective signing, it shall also be highly compatible with the building and site design relative to color, material, and placement. 6. I~nuiDment Screenincl. Any equipment, whether on the roof, side of building, or ground, shall be screened. The method of screening shall be architecturally compatible in terms of material, color, shape, and size. The screening design shall blend with the building design. Where individual equipment is provided, a continuous screen is desirable. L. __..J 17.08-51 3/96 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES A R C H I T E C T U R E ~-he City of Rancho Cucamonga seeks well thought outdated. Low-key and earthy colors work best for out design solutions which reflect the best of a primary colors; use of more vibrant colors should be particular style, respect the community's heritage, limited to accents. and relate well to their surroundings. · Provide lockable storage space for multiple family Provide architectural treatment to all elevations (i.e., units.: .... 360 degree architecture). ~ Use 2-car garage with bonus room on some If the front of a house is sided, then provide siding to floorplan5 or offset the third car space to avoid the other sides of the house, garages which dominate the su-eet_~:ape. For multi- family projects, garages should be architecturally Consider compatibility with surrounding architec- designed to compliment the residences; consider rural character, including harmonious building style, varying the door treatment on multiple garage form, height, size, color, material, and roof line. structures. Develop individual expression in single buildings in One story massing is preferred on corner side yards. harmony with neighborhood. Refrain from architec- tural gimmicks that sacrifice the integrity of the Shadow patterns created by architectural elements streetscape to a single sWacture, such as overhangs, trellises, reveals and recesses, and awnings, contribute to a building's character while Roof lines are critical to the visual impact of a home. aid. lng in climate control. Provide roof lines which respond to the general design of other roofs along the street. Avoid identical or similar elevation schemes plotted on adjacent lots or across the street from one another. Vary roof massing and/or heights on larger build- Avoid identical color .schemes plotted on adjacent ings. lots. Upgrade design treatment of carport structures to reflect the architectural design of the dwelling units. Integrate screens for all roof-mounted equipment into the building design (i.e., extend parapet walls) Enhance architectural elements exposed to public rather than as an afterthought. view. Design roof line in conjunction with building mass Vary roof designs along rear elevations of units for consistent composition. backing up to perimeter streets to provide a pleasant and varied streetscape. On hillsides, design the form, mass and profile of buildings and architectural features so as to comp[ii Coordinate exterior building design on all elevations ' ment the natural topography- from building to building to achieve the same level of Use native rock for fieldstone. Olher forms of stone design quality. may be manufactured products. · On small lot subdivisions, avoid diverse architectural styles. Keep the design statement, materials, and Design chimney stacks with accent materials used details consistent. The use of mixed incompatible on house, such as brick or stone, except interior architectural styles is strongly discouraged. For chimneys. · · example, a Cape Cod style is incompatible with a Spanish style. Choose colors consistent with the chosen design U~,~eme. Avoid "trendy" colors which become quickly ~.~,,~o~ I TY OF RANCHO CUC AMONG A · PLANNING DIVISION City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Tentative Tract 15963 and Development Review 99-42 2. Related Files: 3. Description of Project: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15963 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-42 PKT PROPERTIES LLC - A residential subdivision of 13 single family lots on 4.37 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and the design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 12 of those lots, located south of Banyan Street, on the east side of Archibald Avenue and on the west side of London Avenue- APN: 201-251-01. Related files: Development Review 99-42, Tree Removal Permit 99-13. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: PKT Prc. perties LLC 684 Dundee Court Brea, CA 92821 5. General Plan Designation: Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). 6. Zoning: Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) 7. Surrour, ding Land Uses and Setting: North: [.ow Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), Vacant land. South: [.ow Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), Existing single homes. East: [.ow Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), London Avenue. West: Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), Archibald Avenue. 8. Lead A.qency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner (909) 47'7-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15963 and Development Review 99-42 Pa~je 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning (X) Transportation/Circulation (X) Public Services ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics ) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources I I Cultural (X) Water ( ) Hazards' Resources (X) Air Quatity (X) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ( ) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. (X) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1 ) have been analyzed adequately in an eadier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: ' ~ ~ September 27, 1999 Initial Study fo~' City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15963 and Development Review 99-42 Page 3 I EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the sicjnificant effects identified. 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ) ( ) (X) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ) ( ) (X) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ) ( ) (X) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) (X) 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ) ( ) (X) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e_.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ) ( ) (X) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ) ( ) (X) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15963 and Development Review 99-42 Page 4 b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) (X) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) (X) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) (X) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) (X) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) (X) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) (X) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ) (X) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ) ) (X) d) Changes in the amount of sudace water in any water body? (X) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (X) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (X) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15963 and Development Review 99-42 Parle 5 Comments: a) The development of the proposed project will increase the amount of paved surface area which could result in a decrease in absorption rates and an increase in the amount of surface water runoff. All runoff will be conveyed to existing and proposed drainage facilities designed to handle the subject water flows. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) (X) ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) (X) ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ~ ( ) (X) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( } (X) Comments: a & b) Air quality impacts may occur during the site preparation including grading and equipment exhaust as it is used on-site. Major sources of emissions during this phase include exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and equipment and fugitive dust generated as a result of construction vehicles and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces, as well as soil disturbances by grading filling. NOx and PM10 levels will be exceeded on a daily basis during construction. The following mitigation measures will be required to reduce impacts to a less-than significant level: 1) The Construction Contractor shall select the construction equipment used on-site based on Iow emission factors and high energy efficiency. The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. 2) The Construction Contractor shall utilize electric or diesel-powered equipment in lieu of gasoline-powered engines where feasible. 3) The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through October), the overall length of the construction period should be extended, thereby decreasing the size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and equipment operating at the same time. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15963 and Development Review 99-42 Parle 6 4) The Construction Contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. 5) Dust generated by the development activities shall be retained on-site and kept to a minimum by following the dust control measures listed below: i) 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. ii) During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day, and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. iii) After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed, the entire area of disturbed soil shall be treated immediately by pick up of the soil until the area is paved or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. iv) 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. 6) The Construction Contractor shall utilize as much as possible pre- coated natural colored building materials, water-based or Iow-VOC coating, and coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, such as high volume Iow pressure (HVLP) spray method, or manual coatings application such as paint brush, hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15963 and Development Review 99-42 Page 7 c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) (X) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) (X) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) (X) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The project will generate new trips because of the new construction. The number of trips is not considered significant; therefore, the project does not warrant a Traffic Study Analysis. The project will be required to provide full major street frontage improvements on Archibald Avenue. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) I--ndangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ) (X) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal poo )? ( ) ( ) ) (x) e) ~Nildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ) (X) Comments: b) There are a total of eight trees located on-site: three Eucalyptus trees, one Pepper tree, and one Walnut tree, located along the north property line and three Eucalyptus trees located along the southeast property line of the proposed tract. The applicant has submitted a Tree Removal Permit application, requesting the removal of the Pepper tree, Walnut tree, and two Eucalyptus trees. The Pepper and Walnut tress are considered fruit or nut bearing trees, which are exempt from the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. The two Eucalyptus trees, located along the southeast Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15963 and Development Review 99-42 Pac. le 8 project boundary, are in conflict with proposed street improvements. The removal of the two Eucalyptus trees will be mitigated by street tree planting; therefore the impact is not considered significant. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tracl: 15963 and Development Review 99-42 Page 9 Comments: a) The project involves the construction of 12 single family homes. Construction activity is likely to result in an increase in noise levels from associated grading and development activity. Construction hours will be limited as required by the Development Code, to lesson any construction related disturbance in noise levels to the surrounding properties. The resulting residential project is not likely to produce a significant increase in existing noise levels. b) The General Plan indicates future noise levels exceeding 65 Ldn on Archibald Avenue, which requires detailed analysis of noise attenuation measures. Significant noise impact on the residents will likely result, if sound attenuation devices (interior and exterior) are not incorporated into the project design to screen noise impacts created by traffic on Archibald Avenue. An acoustical analysis was prepared by Ellwyn Brickson and Associates on November 5, 1999, to determine what mitigated measures would be necessary to reduce noise levels to a permissible level. To mitigate significant adverse traffic noise impacts to "safe" levels from Archibald Avenue, the noise study recommended that a minimum 6-foot high barrier would need to be constructed along Archibald Avenue (Lots 9-11). With the construction of a 6-foot harder, the CNEL would be reduced to a level of 60.9 dB, which is well below the maximum noise standard of a CNEL of 65 dB. The project design includes the construction of a 6-foot wall along Archibald Avenue (Lots 9-11). The homes on Lots 9-11, shall be air conditioned, insulated, and feature dual glazed windows as mitigation. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a, c) The development of 12 single family homes will increase the demand on public services. Tract Map conditions of approval will require the developer to participate in the funding of special districts for the necessary construction and maintenance of fire protection and school facilities; therefore, the impact is not considered significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15963 and Development Review 99-42 Pacje 10 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies Or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? : ( ) ) (X) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ) (X) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ) (X) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15963 and Development Review 99-42 Page 11 e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact ama? ( ) ( ) ( ) {X) 15. RECREATION. Would the proposah a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ) ( ) ) (X) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ) ( ) ) (X) .Comments: a) The development of 12 homes should not increase the demand on parks. However, the developer will be responsible for payment of park fees at the time of building permit issuance to offset any impact on parks. The impact is not considered significant. 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 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) Initial SL~Jdy for City of Rancho C'.icgmnnga Tentative Tract 15963 and Development Review 99-42. Page 12 c) Cumulative: Does the proiect have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ('"Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and [he effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) tx} d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substanttal adverse el'tools ar1 human beings. eilher directly or indirectly? ( } ( ) ( ) tX) EARLIER ANALYSES Eadier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiedng, program EIR, or other CEQA process, c~e or mere effects have been adequa~aty analyzed in an earlier EIR CF Ne§alive Dec,oral,on per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following eadier 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 Diwsion officos, 10500 Civic Center Dave (check all that apply}: ( X ) General Plan (Codified April 6. 1981 ) (x ~ Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115., certified January 4. t989) Summary of Adopted Mitigation Measures are Attached APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in Ibis initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or p~uposals ar~d/or h~r~Uy agree. [~ the proposed miliga!io~ n'~easures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where dearly no significant environmental effects would 9na,,,re ~-~' Date. ~////~'/~'"~ S of Rancho Cucamonga City NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 2fogf and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No,: Tentative Tract 15963 and Development Review 99-42 Public Review Period Closes: February 9, 2000 Project Name: Project Applicant: PKT Properties LLC Project Location (also see attached map): Located south of Banyan Street, on the east side of Archibald Avenue and on the west side of London Avenue - APN: 201-251-01. Project Description: A residential subdivision of 13 single family lots on 4.37 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and the design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 12 of these lots. Related file: Tree Removal Permit 99-13. 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 oil 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. February 9, 2000 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15963, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 13 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 4.37 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2- 4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) LOCATED SOUTH OF BANYAN STREET, ON THE EAST SIDE OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND ON THE WEST SIDE OF LONDON AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-251-01. A. Recitals. 1. PK'r Properties LLC, has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 15963, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 9th day of February 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said headng 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. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public headng on February 9, 2000, including written and oral staff repods, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located south of Banyan Street, on the east side of Archibald Avenue and on the west side of London Avenue with a street frontage of 212.68 feet and lot depth of 585.16 feet and is presently unimproved; and b. The property to the north is vacant, the properties to the south, east, and west contain single family homes; and c. The proposed subdivision has been reviewed by the Technical and Grading Committees and approved subject to the conditions contained within this resolution; and d. The proposed subdivision has a minimum and average lot size of 8,301 and 10,900 square feet, respectively, consistent with the requirements of the Very Low Residential District. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 15963- PKr PROPERTIES LLC February 9, 2000 Page 2 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 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 r~0t 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the project, which are listed below as conditions of approval. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, thera is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff report and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission dudng the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effec'[ 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. Plannin.q Diwsion 1)Pad elevations shall be lowered relative to street frontage on lots 3-5 and 7, so that driveways do not exceed a slope of 10 percent. 2) All perimeter walls, including retaining walls, shall be of decorative masonry, that is slumpstone, split face, or stucco. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 15963- PKT PROPERTIES LLC February 9, 2000 Page 3 3) All proposed retaining walls shall not exceed 4-feet in height. En.qineerinq Division 1) The London Avenue frontage shall be improved to collector street standards (33 feet to property line and 22 feet to curb face as measured from street centerline) including, but not limited to: pavement, driveways, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street trees, street lights, and stdping and signage. 2) The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except for the 66kV electrical) on the project side of Archibald Avenue shall be undergrounded along the entire project frontage extending from the first pole off-site to the south of the south project boundary to the first pole north of the project boundary, prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. All services crossing Archibald Avenue shall be undergrounded at the same time. 3) The existing driveways on Archibald Avenue within the project boundaries shall be removed and replaced with full height curb. A new driveway shall be provided for Lot 11 off the proposed cul-de-sac. 4) The off-site ddveway on Archibald Avenue and resulting transition north of the north project boundary shall be reconstructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A transition per City Standard Drawing No. 406, with a 5:1 minimum taper, shall be constructed. 5) The sidewalks shall be constructed property line adjacent on all streets. 6) Private cross-lot drainage facilities to serve Lots 11 and 12 shall be provided separate from the public storm drain system. The system shall be piped (12 RCP minimum) to "C" Street, across Lots 12 and 13 and discharge to a City Standard curbside drain outlet. 7) If the developer proposes to fill the area over the existing public storm drain pipe, an analysis indicating that the pipe can sustain the additional load shall be provided. 8) The developer shall improve the frontages of APNs 201-251-56 and 201-503-50 to include pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway, street trees, and streetlights. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover the cost of construction from future development (redevelopment) as it occurs on the south side of "C" Street. 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. The developer of Tract 13898 paid an in-lieu fee for the future construction of "C" Street (Liberty Street) from which reimbursement for construction fronting that parcel is available. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 15963- PKT PROPERTIES LLC February 9, 2()00 Page 4 9) The developer shall attempt to work with the owners of APNs 201-251-56 and 201-503-50 to irrigate the parkway trees with a private water connection. If the owners are not cooperative, the parkways shall be filled with river washed granite cobblestones per City Standard Drawing No. 542. 10), The developer shall vacate the irrevocable offer of dedication on APN 201-251-56 and the excess street dedication offered with the developer of Tract 13898 from APN 201-503-50 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Environmental Miti.qated Measures Air Quality Air quality impacts may occur during the site preparation including grading and equipment exhaust as it is used on-site. Major sources of emissions during this phase include exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and equipment and fugitive dust generated as a result of construction vehicles and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces, as well as soil disturbances by grading filling. NOx and PM10 levels will be exceeded on a daily basis during construction. The following mitigation measures will be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level: 1) The Construction Contractor shall select the construction equipment used on-site based on Iow emission factors and high-energy effidency. The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. 2) The Construction Contractor shall utilize electdc or diesel-powered equipment in lieu of gasoline-powered engines where feasible. 3) The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans inciude a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through October), the overall length of the construction pedod should be extended; thereby, decreasing the size of the area prepared each day, to mini~mize vehicles and equipment operating at the same time. 4) The Construction Contractor shall support and encourage ride sharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. 5) Dust generated by the development activities shall be retained on-site and kept to a minimum by following the dust control measures listed below. a) During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 15963- PKT PROPERTIES LLC February 9, 2000 Page 5 b) During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day, and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. c) After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed; the entire area of disturbed soil shall be treated immediately by pick up of the soil until the area is paved or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur. d) Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. e) Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill materials and/or construction debris to or from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin. 6) The Construction Contractor shall utilize, as much as possible, pre- coated natural colored building materials, water-based or Iow-VOC coating, and coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, such as high volume Iow pressure (HVLP) spray method, or manual coating applications such as paint brush, hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge. Noise 1) To reduce noise levels to City standards, a minimum 6-foot high wall shall be constructed along Archibald Avenue (Lots 9-11). In addition, the homes on Lots 9-11 will require air conditioning and insulation and feature dual glazed windows. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman A'i-]'EST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING C(;)MMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 'I-I' 15963- PK'r PROPERTIES LLC February 9, 2000 Page 6 I, Bred Buller, ~:~ecretary 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 h,~ld on the 9th day of February 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:  City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: Tentative Tract 15963 and Development Review 99-42 This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above-listed project. This program has been prepared in compliance with State.law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public'Resources Code). Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements: I. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project. 2. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. 3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program. Program Management - The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project planner, assigned by the City Planner, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly and proper action is taken on eoch mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department. Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1. A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant. 2. An MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting documentation will be kept in the project file, with the department having the original authority for processing the project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following address: City of Rancho Cucamonga - Lead Agency Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staffs is needed, as determined by the project planner or responsible City department, to monitor specific mitigation activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the project planner. 4. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the completio~a of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each measure i:; verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of development. 5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an irripa~t issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP Reporting Form. 6. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions. An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City department and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel. 7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of ' · construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after written notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to hold issuance ora business license until all mitigation measures are implemented. 8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department. The Department shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of guarantee) with the City. These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City stafftime :~.o monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the required period of time. 9. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring results to the City. Said pla,~ shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of building permits. MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III) Project File No.: TT15963 and DR 99-42 Applicant: PKT Properties Initial Study Prepared by: Rudy Zeledon Date: November 15, 1999 · The use of Iow emissions and high energy CP/BO B/C As Necessary A 4 efficiency construction equipment. · Utilization of electric or diesel powered equipment CP/BO B/C As Necessary A 4 where feasible. 2 · Encourage ride sharing and transit incentives for CP B/C As Necessary ND construction crew. 4 · Dust generated by the development shall be CP/BO C As Necessary A retained on-site. 2/4 · Utilization, as much as possible, the use of pre- CP/BO B/C As Necessary A/C coated natural colored building materials (water- based or Iow VOC coating) and manual coating or ' spray equipment with high efficiency transfer. · Grading Plans state equipment shut off when not in CP/BO C Plan Check C 2 use. Extend construction period during smog season (May-October) .... * A minimum of 6-foo~ high wall shall be constructed CP/BO BtC Prior to the CIA 2 issuance of along ArchibaTd Avenue (Lots 9-11). building permits . The homes (Lots 9-11) shall be air conditioned, CP/BO B Prier to the C 2 insulated, and feature dual glazed windows to issuance of permit "window closed" condition, building permits MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14759 Page 2 Key to Checklist Abbreviations ~ ~ ,~.~' ~;~: :~ ~' ~' ~':~ Mon toting F, requency ':i~ '~. '" :: '1"~'~ ',.Method of. Ver~flcaUon; ' : .... Res onsbePerson~ ~,.~;~ .~ . , . ..,, ::,: sarlctJolls,~,;l~ i 7, ~-~'::~'' CDD - Community Development Director A - With Each New Development A - On-site Inspection 1 - Withhold Recordation of Final Map CE - City Engineer or designee C - Throughout Construction C - Plan Check 3 - Withhold Certificate of Occupancy BO - Building Official or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submittal {Reports / Studies / Plans) 4 - Stop Work Order PO - Police Captain or designee E - Operating 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds FC - Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP k',PLANNING~INAL\PLNGCOMM~ENVDOC~I'15665.MMCL.wp<I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: Tentative Tract 15965 and Development Review 99-42 SUBJECT: 13 Lot Subdivision APPLICANT: PKT Properties LLC LOCATION: South of Banyan Street, east side of Archibald Avenue, west of London 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: Completion Date A. General Requirements 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval, The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter of approval, and all Standard Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and construction plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check. B. Time Limits 1. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, unless a complete final map is flied with the City Engineer within 3 years from the date of the approval. C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans whict 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. SC -12199 1 Project NO. Tr15963 Completion Date 2, Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all __ Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3. Occupancy c,f 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 ..,how 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. 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, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 8. If no centrali;'.ed trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with all receptacles shielded from public view. 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. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 10. Street name..; shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. 11. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners' Association ara subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 12. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved pdor to the issuance of building permits. 13. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of ali 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. SC -12199 Project No. ~-rt 5963 Completion Date 14. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double I wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's perimeter. 15. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each / support post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two ~-inch lag bolts, to withstand high winds. Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall extend at least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade. 16. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. I 17. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron or black plasti~ coated chain link I to maintain an open feeling and enhance views. 18. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. __1 19. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. __1 __ __ 20. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. D. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. Multiple car garage driveways shall be tapered down to a standard two-car width at street. __1__ __ E. Landscaping 1. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4.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. 5.All walls shall be provided'with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. F. Environmental 1. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the SC -'12199 project No. TT15963 Completion Date amount of :~719.00, prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance, and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation I measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents ..;hall be considered grounds for forfeit. 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 th(; overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: H. General Requirements 1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size ot' service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g. Planning Division Project Number (i.e., -ir #, cuP #, DR #, etc.) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. 4.Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to the City prior to permit issuance. I, Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project file number (i.e., CUP 98-01). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. SC -12/99 Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Offficial, after tract/parcel map recordation / and prior to issuance of building permits. 4. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all / supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits. 5. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday __1 through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. J. New Structures 1. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. __1__ __ K. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City __1____ 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 i__ perform such work. 3, A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. __/__ 5. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for I__ __ existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California Registered Civil Engineer. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, 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): 33 total feet on London Avenue __/__ 50 total feet on Archibald Avenue 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: Archibald Avenue. SC -12199 project No. ~'r15963 Completion Date 5. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated I or noted on the final map. "INVe hereb!f dedicate to the City of Rancho Cucamonga the right to prohibit the construction of (residential) buildings (or other structures) within those areas designated on the map as building restriction areas." M. Street Improvements 1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped ~reas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentatk'e map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewal.ks, ~treet lights, and street trees. 2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Corem Median Bike Other Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trail Street Name Trees Trail Island Archibald Ave X X C X X E London Ave X X X X X x Notes: (a) Median island includes ta~3dsc~pim:j and ~ orr meter, ih) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be de4~e~nine(t ~ plan check. (c) If so rz~arked, sidewalk shall be cutwilinear per S[-andard 'r14. {d) If so marked, an in-lieu of c~nstmctk~n fee shall be provided for this item: E) post "No Fat-king" and "No Stopping Signs." 3. Improvemenl 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. SC -12199 Project NO. TT15963 Completion Date (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 ail corners of intersections per City I Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with I adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of gradiBg 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 I be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by.the City Planne~' 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 I____ adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. N. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards __1____ 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: Archibald Avenue. 2. Public landscape areas are required to incorporate substantial areas (40%) of mortared cobble or other acceptable non-irrigated surfaces. 3. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting /____ Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 4. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. O. Drainage and Flood Control 1. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage I in a sump catch basin on the public street. P. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, /__ gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. / 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the / Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bemardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days SC -12199 / Project NO. TT15963 Completion Date prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. Q. General Requirements and Approvals 1. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: R. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. 2.Fire flow requirement shall be: 1,250 gaIIons per minute, Per '97 UFC Appendix III-A, 3, (b) (Increase). A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 3. Fire hydrant.,; are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. 4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if a,ny, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6- inch riser with a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of the required fire protection system. 6.Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 7. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct Ordinance 32. 8.All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14 feet, 6 inches frorr~ the ground up, so as not to impede fire apparatus. 9.Fire District fee(s), plus a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District as follows: $132 for Single Family Residential Tract (per phase). SC -12~99 Project NO. 1'1't 5963 Completion Date 10. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1997 UBC, __/__ __ UFC, UPC, UMC, and RCFD Standards 32 and 15 and 1996 NEC. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: S. Security Hardware 11. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. __/__ __ 12. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 13. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide belts or some type of secondary locking 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. U. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. SC -12199 RESOLUTION NO. a RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-42 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15963, IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED SOUTH OF BANYAN STREET, ON THE EAST SIDE OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND ON THE WEST SIDE OF LONDON AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-251-01 A. Recitals. 1. PKT Properties LLC, has filed an application for the approval of Development Review 99-42, 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 October 19, 1999, the Design Review Committee reviewed the project and did not recommend approval. The Committee recommended design revisions. Staff met with the applicant on October 28, and November 18, 1999, to discuss these recommendations and provided the applicant with examples of the desired design revisions. 3. On November 30, 1999, the Design Review Committee continued the project at the request of the applicant. 4. On January 4, 2000, the Design Review Committee reviewed revised plans and did not recommend approval. The applicant declined to make any further changes and requested to be scheduled for Planning Commission. 5. On the 9th day of February 2000, 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. 6. 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 February 9, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located south of Banyan Street, on the east side of Archibald Avenue and on the west side of London Avenue with a street frontage of 212.68 feet and lot depth of 585.16 feet and is presently unimproved; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99-42 FOR TT 15963 - PKT PROPERTIES LLC February 9,- 2000 Page 2 b. The property to the north is vacant, the properties to the south, east, and west contain single family homes; and c. The application proposes two single-story Floor Plans with two elevations each; and d. The proposed project is in accord with the objectives of the General Plan; and e. The proposed project is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and f. The project will comply with Basic Development Standards of the Low Residential District, which include minimum lot size, minimum lot average, lot width and lot depth height limitations and setbacks. The project will subdivide 4.37 acres of land into 13 single family lots, averaging 10,900 square feet per, which exceeds the minimum lot average of 8,000 square feet. The project complies with the minimum lot depth of 100 feet and minimum lot width of 70 feet. The dwelling units will not exceed 35 feet in height and meet the side yard setbacks of 5-10 feet; rear yard setback of 20 feet and front yard setback of 37 feet (+ or - 5); and g. The proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public heath, safety and welfare or materially injuries to properties or improvements in the vicinity. h. The development of the proposed project would not have a significant impact on the environment. 3. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the project, which are listed below as conditions of approval. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99-42 FOR TI'15963 - PKT PROPERTIES LLC Februa~ 9,2000 Page 3 proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon .wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Division 1) All conditions of approval for the Tentative Tract 15963 shall apply. 2) Ail retaining wails exposed to public view shall be treated with decorative exterior finish or be composed of decorative block material. 3) All proposed stucco trim shall be of high-density foam, or with heavy gauge mesh, for durability. 4) All proposed return wails exposed to public view shall be treated with decorative exterior finish or be composed of decorative block material. 5) On Lots 1, 2 and 3, ail dwelling units shall maintain a minimum setback of 5 feet from all proposed side yard slopes (measured from toe of slope). 6) Architectural details proposed on all front elevations, shall be incorporated into the side and rear elevations. These architectural details shall include, but are not limited to, the following elements: a. Window mullions b. Potshelves c. Tile inserts 7) Architectural enhancement shall be provided on the corner side elevations facing London Avenue and proposed "B" street. Consideration shall be given to the street side elevations to include a mixture of window pop-outs, window surrounds, wood shutters, and potshelves. 8) Architectural enhancement shall be provided on the front elevations of house Plan 101A and B to include the use of woodoutlookers below all garage gables. 9)Provide light fixtures on house Plan 102A and B, such as a coach light, on the building plane to the left and right of the garage doors. 10)Provide more than two variations of window treatment on sectional roll- up garage doors. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99-42 FOR TT 15963 - PKT PROPERTIES LLC February 9, 2000 Page 4 ! ]) Tile inserts below garage gables on Plan 102A shall vary in color and pattern work. In addition, provide stucco surrounds to all tile elements. Engineering Division 1) All conditions of approval for the Tentative Tract 15963 shall apply. Environmental Mitigation Measures Air (3uality Air quality impacts may occur during the site preparation including grading and equipment exhaust as it is used on site. Major sources of emissions dudng this phase include exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and equipment and fugitive dust generated as a result of construction vehicles and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces, as well as soil disturbances by grading filling. NOx and PM10 levels will be exceeded on a daily basis during construction. The following mitigation measures will be required to reduce impacts to a less-than significant level: 1) The Construction Contractor shall select the construction equipment used on-site based on Iow emission factors and high-energy efficiency. The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. 2) The Construction Contractor shall utilize electric or diesel-powered equipment in-lieu of gasoline-powered engines where feasible. 3) The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through October), the overall length of the construction period should be extended; thereby, decreasing the size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and equipment operating at the same time. 4) The Construction Contractor shall support and encourage ride sharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. Dust generated by the development activities shall be retained on-site and kept to a minimum by following the dust control measures listed below: a) During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99-42 FOR 'I-I' 15963 - PKT PROPERTIES LLC February 9, 2000 e5 b) During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site, At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day, and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. c) After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed; the entire area of disturbed soil shall be treated immediately by pickup of the soil until the area is paved or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur. d) Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. e) Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill materials and/or construction debds to or from the site shall be tarpped from the point of origin. 5) The Construction Contractor shall utilize, as much as possible, pre-coated natural colored building materials, water-based or Iow-VOC coating, and coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, such as high volume Iow pressure (HVLP) spray method, or manual coating applications such as paint brush, hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge. Noise 1) To reduce noise levels to City standards, a m~nimum 6-foot high wall shall be constructed along Archibald Avenue (Lots 9-11). In addition, the homes on Lots9-11 will require air conditioning, insulation and feature dual glazed windows. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99-42 FOR ]-I' 15963 -. PKT PROPERTIES LLC February 9, 2000 Page 6 A'i-FEST: 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 February 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: Tentative Tract 15963 and Development Review 99-42 This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above-listed project. This program has been prepared in compliance with State.law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code). Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements: l. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project. 2. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. 3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program. Program Management - The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project planner, assigned by the City Planner, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department. Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1. A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant. 2. An MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be ?eported. All monitoring and reporting documentation will be kept in the project file, with the department having the original authority for processing the project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following address: City of Rancho Cucamonga - Lead Agency Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staff's is needed, as determi~aed by the project planner or responsible City department, to monitor specific mitigation activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the project planner. 4. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of development. 5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP Reporting Form. 6. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions. An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City department: and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel. 7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after written notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to hold issuance ora business license until all mitigation measures are implemented. 8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the responsibility of the City of'Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department. The Department shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of guarantee) with the City. These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City stafftime to monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the required period of time. 9. In those instances requiting long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of building permits. MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III) Project File No.: TT15963 and DR 99-42 Applicant: PKT Properties Initial Study Prepared by: Rudy Zeledon Date: November 15, 1999 · The use of Iow emissions and high energy CP/BO B/C As Necessary A 4 efficiency construction equipment. · Utilization of electric or diesel powered equipment CP/BO B/C As N. ecessary A 4 where feasible. · Encourage ride sharing and transit incentives for CP B/C As Necessary A/D 2 construction crew. · Dust generated by the development shall be CP/BO C As Necessary A 4 retained on-site. · ~ · Utilization, as much as possible, the use of pre- CP/BO B/C As Necessary A/C 2/4 ,~ coated natural colored building materials (water- based or Iow VOC coating) and manual coating or spray equipment with high efficiency transfer. · Grading Plans state equipment shut offwhen not in CP/BO C Plan Check C 2 use. Extend construction period during smog season (May-October) · A minimum of 6-foot high wall shall be constructed CP/BO B\C Prior to the CIA 2 along Archibald Avenue (Lots 9-11). issuance of building permits · The homes (Lots 9-11) shall be air conditioned, CP/BO B Prior to the C 2 insulated, and feature dual glazed windows to issuance of permit "window closed" condition, building permits MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14759 Page 2 Key to Checklist Abbreviations Responslble Person~j~.~i~j~,.'~r*, ~Mo~.lt~Hng Fr~quency~,t~ii~J;~,i'~;~ti ,.Method,ot~Ver~flcatton~.!'[,!~'.',~,ii;ii~,i~:, ;~?~'~ ....... :,~,~.~ ,:,_~ .~. ~ ~,.,~.~r~-..~-~.~.~..~.~' ,.~. · CDD - Community Development Director ^ - With Each New Development ^ - On-site Inspection 1 - Withhold Recordation of Final Map CP - City Planner or designee B - Prior To Construction ~ - Other Agency Permit i Approval 2 - ~N~tnnol(~ Gracling or Uu~ld~ng Permit CE - City Engineer or designee C - Throughout Construction C - Plan Check 3 - Withhold Certificate of Occupancy BO - Building Official or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submittal (Reports / Studies / Plans) 4 - Stop Work Order PO - Police Captain or designee E - Operating 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds FC - Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP i:~LAN NING~ClNAL~PLNGCOMM'~ENVDOC\3q'15663.MMCLwpd COIVlMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: Tentative Tract 15965 and Development Review 99-42 SUBJECT: 13 Lot Subdivision APPLICANT: PKT Properties LLC LOCATION: South of Banyan Street, east side of Archibald Avenue, west of London 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: Completion Date A. General Requirements 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Pfanner's letter of approval, and all I Standard Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and construction plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check. B. Time Limits 1. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning __ Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the City Engineer within 3 years from the date of the approval. C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans whicl 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. SC -12/99 1 project No. 1'rl 5963 Comple~on Date 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all __1__1 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 ~ssuance 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 pdor to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 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, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 8. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units I with all receptacles shielded from public view. 9. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be I I__ located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 10. Street name,~; shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the I adopted Street Naming Policy pdor to approval of the final map. 11. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restdcfions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the I Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a Iisi of the name and address of their officers on or before January I of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 12. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeownera' 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 pdor to the issuance of building permits. 13. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for Ci~ Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirement.,., special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. SC-1~99 Project No. TTIS963 Completion Date 14. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double i wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's perimeter. 15. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each I support post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two %-inch lag bolts, to withstand high winds. Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall extend at least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade. 16. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. __1__ __ 17. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron or black plastic coated chain link to maintain an open feeling and enhance views. 18. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. __/__ __ 19. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. __1____ 20. Where rock cobbie is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. D, Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. Multipte car garage driveways shall be tapered down to a standard two-car width at street. __ I__ __ E. Landscaping 1. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than I__1__ 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on __1 the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 5. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, __ __1 the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. F. Environmental 1. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the SC -12199 amount of ,";719.00, prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. G. Other Agencies 1. The applicar~t shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and I I location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: H. General Requirements 1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: I a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g. Planning Division Project Number (i.e., 'ir #, CuP #, DR #, etc.) cleady identified on the oulside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils / report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. __1 __ __ 4. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation I coverage to the City pdor to permit issuance. I. Site Developme,t 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be I marked with the project file number (i.e., CUP 98-01). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to I 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, TranspoAation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. SC -12/99 Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation __1 and pdor to issuance of building permits. 4. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all __ supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bernard/no County Department of · Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits. 5. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. J. New Structures 1. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. __ __ I__ K. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City ____/__ Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to __1 I perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the I__ __ time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. /__ 5. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for __1__ __ existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California Registered Civil Engineer. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, 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): 33 total feet on London Avenue 50 total feet on Archibald Avenue 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: Archibald Avenue. SC -12/99 5. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final map. "l/We hereby dedicate to the City of Rancho Cucamonga the right to prohibit the construction of (residential) buildings (or other structures) within those areas designated bn the map as building rest~'iction areas." M. 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 pavemenl, drive approaches, sidewalks, s. treet lights, and street trees. 2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Corem Median Bike Other Gutter Pvmt walk Appr, Lights Trail Street Name Trees Trail Island Archibald Ave X X C X X E London Ave X X X X X x Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item: E) post "No Parking" and "No Stopping Signs." 3. improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety ____ I__ 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. Pdor to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a I construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Paw~ment striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, __ __1 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. SC -12/99 Project No, TT15963 Completion Oate (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 I I__ 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 sha/[ 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 I I__ be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved.bY .the City PlanAer prier to submittal for first plan __/ I check. 4. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger~ sha/t be installed per City Standards in __/ I accordance with the City's street tree program. 5. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with __I I adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight sha~l be ~ fl3¢ all project intersections, including driveways. ~ re.~efllJat street intersecti~'~s and commercial or industrial driveways may have ~es (~f s~t ipA~ed as required. N. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans , -~ineering Public Works Standards shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review ar~ ,al prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. I[owing landscaped parkways, medians, paseos, easemer,[s, trails or other areas ~. . annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: Archi~aid Avenue. 2. Public landscape areas are required to incorporate s~stantial areas (40%) of mortared / cobbie or other acceptable non-irrigated surfaces. 3. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior qal map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation - ,nail be borne by the developer. 4. All required public landscaping and irrigation sy~..:s shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. O. Drainage and Flood Control 1. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street. P. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days SC -12/99 prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all o~:her residential projects. Q. General Requirements and Approvals 1. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for I I__ all new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building perrnit issuance if no map is involved. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: R. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. The __1 I 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 ~:o serve the development. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. 2. Fire flow requirement shall be: 1,250 gallons per minute, Per '97 UFC Appendix III-A, 3, lb) I I (Increase). A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire I__1__ department personnel prior to water plan approval. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, I__1__ flushed, and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. 4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required __1__1__ hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire Distdct standards require a 6- inch riser with a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire Distdct that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of the required fire protection system. 6. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. __ I__1__ 7. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 32. __ I__1__ 8. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14 feet, I I__ 6 inches from the ground up, so as not to impede fire apparatus. 9. Fire Districl fee(s), plus a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho I I__ Cucamong~, Fire Protection District as follows: $132 [or Single Family Residential Tract (per phase). sc -12/99 / 10. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1997 UBC, I I UFC, UPC, UMC, and RCFD Standards 32 and 15 and 1996 NEC. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: S. Security Hardware 11. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. I I 12. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doora. If windows are __1 I within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 13. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. __1 I T. Windows 1, All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be __1 / lifted from frame or track in any manner. U, Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for __1 I nighttime visibility. SC -12/99 / United States Department of the Interior ~ Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Carlsbad Fish sad Wildlife Office 2730 Lok~r Avenuo West Carlsbad, Calif~mia 92001~ Rudy Z¢ledon Associate Planner City of Rancho Cueamonga 10500 Civic Cent*r Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Subject: Develolmaertt Review 99-62 a~d 99-63, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bemardino CoumT, California Dear Mr. Zeledon: This letter provides our comm~mts on the Notices of lutent for Development Review 99-62 trod 99-63, re~ived by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Scnvice) on January 20, 2000, for the development of industrial buildhags lathe General Industrial District (Subarea 8). We understand that the proposals are to develop 4.12 a~res located south of Arrow Route and east of White Oak Avenue, and 4.25 acres located at the southeast comer of Tacoma Drive and White Oak Avenue ia the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City), San Bemanlino County, m.spectively. As indicated previously in our letter of May 5, 1998 (attached), we are concerned about the potential impacts to the federalb; endangered Delhi Sma~ flower-loving fly (RImphiomidas terminams abdominalis, "DSF") ~ is known to occur ~ithin sandy ~oils within the proposed project vicinity. The DSF is fully protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. We provide the followlng comments in keep~g with our agancy's mission to work "with others to conserve, protect, and ~hance fish, wildlife, and plant~ mad theix habitat~ for the c~nt~xuing behest oX'the Amerleaa people." Moreover, we l~OV~de ¢oramen~ on pubIie noti~ issued fur a Federal pexmlt ~r llcanae a~ing ~e Nation's w-a~ers pursuant ~o the Elean Water Act. We also administer the Act. $~ion 7 of thc Act r~quires Federal agencies to ¢oasuk with us, the Service, should it be determined that their actions may affect federally listed specie& Seclion 9 of the Act prohibits the "take" (e.g., harm, harassment, pursuit, injmy, ldlI) of federatly li~ted wildlife. 'q-Iamb" is furth~ defined to include habitat modi~cation ~ degradafio~ where it kills or injures wildlife by impaitln§ esseniial behavioral patterns including breeding, feeding, or shellaring. Take incidental to otherwise lawful activities can be authorlz~d under sections 7 (Federal consultations) and 10 (habitat conservation plans) of thc ACt. 02/08/2000 17:00 F.,I..I: 76:00180638 US FI$1t ..~','D WILDLIFE t~]003 P, ndy Zclcdon 2 We have reviewed the habitat-ba~ed ~'aluatiou~'conducted by Scott Cameron of Impact Science~. As indicated in the report. DSF a~ capable of oceupying sub-optlm~! habitats and definitive cor.~lusio".~ relative to the p~cncc or absence c~nnot be ascertained absent conducting fc<~cd surveys for DSF. Therefore, w~ disa~ree with Mr. Camezon's conclu~ior~ that thc proposed development will not likely result/n adverse effects to the DSF. Thus, we am providing the following comm~lts alld recoml~ar~rlatiol~ to emable tile City and the project proponent to '~ke proper action with regard to the endangered specie~ concerns on the proposed project sites. We conducted site visits from the side of the road on Alzi128, 1995, and again on Februay 3, 2000, and det~-rml,ed that both sites co~ain appropriate soils that could support thc DSF and native plant s]~'ie~ associated with DSF-occupied sit~s. We concluded that the site had the pomntial to support DSF i~ our previous lett~ and site condiEon~ do n~t appear to have cha~ged since thai tim.% therefore, we still we reconunend that protocol surveys for the DSF bc ~onducted by a permittixi biologist, or th~ appropriate authorization pursuant to the Act be obtained prior to any disturbance on the site. In _~.ddition, a habitat assessment should be conducted by a qualified biologist to ch.'t.~mlne it'th~ sit~ coptsini eaas,gered San Bemardino hlngaro0 rat (Dipodomy$ merr~arn~par~us; "SBKR'9 ~ or burrows. Ii'so, the site should be trapped by a permltted biologist to detarmi,e the status oftbe SBKK on the project site. Sites that comain unconsolidated soils in the area are si~i6cant because they play a critical role in the recovery of the DSF in this recovery uuit. Thc recovc~, plan for the DSF identified the =tablishraent of a recovcry unit in the Ontario area, wherein a secur~ t..abit~t base will need to bc conserved and restored to achieve population stability and recovery of the species. Further habitat loss in ~ recovery unit by th;~ project and others will incrcas~, thc likelihood of extinction ofl~a¢ DSF in the Ontario Recovery Unit. Wc ar~ now working with several cities wltl~a San BcTnardino County to ad&ess issues relating to DSF regionally, inclual,g the cities of Rancho Cuc~on~a and entitle. This regional solution would identify lands that would be conserved for DSF and lands that could b~ developed outside of the re.serve are,~. Although the plan ~ still being developed, the ultimate plan may provide a solution for properties such as the subject sites in thc ne. ar future. We are also concerned about the potential impacts of the p, ogosed project to the sensitive burrowing o~t (.4thene ca, leu/az/a), and other sensitive species that occur in the general area, and captors that use the area as foraging habitat. Due to urban and indnsVial development, DSF, SBKR. and burrowing owls have declined throughout this area of San Bemardino County. Issues related to sigrdficant biological resour~s on the proposed project site, such as d~velopment and loss of Delhi sands that either support or have the potential to support the DSF, SBKll, burrowing owl, and use of the site by foraging raptor~, should be adequately addr~sed under th~ California Eo'vironmentaI Quality Act (CEQA). We app,'eib: th~ opportunity to previde comments on the proposed projects and are a~allable to work with the City and project proponent to avoicl, m~imize, and mitigate impacts to federally listed and sensitive specie~. We request that final approval of thc proposed project be deferred 02/08/2000 17:00 F.4~ 7609180635 US FISH ~\~ WILDLIFE ~004 Rud7 Zdedon 3 until the issues raised in this lette~ been resolved. If you have any question~ regarding this letter, please coni~.ct Mary Beth Woulfe of this oflSce at (760) 431-9440. Assistant Field Supervisor Attachment 1 4-~O-~TA-197 cc: City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA (Attn: Brad Bullet/Larry Henderson) CDFG, Chino, CA (Attn: Robin MeLoaey Rames) Torrance, CA (Attn: Mark Capellino) Impact Sciences, Aguora tflls, ~CA (Attn: Scott Cameron/Keith Babcock) TH E CITY O F [~A N ClIO C U CAf'lO N GA Staff Report TO: Chairman and Member~ o~ the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner DATE: February 9, 2000 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-62 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES - The development of three industrial buildings totaling 82,376 square feet on 4.12 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Arrow Route, approximately 300 feet east of White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-02 and 209-471-03. Related File: Development Review 99-63. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North - Existing Office/light industrial buildings; Industrial Park (Subarea 7) South - Existing Warehouse/manufacturing building; General Industrial (Subarea 8) East Existing Warehouse/office building; General Industrial (Subarea 8) West Vacant; General Industrial (Subarea 8) B. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - General Industrial North - Industrial Park South - General industrial West General industrial C. Site Characteristics: The site is a previously rough graded pad within a Master Planned Industrial Park approved by the Planning Commission in 1992. The original Master Plan (Exhibit "B") consisted of 13 industrial buildings, and specifically, 2 buildings on the parcel where these new buildings are proposed. No significant vegetation and no structures exist on the property. Curb, gutter, and driveway approaches exist along the entire property frontages. Sidewalk and street trees, which have only been marginally maintained and will be replaced with development, exist along certain portions of the property frontages. The site slopes minimally from north to south. ITEM H PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT .. DR 99-62 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES Februa~ 9, 20,::)0 Page 2 D. Parkinq Calculations: Buildinq A Number of Number of Type Square ' ' Pa~:kin~- Spaces Spaces of Use Footaqe Ratio Required Provided Warehouse 15,912 1/1000 (1 st 20,000) 1~6 TOTAL: 15,912 16 33 Buildinq B Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footaqe Ratio Required Provided Warehouse 31,324 1/1000 (1 st 20,000) 2._~6 1/2000 (2nd 20,000) TOTAL: 31,324 26 55 Buildinq C Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footaqe Ratio Required Provided Office 8,928 1/250 36 Manufacturing 6,075 1/500 12 Warehou se 20,137 1/1000 (1 st 20,000) 2._~0 TOTAL: 35,140 68 74 ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is proposing to develop three industrial buildings, totaling 82,376 square feet. All three buildings front onto Arrow Route, which is a Special Boulevard, and are oriented so that the main office areas and most embellished elevations face Arrow Route. In addition, all truck storage and loading is located behind the buildings away from Arrow Route. There are three existing drive approaches on Arrow Route that will be utilized as shared access by all three buildings and an existing office building on the southwest corner of Arrow Route and Oakwood Place. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 99-62 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES February 9, 2000 Page 3 The project site is part of a Master Planned Industrial Park originally approved by the Planning Commission in 1992. The overall architectural scheme is consistent with other existing buildings within the Master Planned Industrial Park. Buildings A and B incorporate secondary design material accents such as sandblasted _concrete, brick veneer, and fluted concrete. Sandblasted concrete banding, high rectangular windows, and two pop-out flutted furring design elements that extend above the roof line, are proposed along the north elevation of the buildings (area visible from Arrow Route). In addition, pop-out flutted furring design elements, along with areas of glass with brick veneer accents, are being used to frame the entrance on the northwest corner of Building A and the northeast corner of Building B. Building C also incorporates secondary design material accents such as sandblasted concrete, and brick veneer. Sandblasted concrete and glass windows (with brick veneer accent banding above the top and bottom of windows) are proposed along the north elevation of the building. The secondary materials, along with areas of glass with brick veneer accents and columns of sandblasted concrete, will be used to frame the building entrances on the northwest and northeast corners of the building. B. Desiqn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Fong) reviewed the project on December 14, 1999, and recommended approval of the project subject to conditions contained in the attached Design Review Committee Action Comments (Exhibit "G"). C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical and Grading Committees have reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to conditions. D. Environmental Assessment: The applicant completed Part I of the Initial Study. Staff completed Part II of the Initial Study, the Environmental Checklist, and found that there could be a significant effect on the environment relative to drainage patterns and potential lost habitat for the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSF). The site is identified on maps prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as potentially having the appropriate Tujunga-Delhi soil classification to support the DSF. A Habitat Assessment Survey was prepared by a federally certified biologist to assess the soils, vegetation, and species composition on the site. Based on the reconnaissance level habitat evaluation of the site's existing environmental conditions, the project site does not provide a high quality habitat for the DSF due to: (1) lack of substantial, open sandy areas, (2) relatively dense coverage of invasive, non-native vegetation, (3) soil disturbance from previous grading, and (4) Iow habitat linkage value due to surrounding land uses (e.g., commercial development). Based on this information, the proposed development of the 4.12-acre site will not likely result in adverse effects to the DSF. No other potentially significant environmental impacts are identified in the Initial Study. The issue of potential drainage pattern impacts generated by the project has been addressed by requiring that sufficient drainage/flood protection facilities be provided to the project area. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT .. DR 99-62 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES Februa~ 9,2000 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approval Development Review 99-62 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of approval with conditions and issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration. lbmitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:RZ~ma Attachments: Fxhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Fxhibit "B"- Approved Master Plan Fxhibit "C"- Site Plan Fxhibit "D"- Landscape Plan Fxhibit "E"- Grading Plan Fxhibit "F" - Building Elevations Exhibit "G"- Design Review Committee Action Comments, dated December 14, 1999 Exhibit "H"- Initial Study Resolution of Approval CENTER DRIVE ] ~ GOV't. Lot 2 '~, ~ '- ~r. 6 .._.~ .._ ::./, ,?\ -' , I.:' '. ..~i: /I ' i , I ::,I ,I ! ! I I , ,//,, ./ ~ , : % ._,_.__ ~.':-" h\,~%. .-, ,, , , , , ./ ?' .. ~/ ?' .,. . ........ II .._ ,. // / /" " Po?.L. _ (~ ,.,el rE .' · /,, Pot. I ........ · .'/ --" .-. ')' .. , ,' s .~!,~c.~/t_ ,' ~ / Pot JO -' I MAP 804-36-?K '~ X 8.o9,,e.*,/~- 5. r¢^c. ..ez. Ac., '. e'~' Pot. ,.~ StT E .1JTILIZATION PLAN Pot. 4 60._~0.' ~R_ADI_~U_S _ Iff__AP._ ,o.c* ~: ~ _,;; 'J':° J ' -- ' .... J' JIJIJIIIIUIIIIIIIIIIJIIIJlIII In Illllllllln iiiiii1i u. ........................ ~llllllllllJ :. Jlllllllllllllllllll ,,,--"~. '1 Illllllllllllllllltllllllllllllllll IIIIIIIIllllllllll~IIIIIlll~ .-,~'_:. j ~ ................................... SITE PLAN City Of Rancho Cucamonga, Califor;%:; 'j J .. INDUSTRI,~,L BUILDINGS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO. A~ow ~o~,~ ~ 8 I T E P L A N .... ...-~ SIERRA, PRECISION BUILDING AI't~ © V~ PARK city of Rancho Cucamonga. California CAP BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO. .............. ,., , ,_, ...... ,., I: 8 I T E P L A N .... ',-'~' ^ ~ ~ o w ~-o'b T ~ '/ EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVAT!ON -- SOUT. ELEVAT,ON '[ I'i~ SOUTH '"" .... li l ~EST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:15 p.m. Rudy Zeledon December 14, 1999 ENVIRONMEN'rAL ASSEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-63 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES - The development of a 67,620 square foot industrial building on 4.25 acres of land in the General thdustrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast come~r of Tacoma Ddve and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-11. Desiqn Parameters: The project site is part of a Master Planned Industrial Park originally approved by the Planning Commission in 1992 and as shown in Exhibit "A." The site has been rough graded previously and 'c3ntains no significant vegetation. The perimeter of,the.site is.improved with curb and gutter, ddveway approaches and no sidewalk or street side landscaping. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 2 percent. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide ant outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad issues will be on the focus of Committee discussion r~garding this project: .'.- The proposed industrial building incorporates painted tilt-up concrete accented with sandblasted concrete band, bdck veneer, and fluted concrete'matedals. It is designed to be consistent with the architectural s~e established in the indus~al park. Therefore, there are no major issues. However, the applicant should address the following secondary issues to further enhance the design of the project. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Provide sandblasted concrete banding, along the middle and top of the building plane at the east and ~south elevations. Continue the same sandblasted concrete banding along ~he top of the building plane of the south elevation. 2. The employee plaza area shall be relocated to an area, easily accessible to employees. The plaza area should be designed to be an integral part of the site design. Considbr locating the employee plaza area along the north elevation of building and incorporating a walkway from the main entrance to the plaza area. 3. Redesign the existing driveway approach on Tacoma Ddve to provide a more convenient common ingress and egress, between the project site and the existing industrial building to the east. 4. The screen wall on the east side of the building should be setback approximately 17-feet from the proposed location, to provide a sufficient truck turning radius out of the rear trailer court onto the common ddve on the east. In addition, the proposed trailer parking spaces along the rear property line and at the southeast comer of the building, should be eliminated and redesigned as angle parking along the rear property to provide better truck circulation. DRC COMMENTS DR 99-63 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES · - December 14, 1999 Page 2 5. The screen wall design on the west and east sides of the site, should consist of sandblasted concrete with a reveal detail along the top portion of the wall, to tie in with the building design. 6. Undulating landscaped berms should be used in the streetscape areas to provide visual interest in areas exposed to public view, such as the parking lot along the west side of the project. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the conditions as recommended above. Attachment Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Para Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner. Rudy Zeledon The Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to staffs comments. In addition, the Committee recommended that the nor[heast entrance of the proposed building shall be architecturally enhanced to be consistent with the main entrance on the northwest comer of the building. ~ ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM ~'*'~*'*~'~° ~'~~,,~,~0 o~ ....... (Part I--Initial Studyi ($C9} 477-2150 The purpose of this form is to inform the (;Ity of. the basic components of the proposed project so thai the City may review the project pursuarit to (;Ity polioles, ordinances, and guidelines;'the Califofnia'Environmental Quality Act; and the City's' Rules and Procedures to Implement CEQA. It is important that the Information requested In this application be provided In fuliL. · ..... · · · INCOMPLETE APPLICA TION$ WILL NOT BE PROCE$SED Please note that lt ls the responsibility of the applicant to ensure tlsat the apl~lication i$ c[:~nplele at the t~}'ne of subrn#tal; City slaff will not be available to pan'Olin work required to provide missing infomsation. Applicefion Number for the project to which thls form pertaln3: DR 99-62 Project Title: Arrr~ Park Name&Addressofp~c/ectowner(s): Capellino & AssOC~Lates 2020 Del Am0 Blvd., Suite 105, T0rr~nce CA 905Q1_ Name &Addre$S of developer orproject spon$oc C°ntactPer$°n&Add-q;$";:__Ma~fk CaDellino Same Telepho,']e NurnOer' ( 3 1 0 1 3 2 O- ] 2 3 4 frame & Addre~ o[ per',;on preparing tills form (if different from above): Telepho~e Number' · /-/17 INITSTD1%VP~ · 4/96 Page 1 Information indicatecl by asten's~ t") IS nl~ required of non-c, ortstluction CUP's unless otherwise Pequested by staff. °1) Pr~vide e fu~ ~c~e (8-1/-2 x11) c~py ~f the USG$ Q~ac~rant $he~t($) which inc~udes the pr~ject site~ and i~dicate the site boundade$. 2) PrDvide a set of COIor photographs which show representative views ~ tl~e site Imm the north, south, east and west: views. Into an,~ ~r~pl the site from the p#maO~ access points which sewe the site; en_d representative views of ~igni~cant features fn~m tl~e site. include a map $how{ng location of'each ptlolograph. Project Location (clescrl~e;: Arrow Route between Oakwood Place and White Oak Avenue, north of Tacoma Drive. 4) Assessods Panel Numbe~ (a~ch ad~tional sheet If necessa~: .......... Parcel 2 02094~102 Parcel 3 020947109 · ~) ¢ms$$iteArea(aclsq. ft.): Parcel 2 78~108sf Parcel 3 103t162 sf '0) Net Site Ama ~totel site size minus area of puDlic streets & proposed ~edication$); Same 7) DescHbe any pmpo,sed general l)lan amendment of zor~e change w~tch would affect the p~jeci site (attach additional sheet if nece$$aG': Include a description of all permits which v~ll be necessac/ from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and ~thor gcvemmenta..' agencies in order lo fully implement the project: INITST01 .WPD - 4/t~6 Page 2 Describe the ohy$i~.8! seffing of the site as it exists before the project including information on top~mphy, soil stability, plants an= animals, matu,~ tree=, tmil~ en~ ~ads. ~lnage coupes, an~ ~cenl~ aspects. Deacn~e any exis~ng st~ctum= on site ~nc~uding~geend~nditi~n)~ndtheu~e~fthe~t~ctums~achph~t~mph~ef~igni~cantfeatumsEe$c~bed I~a~Cit~n. $~te all 3ou~e~ of .;nfo~a#on (i.e, geological ancot hydrologic 5luEies. biotic and a~heological ~u~eys, t~c studie~' on ~,arcels 2 and 3 of Parcel M~p 1~9%9-1 The Darcel~ style of the existing buildingS ~ Arrow Park which incc, rporate sand blasted cen~r~t~ b~k~ v.n~.~ ~la~s comDon~nt~ 7 O) Describe the known culiural encl/o~"historical aspects of the site. Sile ell sources of infon'natlon ~bOok$, puDlished repo~f$ end oral hi$~o,'y]: 11) Descn'be 8ny ~)o~se Sources and fheir level= that no__w, affect the site (ai,'c.r,~ff, roaEwey noise, etc.) and how they will affect proposed u~es: N/A INITSTD1 tVPO - 4/9S Page 3 12] Oescdt~e the proposeo' l~roject in (letall. TI;la s~oufd p~e an a~equate ~esc~p~on of t~ site In te~s of ultimate use whic~ ~tl msu~ f~ ~he pm~ed pmject. In~icate if t~em am pmp~ed phases ~r development, t~e extent of ~evelo~ment to occur wit~ each pflase, a~d t~e anticipated ~mplefion of eecfl increment. A~ach eddiEonal sheet(~) if The pro, act. will ~nm~ ~f th~ h~l~i~ ~F 1~.n~h ~f. 3.2 ~g9~sf..~?d 15,870sf. mh~ 35.000sf buildi~.will b~ o~up~,d by ~i~a a company currently in Rancho Cucamonsa. Sierra Precision a~mbl~ am~ d~h~gR~ pressure -' manufacturin~ assembly and distribution. DISC/ a compapx' ,also located in Rancho Cucamon~a, The 13) Descdbe the sun-Dun~1ing prope~$~ ~nc~uding ~nf~n~ati~n ~n p~ant~ and ~n~ma~s and ~ny cu~ture~ hi$t~¢~ ~r ~cen~c eSpects~ Indicate Ihe type of land uae (residential, commetr~lal, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, aparimenl houses, shops, (1apartment stores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yerd, The surroundinQ DroDertie~ ate .' South - Industiral North - Industrial West - Industrial East - Industrial 14) Will tl~e proposed project change tl~a pattern, scale or chacecter of the surrouncling general ama of the project? No INITSTD1 .WPO - 4/96 Page 4 f 5) Indicate the ~pe cf short-term and long-term noise to be generated, including soume and amount. How will these noise levels affect adjacent p~perties and on-$ite use$. Wllat methods of sound prooflng are p~o~osad? No si~nificant ~'&s'e levels will' be produced. Indicate proposes removals and/or mplacements of matuce or scenic trees: N lA 17) Indicate any 0o~$ of water (Including domestic water SUpplies) Into which the site drains: N / A 18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, p/ease contact tl~e Cucamonga County Water DIst~ct at 987.2591. a. Residential (gal~day) Peak use (gel/Day) b. Commemial/Ind. fgal/day/ec) _~ 2 4 2 Peak use (gsl/mln/ac) 19;4R~ Based on General Indu~rLal for 4.161 ac. l g) Indicate proposed method o/sewage disposal. Sepllc Tank ~ Sewer. If septic tanks am proposed, attach percolation tests. If dischs~e to a aanitaO' sewage system is proposed Indicate expected daily sewage generation: (See A~tacnment A for u*.~age esr'mates). For fu~f~er cla~licetion, please contact the Cucamonge Coun~ Water Oistricl st 987-259 b. Commerc/al/~t:d. (gal/day/ac) RESIDENTIAL 20) i~urn~er of re$iden,'ial units; ~etac~ed (indlcat~ range of panel sizes, minimum lot size anE maximum lot ~ize; IN~TSTD1 .W~D - 4tgt':j Page 5 Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): __ Anticipeted renge of sale pfices and/or mnJs: Sale Prce(s) ........ $ ,, tO $ Rent (per month) $ to $__ Sflecif¥11umber of bed~ooms by unit,type; 23) Indicate anticipeled household size ~y unit ~ype: 24) indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project: Contact the appropriate School Distdcts as shown in Attachment B: a Elemental; b, Junior High: __ c. Senior High .~Of~MERCIAL. INDUSTRIAL AND 25) Dascn'Oe type of use(s) and meJ~r function($) of common;iai, indusffial or institutional uses; __ an~ ~list~ib~tion ~e$. ~ 000~ ~000~ ancl ~ S~870~ INITSTD1 W~D. 4/96 Page 6 27) Indicate hou~ of operation: Hou~'~ ~f on~'~%i~n w~ ] ] 7:05AH ~O 7:00PM f'or 5-6 days per week. 28] Number of emflloyees: Total'. Estimated to be 80' for the three buildin]$ ~. , Maximum Shift: Time of Maximum Shift: 29) Pr~vide breakd~vm ~f ant~cipate~ j~D c~aas~cati~ns~ inc~uding wage and sa~ary ranges~ a~ we~ as ~n indicati~n ~f ~he mte of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary): · ~ ~ OCCt~ ..... 30) Estimefion of the num~er of wo~ers fo be himd that currenlly re$ide in the CJty; To be provided ]3¥ '31) For commemial e,ld industdal uses only, indicate the Soume, type end amount of eir pollution emissions. [Data should be verffle(~ through tile South Coast Air Quafily Management Dialect, et (818) 572.6283): None PROJECTS 32) Heve the weter~ ~ew~r~ ~m~ an~ ~d c~ntm~ agencies serving the pr~ject ~een c~nt~cted ~ ~et~n~ni~e lheir abi#~y ~ ~r~vide a~equate service t3 the pn~posed proj'ect? If sc, please indicate their response. INiTSTD1 .WPD · 4/95. Page 7 33) In the known history of this p~oper~, has there been any use. storage, or discharge of hazardous end/or tOxiC materfals? Examples of haze~ou~ ancot toxic mated~ls Include, but ~m not limited to PCB's; ~dioac~ive ~ubstances: pesO/c/des and .... he~icides; fu~l~, ~1~, ~o~ents, e~ ot~er flammable fiquids and ga~es, Al~o note unEe~mund storage of any of t~e above. Please list the maledals and de$~be their use, stooge, an~o~ di~cha~e on the pmpe~y, a3 weft as the dates of u~e. ir 34) ~MII Ihe proposed p,oJect involve the temporary or long-term use, storage or discharge of hazardous and/or to~;Ic materials, Including but not limited to those examples listed above? If yes, provide an inventory of all such materials to be used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment emas. shall ba shown and labeled on the application plans. N9 I hereby certify that the statements rural=her above and in the attached exhibits present the data and infomlatlon ~quimd for adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my abiliiy, that the facts, statements, and infom~ation presented am true and correct tot he best of my knowledge and belief, I further unde~tsnd that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequale e~aluation Can be made by the City of Rancho C. ucamonga. ~.~ j ..~ Title: Mark V~ Capellino, Owner INITSTD1 .WPD - 4/96 Page 8 · ~r. ~ City of Rancho Cucamonga · - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND t. Project File: Development Review 99-62 2. Related Files: Development Review 99-63 3. Description of Project: The development of three industrial buildings totaling 82, 376 on 4.12 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Arrow Route, approximately 300 feet east of White Oak Avenue- APN 209-461- 02 and 209-471-03. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Mr. Mark Capellino 2020 Del Arno Boulevard, Suite 105 Torrance, CA 90501 5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial 6. Zoning: General Industrial (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is a previously rough graded pad within a Master Planned Industrial Park with similar buildings ~lready constructed south and east of the site. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning r'livision 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Rudy Zeleclon, Assistant Planner (909) 477-2750 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-62 Parle 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing (X) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (X) Geological Problems Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics (X) Water Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality Noise ( ) Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (X) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATE~NEGA,TIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Signed: F~dyZe~on, Assistant Planner ~anuar~, 2000 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (X) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (X) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (X) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ( ) (X) established community? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-62 P.~e 3 2. POPUL.~TION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal'. a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through p~:Oje~ts in an undeveloped area or extension of major inhastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) (X) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) (X) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) (X) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) (X) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) (X) f) Erosion changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) (X) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) (X) h) Expansive soils? ( ) (X) ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: h) The General Plan indicates the Tujunga-Delhi soil association for the site which "May have soil bearing capacities that could limit some development. Structures proposed on 'this soil type should be permitted only after a site specific investigation has been prepared that indicates that the soil can adequately support the weight of the structure," A soils report will be required by the Building and Safety Division prior to the issuance of building permits. The impact is not considered significant, Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-62 Parle 4 4, WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ) (X) ( ) ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? -. ) ( ) (X) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ) ( ) (X) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) ( ) (X) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The project is expected to result in changes to absorption rates and drainage patterns. New inundation areas (separate document) will be recorded and old areas vacated, prior to the issuance of building permit. As mitigation, drainage/flood protection facilities will be provided for the project area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer as follows: · The runoff (Q100) from the site shall not exceed the capacity of the existing public storm drain system to the south. The amount of on-site detention shall be based on a proration of available capacity of the undeveloped parcels on a per acre basis for the area tributary to the cul-de-sac at the south end of Vincent Avenue, just north of the A.T.S.F. railroad main line. Reference the hydrology/hydraulic study prepared for Parcel Map 12959 to the east on file with the City. · Easements shall be delineated and inundation rights dedicated, prior to the issuance of building permits. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-62 Page 5 · No public water shall be tributary directly to the inundation areas. · In automobile and truck parking and maneuvering areas, ponding depths shall not exceed 12 inches and 18 inches, respectively, and shall not exceed 6 inches for more than 4 hours. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) (X) 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Ha;.,ards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) (X) o) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) (X) e) Ha~:ards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) (X) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e,g,, bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) (X) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-62 Parle 6 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to! plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)_.'? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identifies the project area soil type as Tujunga-Delhi Sand Soils which is a type of soil that is associated with the endangered Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (DSF). A habitat assessment was prepared (Impact Sciences, December 16, 1999) by a biologist permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct surveys for DSF. In summary, results of the habitat-based survey indicate that the site does not currently support optimal DSF habitat, and that the biological characteristics of site are not consistent with areas occupied by DSF. In addition, the site is located in a relatively isolated area that does not provide conspicuous connection between identified potential or known DSF reserve areas due to adjoining development and regional site location. Based on the reconnaissance- level habitat evaluation of the site's existing environmental conditions, the project site does not provide high quality habitat for DSF due to: (1) lack of substantial, open sandy areas, (2) relatively dense coverage of invasive, non-native vegetation, (3) soil disturbance from previous grading, and (4) Iow habitat linkage value due to surrounding land uses (e.g., commemial development). Based on this information, the proposed development of the 4.12-acre site will not likely result in adverse effects to DSF. No other unique, rare, or endangered animal species are known to be potentially located on the project site. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-62 Parle 7 b) Use nomrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) R,gsult in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 9. HAZAR DS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) In conjunction with the manufacturing activities within the building, materials such as oil anti other chemicals may potentially be used. Use of any such hazardous substances will require special permits to ensure safe handling, storage, and operation. The impact is not considered significant. 10. NOISE. Willtheproposalresultin: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ) (X) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-62 Parle 8 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ( ) (X) ( ) b) Police protection? ( ( ) ( (X) c) Schools? ( ( ) ( (X) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( (X) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( (X) Comments: a) Manufacturing activities may include use of hazardous chemicals which would require special permits for the Fire Prevention District. The impact is not considered significant. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for'new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power and natural gas? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) (X) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) (X) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) (X) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) (X) 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-62 Parle 9 b) H~ve a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Comme~nts: ~ "'"' c) New light and glare will be created on the property with development of the vacant site. A condition of approval requires an on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram of the entire property, to be required for review and approval of the Planning Division and the Rancho Cucamonga Sheriff's Department, prior to the issuance of building permits. The plan will be checked to ensure that it meets City policies relative to avoiding the casting of excess light and glare onto adjacent properties. 14. cULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) (X) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) (X) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) (X) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change, which wouldaffect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) (X) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) (X) 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) ' (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-62 Page 10 ImpactPotentially' Impac~ Impact 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the ....P.,°tential 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,-thrbaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long- term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15083(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (X) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (X) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 2fO9f and 2f092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: DevelOpment Review 99-62 Public Review Period Closes: February 9, 2000 Project Name: - Project Applicant: Capellino and Associates Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the south side of Arrow Route, approximately 300 feet east of White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-02 and 209-471-03. Project Description: The development of three industhal buildings totaling 82,376 square feet on 4.12 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Related file: Development Review 99.63. 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 Inifial 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 mi~gate 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. February 9, 2000 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-62, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT THREE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TOTALING 82,376 SQUARE FEET ON 4.12 ACRES OF LAND IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 8) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ARROW ROUTE, APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET EAST OF WHITE OAK AVENUE-AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APN: 209-461-02 AND 209-471~03. A. Recitals. 1. Capellino and Associates has filed an application for the approval of Development Review 99-62 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 February 9, 2000, 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 February 9, 2000, 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 Arrow Route, approximately 300 feet east of White Oak Avenue, with an Arrow Route street frontage of approximately 776 feet and lot depth of approximately 243 feet, and is presently improved with curb, gutter, drive approaches, and street trees in streetscape areas along the site's street frontage; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with light industrial/office buildings, the property to the south is developed with three industrial buildings, the property to the east is developed with an office building, and the property to the west is vacant; and c. The application contemplates the construction of three industrial buildings totaling 82,376 square feet on a portion of an approved Master Planned Industrial Park site where two buildings were originally shown; and d. The proposed buildings are designed with the same pdmary and secondary exterior materials as all other existing buildings within the Master Planned Industrial Park; and e. The application contemplates the vacation and re-establishment of on-site inundation areas for drainage purposes. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99-62 CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES February 9, 2000 Page 2 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 ir) accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purpo.,~es of the district in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. e. That the vacation and re-establishment of inundation areas on-site is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. Bas.ed upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Pro.gram attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder;, that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant environmental ,~'ffects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the project, which are listed below as conditions of approval. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, th,.= Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife d,,,pends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission dudng the public headng, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-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 Commissior~ hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99-62 CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES February 9, 2000 Page 3 Plannin,q Division 1) The sandblasted concrete 'banding, along the middle and top of the building plane on the north elevations of all three proposed buildings, shall be continued along to the east and south elevations to provide additional architectural enhancement to the building. Along the rear elevation (south) the sandblasted concrete banding shall continue along the top of the building plane only. 2) A landscaped strip (5 feet wide inside dimension) shall be designed on the east and west sides of all three proposed employee plaza areas, to provide a buffer zone between the parking spaces and the plaza. 3) All elements of the streetscape design (landscaping, berming, and walls) shall be coordinated for consistency and reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits. Undulating landscaped berms along Arrow Route should be used in the streetscape areas to provide visual interest in areas exposed to public view. 4) The perimeter landscape strip along the rear property line shall be a minimum of 5-feet (inside dimension). 5) Catalog cuts of the proposed outdoor amenities within the outdoor eating/plaza area (benches, tables, etc.) and construction details shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits. 6) The site plan for Building C indicates a proposed dust collector, a 50 foot x 8 foot compressor shed and a 25 foot x 20 foot storage building, all of which are not shown on any of the elevations. Therefore, approval of these structures will be subject to a Minor Development Review (MDR) at a future time. At the time of MDR process, the structures will be required to be architecturally compatible with the building design and screening will be required for all exposed equipment. En,qineedn,q Division 1) Street trees shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the City Engineer including areas where driveways will be removed. Dead or dying trees shall be replaced with current tree species for respective streets. An assessment, by a cedified arborist, to determine the viability of any tree the applicant would like to preserve shall be required. 2) R26S "No Stopping Any Time" signs shall be installed or protected in place on all frontages. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99-62 CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES '- February 9, 2000 Page 4 Environmental Miti.qated Measures 1} As proposed, the project will encroach on the recorded inundation areas. New inundation areas described by separate document shall be recorded and old areas vacated prior to the issuance of building permits. Drainage/flood protection facilities shall be provided for the project area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer as foll(~ws! a) The runoff (Q100) from the site shall not exceed the capacity of the existing public storm drain system to the south. The amount of on-site detention shall be based on a proration of available capacity of the undeveloped parcels on a per acre basis for the area tributary to the cul-de-sac at the south end of Vincent Avenue, just north of the A.T.S.F. railroad main line. Reference the hydrology/hydraulic study prepared for Parcel Map 12959 to the east on file with the City. b) Easements shall be delineated and inundation dghts dedicated, pdor to the issuance of building permits. c) No public water shall be tributary directly to the inundation areas. d) In automobile and truck parking and maneuvering areas, ponding depths shall not exceed 12 inches and 18 inches, respectively, and shall not exceed 6 inches for more than 4 hours. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTE.~ THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2000. PLANNING CC, MMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the Cit~/of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of February, 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99-62 CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES February 9, 2000 Page 5 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: " City of Rancho Cucamonga ' MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File N(~.: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-62 This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated NegativeDeclaration for the above-listed project. This program has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code). Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements: 1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project. 2, A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. 3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program. Program Management - The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project planner, assigned by the City Planner, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the conditions (mitigation) that relate to that depadment. Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1. A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant. 2. An MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting documentation will be kept in the project file with the department having the original authority for processing the project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following address: City of Rancho Cucamonga - Lead Agency Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Mitigation Monitoring Program DR 99-62 January 26, 2000 Page 2 3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staff's is needed, as determined by the project planner.or responsible City department, to monitor specific mitigation activities and provide appropriate wdtten approvals to the project planner. 4. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of development. _ 5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring witl be signed off as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP Reporting Form. 6. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions. An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City department and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel. 7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after wdtten notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented. 8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department. The Department shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of guarantee) with the City. These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the required period of time. 9. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring results tothe City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director pdor to the issuance of building permits. MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III) Project File No.: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-62 Applicant: Mark Capellino Initial Study Prepared by: Rudy Zeledon Date: January 18, 2000 · The runoff (O100) from the site sha~l not exceed the CE B~C As Necessa~ A~C 3 capaci~ of the existing public sto~ drain system to the south. The amount of on-site detention shall be based on a proration of available capaci~ of the undeveloped parcels on a per acre basis for the area tributa~ to the cu~-de-sac at the south end of Vincent Avenue, just no~h of the A.T,S,F. railroad main line. · Easements shall be de~ineat~ and inundation rights CE B ~s Necessa~ C~D 2 dedicated, prior to the issuance of building permits. · No public water shall be t~ibuta~ directly to the inundation areas. CE B/C As Necessa~ CID 2 · In automobile and truck parking areas, ponding depths sha~l not exceed 12 inches and 18 inches, CE B/C As Necessa~ C/D 2 respectively, and sha~l not exceed 6 inches for more than 4 hours. Key to Checklist Abbreviations Responsible Per~on !,,%,~,,*~. ~., ?.;i. Monitoring Frequency ~-,,~:~,, :;, ~ Method o[Ve~lflcaflon i :': '~ ~' '": ~?i Sanctions : CDD - Community Development Director A - With Each New Development A - On-site Inspection 1 - Withhold Recordation of Final Map CP - City Planner or designee B - Prior To Construction B - Other Agency Permit I Approval 2 - Withhold Grading or Building Permit CE - City Engineer or designee C - Throughout Construction C - Plan Check 3 - Withhold Certificate of BO - Building Official or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submittal (Repods I Studies I Plans) 4 - Stop Work Order PO - Police Captain or designee E - Operating 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds FC - Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAN DAR.D ,CON D ITl ON S PROJECT #: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-62 SUBJECT: THREE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TOTALING 82,376 SQUARE FEET APPLICANT: CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF ARROW BOULEVARD, 300 FEET EAST OF WHITE OAK 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: Comoletion Oate A. General Requirements 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its __/ / agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter of approval, and all Standard Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and construction plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check. B. Time Limits 1. Conditional Use Permit, Variance, or DevelopmenVDesign Review approval shall expire if /.__/ building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which /. / include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. SC -12J99 Project No. DR 99-62 Comoletion Date 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3. 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 / I submitted for City Planner review and approyal 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, et(:.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved u.,;e has commenced, whichever comes first. 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, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and /.__/ approved b,./ 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. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units /.~ with all receptacles shielded from public view. 9. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, /. and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be ___/ / located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 11. All parkway.<., 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. 12. 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 requirement.,;, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. D. Building Design 1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, r~hall 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. 2. For commer~.-.ial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main / building colors. SC -12/99 Project No. DR 99-62 Completion Date = E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. When a side of any parking space .~/ / abutsTa building, wall, support column, or other obstruction, the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet. wide. 2. · All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall __._/ / cont.~in a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, ___/ / entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 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. F. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home __/ / landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape 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 20% of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30% within ~/ / commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. 3. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three ~/ / parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. 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. 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. 6. 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. 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 ._._/ I Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. G. Signs 1. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner review and ~/ / approval prior to issuance of building permits. Project No, OR 99-62 Completion Date APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: H. General Requirements 1. Submit four complete sets of plans including the following: ! / a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foun¢lation Plan; c. Floor d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g. Planning Division Project Number (i.e., TT #, CUP #, DR #, etc.) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. _._/ ! · 4. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation c. overage to the City prior to permit issuance. 5. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by .__/ / the Building and Safety Division. I. Site Development 1. Plans shall he submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. Ail plans shall be __j / marked with the project file number (i.e., CUP 98-01). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new 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. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. 5. Construct trash enclosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Division's public /._._/ counter). Project No. DR 99-62 Comoletion Date J. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the properly line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness. 2. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for required occupancy separation(s). 3.Provide draft stops in attic areas, not to exceed 3,000 square feet, in accordance with UBC Table 5-A. 4. Exterior walls shall be constructed of the required fire rating in accordance with UBC Table 5-A 5. Openings in exterior wails shall be protected'in accordance with UBC Table 5-A. 6. Provide smoke and heat venting in accordance with UBC Section 906. 7. Upon tenant improvement plan check submittal, additional requirements may be needed. K. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2.A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3.A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. 5. As a custom-lot subdivision, the following requirements shall be met: a. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all on- site drainage facilities necessaq/for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division prior to final map approval and prior to the issuance of grading permits. b. Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage water that are conducted onto or over adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading and building permits. c. On-site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatering and protecting the subdivided properties, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested. d. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of building and grading permits. (This may be on an incremental or composite basis). e. All slope banks in excess of 5 feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses or planted with ground cover for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building Official. In addition a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. This requirement does not release the applicant/developer from compliance with the slope planting requirements of Section 17.08.040 I of the Development Code. SC -12/99 //_7/'~ 5 Project NO. DR 99-62 Completion Date 6. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for /.__/ existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California Registered Civil Engineer. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWINg'; CONDITIONS: L. Street Improver, nents 1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: ! /__ Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike Other Gutter Pvmt walk Appr, L gh s T Trail Street Name Trees rail Island x Arrow Route 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 cur/ilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. 2. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety ! ii0hts on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered C~vil 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 Cit~ 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 pedormed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a / L 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, / L 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 tratfic 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) galvanize;:l 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. , c _, .s , WE/ 6 Project No. DR 99-62 Completion Date 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 cdnstruction 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 I___/ ., c~ck~. 3. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size (¥ 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. M. Public Maintenance Areas 1. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective / /__ Beautification Master Plan: Arrow Route. N. 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. 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. 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. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: P. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Fire flow requirement shall be: 3,000 gallons per minute, Per '97 UFC Appendix Ill-A, 3, (b) ~ / (Increase). 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 fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. Project NO. DR 99-62 Cornoletlon Date 2. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. 3. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required ! / hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with a ,i-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 4. Prior to the issuance of building perrn~s for combustible construction, evidence shall be / /.___ submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of the required fire protection system. 5. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. / /.~ 6. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: a. Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. / /___ b. Other: 1997 UBC. / / Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking plastics manufacturing, spray painting, flammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the ,--ire Safety Division to determine if the sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. 7. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of /.__ sprinkler sysmm. 8. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: a. Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. /.__/ 9. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: a. All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 32. /___/ 10. A building directory shall be required, as noted below: a. Standard Directory in main lobby. /___/ 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. Fire District fee(s), plus a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho .~/ / Cucamonga Fire Protection District as follows: a. $677 for New Commercial and Industrial Development (per new building).** **Note: Sept, rate plan check fees for Tenant Improvement work, fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 14. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1997 UBC, .~/ UFC, UPC, UMC, and RCFD Standards 32 and 15 and 1996 NEC. Project No. DR 9~62 ComDleticm Date iQ. Special Permits 1. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use, as noted below: a. High piled combustible stock. __/ / · NOTE: SEPARATE PLAN CHECK FEES FOR TENANT IMPROVEMENTS, FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS (SPRINKLERS, HOOD SYSTEMS, ALARMS, ETC.), AND/OR ANY CONS~JLTANT REVIEWS WILL BE ASSESSED UPON SUBMITTAL OF PLANS. NOTE: A SEPARATE GRADING PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL IS REQUIRED FOR ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AND FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS WHERE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PROPOSED WILL GENERATE 50 CUBIC YARDS OR MORE OF COMBINED CUT AND FILL. THE GRADING PLAN SHALL BE PREPARED, STAMPED AND SIGNED BY A CALIFORNIA REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER. R. Security Lighting 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power..~/ L 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 th, entire development. 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures.. / Security Hardware 1. One-inch Single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows ar~ /- / within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 2. All garage or roiling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. /---./ T. 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.