HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/06/28 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY JUNE 28, 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. 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. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW 99-11 - CATELLUS - A 140-acre master plan known as
the Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park, consisting of a mix of
commercial and industrial development in the Industrial Park
(Subarea 7) and General Industrial Districts (Subarea 8) of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on Milliken Avenue between
Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route - APN: 229-011-25, 31, and
32. Related file: Tentative Parcel Map 15295. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration was adopted on April 28, 1999.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice
their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman
and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such
opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign
in after speaking
B. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- 00-03
MCALAN'S PUB AND GRILLE - A request to modify a previously
approved restaurant and bar to permit serving of alcoholic
beverages in the outdoor patio area in the Neighborhood
Commercial District of the Haven Village Center, located at 6321
Haven Avenue (formerly Willie & Pies Pizza) - APN: 201-271-69.
(Continued from June 14, 2000)
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT
15955 - LEE - A residential subdivision and design review of the
detailed site plan and elevations for 22 single family lots on
4.39 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8
dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of San
Bernardino Road, east of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-091-08.
Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental
impacts for consideration.
D. VARIANCE 00-03 - LEE - A request to reduce the minimum lot
depth for Lots 3, 11, and 15 within Tentative Tract 15955 on 4.39
acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling
units per acre), located on the north side of San Bernardino Road
east of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-091-08.
E. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND TIME EXTENSION
FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 FU-MAI LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP - A request for a time extension of a previously
approved tentative tract map for the development of 159 single
family lots on 24.56 acres of land in the Medium Residential District
(8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific
Plan and Development Code areas located belween Foothill
Boulevard and Arrow Route, west of the Cucamonga Creek
Control Channel- APN: 207-211-01, 18 through 21, 31, 32, and
34. Related Files: Development Review 99-27 and Variance
99-06. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted on August
11, 1999.
V. NEW BUSINESS
F. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
00-20 - AYALA - An appeal of the City Planner's denial of a request
to remove one mature tree in the front yard at 7631 Zircon Avenue
- APN: 208-931-42.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the commission. Items
to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda.
VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS
G. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROGRESS- Oral report
Page 2
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an
11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they 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 June 22, 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 '
Planning Commission
June 28, 2000
'G' is CITY WIDE
I
Hillside
t
Banyan
9th/210
J
C,
Arrow
I
I
c 4th
~ -o c c ~
W CITY HALL
City of Rancho Cucamonga~
N
the city of
Rancho Cucamonga
Rel:x rt
DALE: June 28, 2000
TO:. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner
BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEVV 99-11 - CATELLUS
- A 140-acre master plan known as the Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park, consisting of
a mix of commemial and industrial development in the Industrial Park (Subarea 7) and
General Industrial Districts (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on Milliken
Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route - APN: 229-011-25, 31, and 32.
Related file: Tentative Parcel Map 15295. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted on
April 28, 1999.
BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission approved the above referenced project on Apd128, 1999, and
issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration. At that time, the City was not adopting Mitigation Monitoring
Programs with the Negative Declarations. Subsequently, the City has adopted guidelines for the
implementation of the California Quality Act, which requires adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program
by the Planning Commission. Mitigation monitoring is a key component of these guidelines to ensure that
adopted mitigation measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code).
Attached is a Mitigation Monitoring Program and Checklist for the Catellus Master Plan for adoption by the
Commission. This will bring the project entitlement into conformance with the latest adopted CEQA
Guidelines. Neither the environmental impacts nor the mitigation measures are being changed by this action.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Mitigation
Monit/pr~Program for the Catellus Master Plan through minute action.
~/~P'/ ~
Dap,-~olem al~,"
Acting City Planner
DC:BL:ma
Attachments: Exhibit"A" - Initial Study Part II
Resolution Recommending Approval of a Mitigated Monitoring Program and Checklist for
Development Review 99-11
ITEM A
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: Development Review 99-11
2. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit 99-04 - Lowe's Home Improvement Store
3. Description of Project:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-11 - CATELLUS -
A request to establish a master plan for the development of'Rancho Cucamonga Corporate
Park," a 140 acre commercial and industrial complex in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) and
Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, to be located on Milliken
Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route - APN: 229-011-25, 31, and 32.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15295 - CATELLUS - A subdivision of 140 acres of land into 13
parcels in the Industrial Park (Subarea 7) and General Industrial (Subarea 8) Districts of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on Milliken Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and
Arrow Route - APN: 229-011-25, 31, and 32.
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 and General Industrial
6. Zoning: Industrial Park (Subarea 7) Industrial Area Specific Plan, General Industrial
(Subarea 8) Industrial Area Specific Plan
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Vacant land and the Rancho San Antonio Medical
Center to the North, industrial buildings to the west and south, and the Masi Plaza shopping
center and the Epicenter sports part to the east.
8. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-11 - Catellus Page ?
9. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Brent Le Count
(909) 477-2750
10. Other agencies whose approval is required:
A Traffic Impact Analysis has been completed for review by SANBAG
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
( ) Land Use and Planning (v') Transportation/Circulation (~/) Public Services
( ) Population and Housing (*/) Biological Resources (v') Utilities and Service Systems
(¢) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (v') Aesthetics
(v') Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resoumes
( ) Air Quality (*/) Noise ( ) Recreation
( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
( ) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
(v') I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an 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.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-11 - Catellus Page 3
( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
1 ) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signed:
Brent Le Count, AICP
Associate Planner
April 6, 1999
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation
is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to
mitigate the significant effects identified.
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) (,,/) ( )
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~,)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~,)
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community? ( ) ( ) ( )
Comments:
a) The project proposes to align the boundary between Subareas 7 and 8 of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan (ISP) with a planned east-west cul-de-sac. This
alignment is slightly different than that shown on the subarea maps of the ISP;
however, the Plan allows for realignment of land use district boundaries.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-11 ~ Catellus Page 4
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( ) ( ) (¢)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) (¢)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( ) ( ) (~,)
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in
or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/)
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( )
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
d) Seiche hazards? ) ( ) ( )
e) Landslides or mudflows? ) ( ) ( ) (v')
f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ) ( ) ( ) (~')
g) Subsidence of the land? ) ( ) ( ) (~')
h) Expansive soils? ) ( ) (¢) ( )
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ) ( ) ( ) (~')
Comments:
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
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-11 - Catellus Page 5
adequately support the weight of the structure." A soils report will be required prior
to issuance of permits for individual buildings within the Master Plan area. The
impact is not considered significant.
4. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (~/) ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) (~/)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ( ) (~/)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? ( ) (v')
f) Change !n the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations, or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? ( ) (~,)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) (v~)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? ( ) ( ) ( )
Comments:
a) The absorption rate will be altered because of the paving and hard scape proposed
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.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-11 - Catellus Page 6
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~,)
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( )
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) (v') ( ) ( )
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ( ) (~,) ( ) ( )
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ) ( ) ( )
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ) ( ) ( ) (v')
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) (v') ( )
g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
COMMENTS
a) A Congestion Management Program/Traffic Impact Analysis (CMP/TIA) study has
been prepared to determine whether the project will cause increases in vehicle trips
or traffic congestion in excess of projections for the adopted land use. The CMP/TIA
(Transtech Engineers, Inc. March 15, 1999) concluded that the project will result in
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-11 - Catellus Page 7
excessive future traffic congestion. The report recommends certain roadway and
freeway improvements to accommodate the project generated traffic. 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. With mitigation, the impact is not expected
to be significant.
c) The cul-de-sac street (Street A) proposed to intersect the east side of Milliken
Avenue exceeds 600 feet in length. Therefore, a means of secondary access is
necessary connecting to Foothill Boulevard. With mitigation, the impact is not
considered significant.
f) Bus bays are required along the Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route frontage to
comply with the Transit Concept Plan per the City's General Plan. The project design
includes appropriate bus turnout lanes and will be conditioned to install bus shelters
at the time of development. The impact is not considered significant.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) (¢) ( )
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees,
eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal
pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Comments:
a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identifies the project area as potential habitat for
the Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly (DSF). As a result, habitat assessments and
biological surveys will be required to determine potential impacts to the DSF habitat
for future development projects within the Master Plan area. A habitat assessment
and soils study were recently conducted for the Lowe's Home Improvement store
project (Conditional Use Permit 99-04) which covers approximately 5.2 acres at the
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-11 - Catellus Page 8
southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue by a biologist permitted
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct surveys for DSF. Results of the
habitat assessment (Thomas OIsen and Associates, Inc, March 10. 1999. and
amended April 1, 1999) and soils survey (Southern California Geological, January
11. 1999) indicated that at least this portion of 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 rough grading practices, and there are not extensive areas
of exposed sand. No other unique, rare, or endangered animal species are known
to be located on the project site.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposah
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
( ) (v')
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( ) (~,)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? ( ) (~,)
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)? ( ) ( ) ( (v')
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) (~') ( ( )
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ( ( ) ( (~,)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? ( ( ) ( (~.)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? ~ ..~ ( ( ) ( (~)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-11 - Catellus Page 9
Comments:
b) The cul-de-sac street (Street A) proposed to intersect the east side of Milliken
Avenue exceeds 600 feet in length. Therefore, a means of secondary access is
necessary connecting to Foothill Boulevard. With mitigation, the impact is not
considered significant.
10. NOISE. Willthepreposalresultin:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (~') ( )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( )
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
impact is not considered significant.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( ) (~') ) ( )
b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ) (v')
c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ) (~,)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ) (~')
e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( )
Comments:
a) The cul-de-sac street (Street A) proposed to intersect the east side of Milliken
Avenue exceeds 600 feet in length. Therefore, a means of secondary access is
necessary connecting to Foothill Boulevard. With mitigation, the impact is not
considered significant /~/O
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-11 - Catellus Page 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? ) ( ) ( )
b) Communication systems? ) ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v")
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v~)
e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) (v') ( )
f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
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.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
( ) ( ) ( ) (,/)
c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) (v') ( )
Comments:
c) The project will create new light and glare because the site is currently vacant.
Development/design reviews for individual buildings within the Master Plan will
include a Standard Condition of Approval which 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. The impact is not considered
significant. /~//
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-11 - Catellus Page 11
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( )
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
( ) ( ) ( )
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal'.
a) increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the
potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-11 - Catellus Page 12
b) Short term: Does the project have the potential
to achieve shod-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A shod-term
impact on the environment is one which occurs
in a relatively brief, definitive period of time.
Long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects.)
( ) ( ) ( ) (~,)
d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have
environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
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 eadier 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):
(v') General Plan EIR
(Certified April 6, 1981)
(v')Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR
(Certified September 19, 1981)
~ ~ ~ ~6 '~ 11:13
lnitia~ Study for City of Rarrctto Cucamonga
DR 99-11 ("-atellus Pa~e 1~
ENVIRONMENTal_ MITIGATION MEAE, URES:
Transportation.
1 ) The developer .~hali insta$1 frontage street improvements in their ultimate conf'~juration, pe~
City o~linance, and pay Transportation Development fees ~'m' Improvemerl~ within I/~e C~ty
limits and Congestion Management Plan/'Traffic Impact Analysis mitiglefion fees for
improvemenL5 outside the City limits.
2) An approved secondarY means of access shall be pfov~cle~ f~ S~eeI "A' [0 Ute satisfaction
of the rim Chief and the. City Engineer.
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I cerhfy that I am the applicant for the project described in this Inifinl Study. t ackm~,ledge that I
have read this initial Study and the prol.msed mitigalJon measures, Further. I have revised the
~'otcct plan= or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed m~tlgation measures to avoid the
effects or m~t.:Jate the afters tn a point where clearly no slgn~hcant env~ronreental effects would
Signature- ~, ..~/~,
· z'~ Dat~. ~..
I;U: INA[.~PL N(~;OMM~ NVI. X)(~%LIRgg- 1 1 .wpd
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM AND CHECKLIST FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
99-11, A 140-ACRE MASTER PLAN KNOWN AS THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA CORPORATE PARK, CONSISTING OF A MIX OF
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE INDUSTRIAL
PARK (SUBAREA 7) AND GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS (SUBAREA
8) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON MILLIKEN
AVENUE BETWEEN FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ARROW ROUTE, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-011-25, 31, AND
32.
A. Recitals.
1. Hogle-lreland filed an application for the approval of Development Review 99-11, as
described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development
Review request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 28th day of April 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date and
approved the subject application with subject conditions, and granted a Mitigated Negative
Declaration which identified environmental mitigation measures.
3. On the 28th day of June 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the proposed Mitigation Monitoring Program and Checklist and
concluded said meeting on said date.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting on June 28, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission
hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The Mitigation Monitoring Program and Checklist applies to an application for
property located on Milliken Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route, with a street
frontage of 2,600 feet on Milliken Avenue (each side) and 2,500 feet on both Foothill Boulevard and
Arrow Route, and is presently vacant with abandoned vineyards and is improved with a golf driving
range facility in the southeasterly portion; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant and developed with a medical
building, the property to the south consists of industrial buildings, the property to the east is
developed with the Masi Plaza and the Quakes Stadium, and the property to the west is developed
with industrial buildings; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 99-11- CATELLUS
June 28, 2000
Page 2
c. A Congestion Management Program/Traffic Impact Analysis has been prepared for
the project to determine whether the project will cause increases in vehicle trips or traffic congestion
in excess of projections for the adopted land use. The project will be required to install frontage
street improvements in their ultimate configuration, per City ordinance, and pay Transportation
Development fees for improvements within the City limits and Congestion Management Program
mitigation fees for improvements outside the City limits. This will reduce traffic related impacts to
a less than significant level; and
d. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified the project as potential:habitat for the
Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly. Habitat assessments and biological surveys were prepared to
determine potential impacts to the habitat for future development projects within the master plan
area. A 15-acre portion of the site was surveyed (Thomas Olsen and Associates, Inc, March 10 and
April 1, 1999), which did not find adequate Sand Fly habitat since there is a lack of actual Delhi
series soils present, the site has been disturbed through rough grading practices, and there are no
extensive areas of exposed sand. No other unique, rare, or endangered animal species are known
to be located on the site; and
e. The project includes a private ddveway connection between Foothill Boulevard and
the proposed east-west cul-de-sac street intersecting Milliken Avenue, which will provide a
secondaP/means of access for fire safety equipment; and
f. Storm drain improvements necessary to accommodate the project are not in
excess of that provided by the master plan of storm drainage; and
g. The project, with the recommended Conditions of Approval, complies with all
minimum development standards of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and
h. The p~oject provides for a coordinated development scheme for a large area of
land, thereby avoiding potential land use and access conflicts of piecemeal development; and
i. The development of the retail/commercial component is consistent with the
Industrial Park designation of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, in that it will function as a transition
between more intense industrial development to the south and office and retail development to the
north.
:3. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative
DecJaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for
the application, the Planning Commission found that there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopted a Mitigated Negative De¢larafion on
April 28, 1999, for which the Mitigation Monitoring Program and Checklist attached hereto apply, and
incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows:
a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of lg?O, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines
promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the initial Study prepared
therefore reflected the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this
Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in and approved said Mitigated
Negative Declaration with regard to the application.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 99-11- CATELLUS
June 28, 2000
Page 3
b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identified 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 have been
established as Conditions of Approval for the project.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, the Planning Commission found as folJows: In considering the record as a whole, the
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the
proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon
which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning
Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations
with project approval on April 28, 1999.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program and Mitigation
Monitoring Checklist.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2000.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary
I, Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 28th day of June, 2000, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM
Project File No.: Development Review 99-11
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 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 o 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 deparb'nent 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 odginal 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 99-11 - CATELLUS MASTER PLAN
June 28, 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 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 cimumstances 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 period
of time.
9. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City
with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the
monitoring results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified
to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The
monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the
Community Development Director prior to the issuance of building permits.
MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III)
Project File No.: DR 99-11 Applicant: Ho.qle-lreland/CATELLUS
Initial Study Prepared by: Brent Le Count Date: June 28, 2000
TranSportation/Clri~ulatlon:
DeveToper shall pay Transportation Development Impact CE B FINAL MAP D 1
fees and traffic impact fees per the TIA/CMP prepared RECORD
for the Catellus Master Plan.
Construct secondary means of access to Foothill FC/CE B PRIOR TO NC 2/3
Boulevard from Street "A." OCCUPANCY
OF FIRST
BUILDING
' I
Hazards " '~' ~ ·: '
Construct secondary means of access to Foothill FC/CE B PRIOR TO A/C 2/3
Boulevard from Street "A." OCCUPANCY
~ OF FIRST
BUILDING :
~,,~nstruct secondary means of access to Foothill FC/CE B PRIOR TO A/C 2/3
Boulevard from Street "A." OCCUPANCY
OF FIRST
BUILDING
Key to Checklist Abbreviations
Respons b e Perao~ Monitor no Frequency · sthod of Ver;floatlon , . Sanctions~
CDD - Community Development Director A - With Each New Development A - On-site Inspection I - 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. 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
JUN-2~-~ 16:29 O-~S IXdN~ RES - OCPM 949 ~ ~18 P.~
** C~AR~ ~NN
R~ G~A~ ~ iNC,
dune 26. 2000
Ms. Emily Wimer
City of R~nch~ Cucamonga
10500 civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucerrmnga, CA g1729
RE: McAlan's Pub/Tole House Caf~
Haven Village Shopping Center
Rand:ho Cucamonga, CA
Dear Emily,
As you are aware, there was · dlaputo between two of our tenant's at Haven
ViJlage Shopping Canter over the use of the exterior patio areas between the
existing Ioc~tk3n of Tole HouSe Caf~ and the futura location of McAlan's Pub. At
the last City Council Meeting on June 14, 2000 no resnJution was reached
regarding the use of the patio areas and spedflcally, ~e request by Mc, Alan's
Pub to be permitted to serve alcoholP, beverages outside.
I have di$oussed the circumstances independently with both Mike & Jennifer
Towfes (Tole House Cafe) and Mark Alan & Vivian Campe~o (McAlan'a Pub) in
an effotl to resolve the matter. I am pleased to inform you that both Tole House
Caf~ and Mc.Nan's Pub have agreed to a oompromise that I believe is mulually
beneficial to all concern, The conditions agreed to by the padies are aa follows:
Mc. Alan's Pub shail be enfJtJed to unms~cted use of the pet~3 area adjacent to
their premises pmvicled that;,
1, McAian's Pub reworks the existing wrought Iron fence so that a minimum
44" walkway exists between the mew patio area and the outdoor dining
area presently used by ToJe House Cafe, McAlan'; shall be enWded to
reconflgure tlleir existing patio area so that the new patio contains the
same square footage aa the exiMing patio and that the minimum 44'
walkway exi;t~ at all times between the two outdoor patios.
2. Mc, Alan's Pub shall Install; continuous redwood plante~' box on the
outside of the fence to be planted w~ minimum 15-gallon ligustrum
shrubs at least 24" on center. This continuous 'hedge row" should
provide adequate privacy between the two patio areas, Mr. Alan's Pub
shal! be responsibte for all costs to in;taft and mainta[n the planter boxes
and the plant material The entire fence line shall be bordered by the
'J'UN-27-2088 16:2~ CHIqRLES DEiNN RES - OCPM 949 '75,::) 5410
..llJN-2.6-?_SBB ~.$::38 ~ ~ I~ - QE~M :~, r.~ -~..~,~
planter boxes with ~ exceplion of the gate portion that shall not be
bomlered by the planter box Mr exiting purposes.
3. Tole House Caf~ and McAlan's Pub shall be responsible for the
cleanliness of their respective patios and shall also be responsible for the
conduct of their patrons while using these areas.
Based on these canditione, I am recommending ~hat the Ck~ Coundl grant the
conditional use permit to Mc. Alan's Pub. Their respective signatures below
evidence the agreement to these conctrdons by both Mc. Alan's Pub and Tole
House Caf/,,
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not he,tale to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Ciladaa Dunn Real Estate Services. inc.. Property Mallager for
PRINCIPAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
Regional Manager
CC: Mange Almond
Agreed end Accop~
Mike Towtes - Tole House Cafe Date
je¢ifer~gwles -'-1'cie HoUse Cef~
Mark Alan - I~lcAlan'a Pub Dat~
Vlvlan Campem - Mc~lan's Pub Date
~ JLH-27-2~00 16:L~ CHARLES DUNN RES - OCP~ B49 ?52 5410
£ .
pianter ~xes with ~e exception of the ~M ~o. ~t ~l ~ ~
b~emd by ~e pl~n~r ~x ~r e~ ~r~.
3. Tole House Ca~ a~ M~bfl's Pub shaft ~ ~flsi~e for ~
oleanfine~ d ~e~r m~lvo ~ and s~ ~o ~ ~si~e ~
Ba~ ~ ~e~ ~s, I am ~meMing ~t ~e C~ Council 9rant ~e
~M~n~ ~ ~ b M~n'a Pub, Their ms.'ye ~gna~ ~
~? ~e~t ~ ~e ~ ~ ~ ~'s ~b and Tole
S~ ~ h~ ~y ~n6 ~inD this ~r, plea~ ~ not ~S~
mnla~
~ Dunn Real Emm Se~, Inc,, ~ ~erhr
NSU~NCE C~P~Y '~
Agreed ami Acce~tee By:
M~e Towtes- Tole House Cafe --
~i~;;~[ Towles - To~e House CaM ~ Da~ ....
TOTAL P. ~5
TH E C I T Y 0 F
I~ANCHO CUCAHONGA
SlaffReport
DATE: June 28, 2000
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner
BY: Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- 00-03 MCALAN'$
PUB AND GRILLE - A request to modify a previously approved restaurant
and bar to permit serving of alcoholic beverages in the outdoor patio area
in the Neighborhood Commercial District of the Haven Village Center,
located at 6321 Haven Avenue (formerly Willie & Pies Pizza) -
APN: 201-271-69.
BACKGROUND: This item was continued at the request of the Planning Commission
from the June 14, 2000, Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission
requested the continuance in order to allow time for the landlord and tenants to resolve
issues presented in the letter (dated June 14, 2000) from tenant Mike Tole. The
applicant has indicated on June 21 that discussions are still ongoing with Mr. Tole and
the landlord. Staffwill provide an oral update at the meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the modification to Conditional
Use Permit through adoption of the attached Resolution.
Acting City Planner
EW:DC:gs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Staff Report dated June '14, 2000
Exhibit "B" - Letters
Resolution of Approval for Modification to Conditional Use Permit 00-03
ITEM B
the cit,( of
l~ancho Cueamons~
Staff Report
DATE: June 14, 2000
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- 00-03 MCALAN'S PUB AND
GRILLE.- A request to modify a previously approved restaurant and bar to permit
sewing of alcoholic beverages in the outdoor patio area in the Neighborhood
Commercial District of the Haven Village Center, located at 6321 Haven Avenue
(formerly Willie & Pies Pizza) - APN - 201-271-69.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant requested a modification to the Conditional Use Permit previously approved on March
22, 2000. The proposed modification will allow seating and serving of alcohol in the patio area
which currently exists at the location. The former "Willie and Pies" restaurant used this area for
outdoor seating.
PROJECT ,AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Site Characteristics and Surrounding Land Use: Site characteristics and surrounding land
uses are the same as the previously approved Conditional Use Permit. The surrounding land
uses are compatible with the approved pub and gdlle. The site characteristics will stay the
same as the approved restaurant except the addition to serving alcohol in the enclosed patio
area,
B. Parkinq: The expanded use of the patio area is identical to the former "Willie and Pies"
outdoor seating area. Parking for the pub and grille will not exceed the spaces used by the
previous tenant. Haven Village Center has a total of 485 parking spaces.
ANALYSIS:
A. Proposed Uses: The applicants, Mr. Alan and Ms. Campero, propose to modify the original
Conditional Use Permit which approved the pub and grille on March 22, 2000. The proposed
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00 - 03
June'14, 2000
Page 2
modification will allow serving alcohol and food within the patio area. The wrought iron patio
enclosure, which currently exists, is a total of 377 square feet. Currently a gate is located at
the front of the patio. The applicant proposes to close the entrance and extendthe wrought
iron fencing. There will be no access from the parking area.
B. Compatibility of Use: The pub and grille is located on the northwest corner of Haven Village
Center. The use is not expected to disturb existing residences or any of the surrounding
businesses as discussed in the previous analysis.
Conclusion: Based on the above analysis, staff believes that the proposed modification is
compatible with the surrounding uses and complies with the objectives of the Neighborhood
Commercial Center.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within
a 300-foot radius of the project site and all the tenants within the Haven Village Center.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the modification to Conditional Use Permit
through adoption of the attached Resolution.
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:EW~Is
Attachments: Exhibit"A" - Site Plan
Exhibit "B" - Floor Plan
Resolution of Approval for Modification to CUP 00-03
l. Toll House Caf
2. Chiropractor
,I, 4. Caren Pet
TOP VALU, ~RKET
LA: 16. PHASE II 7. Tanning
~ 9. Chinese F~st
. / / .." 12. 0eauty Supply
4. Subwa~ ~and~cl}e~
Pad A. Lease Pending .
Pad A . ./~d C C. McDonald s Restaurant
PAD 8: UD To S.6~SF Bulk e McDonald's ODen~ 12/g3 PHASE ~: UO To 11.2~S~8uIl~e For Sale
SITE AR~ 477,~ S.F. ~ / (~'
PARKING 485 ~ NORn{
June 14, 2000
Emily Wlmer, Assistant Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Attention: Chairman and members of the Planning Commission
RE'. Planning Commission meeting (June 14"')
CUP Modification 00-03
Mc Alan's Pub and Grille
I. Jeff Jennison. representing CharJes Dunn Real Estate Company. have spoken
independently to both parties irrvo.lved in the issues presented in Mike Tole's
letter (June 14a, 2000). Both part,es have agreed to two resolutions a3 the
issues presented in the letter.
1. The landlord will be willing to assist with the cost and construction of two .(2)
ramps to remedy and assist with of 0silvery of goods to the Tote House Cafe.
2. An added c~ndition with the approval that alcohol sewice will not commence
on the patio at Mc Alan's Pub and Grille until after 2:00pnl (when Tole House
Cafe is closed).
Should you have any questions or require any additional information, please do
not hesitate to contact me et (949) 752-2311.
Ae_-e n t t
,Tune 14, 2000
City of Rancho Cucemonga Planning Commission
10500 Civic ~nter Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737
Attention: Brad Bullet, City Planner
Emily Wimer , Assistant Planner
Public He, ring, ,Tune !4, 2000
Modification to Conditional Use Permit-
00-03-/~AcAlan's Pub and Grille
With regard to the requested modification to the Conditional Use Permit ~t00-03,
McAlan's Pub and Grille, Tole House COf~ ask~ that the request be denied based on the
following rec'(ons.
It is being proposed that the outdoor patio area defined in the modification
request, currently 37'/square feet enclosed by a wrought iron fence with gate, be modified
to close off access to the parking area. There is much concern and controversy regarding
the existing wrought iron enclosure. The enclosure was built and installed originally withoLrt
any permits. ,The fence is located in what is referred to as 'common area" in the lease
between the landlord and the Tale House Cafe. To__Lle House C.c. f~ has rec/uested to the
!~be removed, as its location is in violation of the 'common area" rules
as well as health codes with regar~ to the Tole House Cafe, and handicap fi~e and safety
access for patrons to the Tole House Cof~ (as well as other businesses east of the
The fence is butted up directly to two steps blocking any and all ramp access to the rear of
the buildings (see exhibit A). San Bernardino County Department of Health requires that
any deliveries of procluct pass through an 'air' fan" to prevent flies from entering the
facility. The air fan is loud and can be distracting to patrons, and is traditionally located
above the rear doorway. The approved city and health depa~ment plans for Tole House
Cof~ show the delivery door with 'air fan" at the rear of the building. With the fence in its
current location, the buck door is inaccessible because there are steps, and no ramp access.
Tt is also of great safety concern, because Jn the event of a fire or other emergency, if
handicap occupants must exit to the rear of the building, there are steps and no ramp
access for them to reach safety in the front and parking areas. Tt is imperative that the
existing wrought iron fence be removed, or restructured to allow walkway access as defined
by the American I')JsabJJJtjas ACt and/or any other legal requirements for ramp or walkway
access.
The modification to the proposed use, the serving of alcoholic beverages in the
outdoor patio area, is nat cor~sistent with the Surrounding Haven Village Center, nar is it
compatible. The Haven Village Center is comprised of small businesses and shops, as well as
Anchor Tenants such as McDonalds and Top Valu Market, all geared to appeal to and meet
the needs of families. There is a local veterinarian hospital, a family heir salon, a dental
office, and several other small businesses that market primarily to families with children.
Tole House Caf~ is o small restaurant with a strong 'family' customer base, especially on
Sundays, drawing large crowds from the local churches. Serving alcohol in the outdoor patio
will expose the local patrons of the center to an unappealing, non-family environment, which
could be detrimental to the future ~evenue of the current businesses. ,Serving alcohol
outside in the 'patio' are~, may have a drastic effect on the patrons of the Tole House
Cafe, es it also utilizes the patio area n~ defined in its lease as common are~.
The McAlan's Pub and ~rille is located on the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and
Lemon Avenue, directly caddy-corner to H.U.D. Apartments. These apartments
fundamentally draw Iow-income occupants. ]]t is a well-known stigma among local businesses
that these occupants, and visitors to these occupants, are not always the most upstanding
citizens, and local crime is often al-tributed directly to those apartments. Allowing alcohol
to be served outside can very easily draw these types of people to loiter in the surrounding
areas of the patio. This would directly affect Tole House Cafe, as it is located directly
next door to the east and shares the 'patio" as common area as defined in its lease.
Zn conclusion, Tole House Caf~ asks the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission to deny the request to modify the conditional use permit 00-03- McAl~n's Pub
and Grille. Serving alcohol in thc patio area will cause adverse effects upon adjacent
businesses. Tt provides obvious health and safety problems for surrounding businesses, as
well as potential deterioration to the current patronization of surrounding businesses,
primarily Tole House Cafe. Tole House Caf~ also asks the City of Rancho Cucamong~
Planning Commission to further enforce the elimination of the existing wrought iron fence,
as was requested to landlord, for obvious health and safety reasons.
Michael and ~Tennifer To(wtes '~'
Tole House Cafe
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MODIFICATION TO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 00-03 TO SERVE ALCHOLIC
BEVERAGES IN THE OUTDOOR PATIO AREA, LOCATED AT 6321 HAVEN
AVENUE, IN THE NEIGHBORHOQD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-271-69
A. Recitals.
1. Mark Alan and Vivian C. Campero filed an application for the issuance of Modification to
Conditional Use Permit No. 00-03, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 14th day of June 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application. The Planning Commission
continued the application at the applicant's request in order to allow the landlord and applicant time
to resolve issues raised by the neighboring tenant. All padties have indicated to staff that the issues
have been resolved.
3. On June 28, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
concluded a duly noticed public headng on the application.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho C.ucamonga 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 June 14, and June 28, 2000, including written and oral staff repot[s,
together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at 6321 Haven Avenue, on the
southeast corner Haven Avenue and Lemon Avenue with a street frontage of 161 feet and lot depth
of 455 feet and is presently improved with the Haven Village Center; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with single family
residential (Low, 2-4 dwellings per acre), the property to the south is the Route 30 freeway, the
property to the east is developed with Medium-High residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre), and
the property to the west is a small shopping center on the southwest corner; and
c. The modification to the proposed use, the serving of alcoholic beverages in the
outdoor patio area, is consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial District, and the surrounding
Haven Village Center and;
d. The proposed use would be compatible with the surrounding center.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 00 - 03
June 28, 2000
Page 2
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The proposed use is in accordance with the General Plan, the objectives of the
Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code.
4. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the project identified in this
Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15301 of the
State CEQ^ Guidelines.
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.
Planninq Division
1) Approval is for the serving of alcoholic beverages in the outdoor patio
area of the recently approved McAlan's Pub and Gdlle. Expansion or
intensification of the patio area shall require a modification to the
Conditional Use Permit.
2) VVhen entertainment is being conducted, doors to the patio shall remain
closed for noise attenuation purposes. No entertainment shall be
conducted outdoors.
3) Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if
building permits are not issued or the approved use has not
commenced within 24 months of this date.
4) Approval of this request shall not wave compliance with any sections
of the Neighborhood Commercial District, State Fire Marshal's
regulations, Uniform Building Code, or any other City Ordinances.
5) If operation of the facility causes adverse effects upon adjacent
businesses or operations, the Conditional Use Permit shall be brought
before the Planning Commission for consideration and possible
termination of the use.
6) The facility shall be operated in conformance with the performance
standards as defined in the Development Code including, but not
limited to, noise levels.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 00 - 03
June 28, 2000
Page 3
7) Any signs proposed on the facility shall be designed in conformance
with the City's Sign Ordinance and the Uniform Sign Program for the
Haven Village Center and shall require review and approval by the City
Planner prior to installation.
8) Private parties with or without bar service may be allowed during the
day and must end before the regular bar opens.
Buildinq and Fire Safety Division
1) Occupancy of the facility shall not commence until such time as ail
Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal's regulations have been
complied with. Detailed plans shall be submitted to the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Distdct and the Building and Safety Division for review
and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The building
shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy.
2) The modification to the approved plans after occupancy of the building
will require additional review and/or permits from the Fire District and
the Building and Safety Division.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2000.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary
I, Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 28th day of June 2000, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
r
To: Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
Planning Division Monday, June 19, 2000
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Dear Sire,
My letter today is in regards to the new development planned for the empty lot at the N/E corner of San Bemardino Road and Vineyard
Avenue in Rancho Cucamonga, for the 22 single family residen§al, two story homes. As my house sits directly at the far back corner, on
the N/E side of that field {see blue box on attachment "A').
I drove around for 7 months to find a home that offered some privacy. My first thought wac to buy a newer home in Rancho, but I got very
disoouraaed after noting that most ail of the new tract homes looked the same, were cramped on top of each other with an 'ari~ficiai'
appeal, and had no real yards and no pdvacy - so I bought an older home farther south - located by a huge open field with a lot of trees.
No, I do not oppose the new development project. In fact I encourage it. My concerns are that careful and thoroo(~h planning is executed
by the developers and the city - so that the existing surrounding horneowners do not suffer to many losses due to this new projec[
I have observed the proposed plans and shared some of my concems wi~ the city planning deparlment and the architect, Mr. Ben Tran
over the telephone last week. Mr. Tran said that I needed to address my concerns at the city meeting that's coming up.
Given the t~angular shape of the subject lot and the positioaing of the house that is proposed for the farthest N/E back corner (see red box
on aflachment 'A') causes me to fear that many problems will inevitably arise. Especially since my home sits abut that lot. I strongly urge
that you reconsider building a house that far back into that corner. It just won't work. I will fed compelled to move.
First, it witl be overcrowded in that corner! There is already homes located diractiy at my eact side, directJy behind me, across the street,
and also immediately above the front of my home (their backyard strangely butts against my front yard and faces directly into my living
room and kitchen areas) Simply put - i~s a bad layo~ Building another home directly above my backyard, espesialiy a two story home,
will eliminate any and all ~)rivacv around the perimeter of my home! As their view will be directly looking down into my backyard and my
bedroom!
After speaking with Brent LeCount at the city's planning department, I wac told that all the mature trees in that lot will be removed,
including the lovely avocado trees that bring so many beautiful birds and fru~ How devastating. Those trees provide a natural view,
sound barriers, wind bardem, shade, and mostly privacy, after a hard day at work.._the only relaxing place to retreat is in my backyard, by
those trees .....
Run off is a big concern. NI the existing homes on the east of the lot am sung below the lot on a grade. As I mentioned this to Brent his
answer was that the run- off should be directed toward the new street whereas Ben tells me that this is why they would want to tear out our
current chain link fences and put up bdck walls - "to stop the run- off ........
There is already several problems with the homes that are pos~oned above my property in the front. Their pit bull dogs prevent me from
enhancing my front yard embankment. When they work on all their motomycles, the chemicals they spray cause terdble fumes to
envolope around my property, which make me
My request is that the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning and the developers of this new site strongly reconsider the placemont of a
home so far info the corner of that ioL
I ~h~k you.
9007 Chianti Ct. R E C E I V E D
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 989-6365 JUN
City of Rancho Cucarnon,c -, Division
ATTACHMENT "A"
San Bemardino Rd, ~ ...,,--~¢""~
Win~rv Ricing.
the city of
Rancho Cucamonga
Staff Report
DA3F..: June 28, 2000
TO:. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner
BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECI': ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15955 - LEE - A
residential subdivision and design review of detailed site plan and elevations for
22 single-family lots on 4.39 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District
(4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of San Bernardino Road,
east of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-091-08.
VARIANCE 00-03 - LEE - A request to reduce the minimum lot depth for Lots 3,
11, and 15 within Tentative Tract 15955 on 4.39 acres of land in the Low-Medium
Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of San
Bernardino Road, east of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-091-08.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Backqround: In 1992, the Planning Commission approved a tentative tract and design review
on this site for a 20-lot project. This approval has not yet expired and could be implemented
by the developer. Since that time, the developer decided to submit a 22-1ot tentative tract map
with design review with revised street and lot layout and updated home design. The revised
application, which is now before the Planning Commission, represents a superior design from
a subdivision and architectural standpoint than the previously approved project.
B. Project Density: 5 dwelling units per acre.
C. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq:
North - Single-family homes; Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre)
South - Thomas Winery Plaza; Specialty Commercial, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
East - Single-family homes; Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre)
West - Single-family homes and vacant land; Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre)
and Office Professional (the vacant piece)
ITEMS
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
'I-I'15955 - LEE
June28, 2000
Page2
D. General Plan Designations:
Project Site - Low-Medium Residential
North - Low Residential
South- Commercial
East - Low Residential
West - Low Residential and Office
E. Site Characteristics: The unusually shaped site is vacant and contains several mature
avocado trees along its east property line. Fruit bearing trees are not required to be preserved
per the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. Curb and gutter exist along the San Bemardino
Road frontage. The site slopes from northwest to southeast at roughly 6 percent. There is
an off-site slope on the north side of the north property line.
ANALYSIS:
A. General: The applicant is proposing to construct 22 single-family homes with floor plans
ranging in size from 1,703 to 2,090 square feet. All plans are two-story with two-car garages
facing the street. Lot sizes range from 5,030 to 13,230 square feet. The homes are of a
modest, yet tasteful, design and will be an upgrade for the neighborhood. Homes plotted on
corner lots have one-story elements on the corner side to soften the appearance relative to
the side streets.
B. Variance: In conjunction with the Tentative Tract Map, the applicant has submitted a Variance
application to reduce the minimum lot depth for Lots 3, 11, and 15. The northern two thirds
of the site has an abrupt triangular shape which, combined with the realities of cul-de-sac bulb
dimensions, limits room available for lot depth. The applicant has made a concerted effort to
accommodate all other requirements of the Development Code and the project density is at
the Iow end of that allowed (5 dwelling units per acre proposed, 4-8 dwelling units per acre
permitted). A similar Variance was issued with the previous 20-lot tract back in 1992. It is
unlikely that reduction in the number of lots will reduce the need for a Variance. Staff is of the
opinion that the triangular shape of the pamel, combined with cul-de-sac bulb minimum
dimensions, is a unique circumstance associated with the subject site, which justifies approval
of the Variance. Staff is also of the opinion that the Variance request represents the minimum
necessary reduction in lot depth to reasonably accommodate the project and that the Variance
will not threaten public safety or welfare.
C. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on
September 14, 1999, and requested that the project be redesigned and brought back for
further review. The Committee reviewed the revised project on February 29, 2000, and again
asked for redesign and further review. The Committee reviewed the revised plans on Apd118,
2000, and recommended approval. Please refer to the attached Design Review Action
Agendas (Exhibit "G") for further details.
D. Technical Review Committee: The Technical and Grading Review Committees have reviewed
the project and recommend approval subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in the
attached Resolutions of Approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT15955-LEE
June 28, 2000
Page 3
E. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study was completed by the applicant and staff
completed Part II, the Environmental Checklist. In completing the checklist, staff noted that
the project will have short-term air quality impacts during grading and construction. Mitigation
measures will require the developer to control dust and construction equipment emissions
consistent with AQMD requirements. The site falls within the Red Hill Fault zone as identified
by the General Plan; however, a detailed fault study was conducted with the previous tract
(Tentative Tract 14405) in 1992, which indicated that no traces of the fault were found on the
property. Therefore, the project will not result in adveme environmental impacts. Should the
Planning Commission concur, issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING: The developer conducted a neighborhood meeting on May 8, 2000.
Five neighbors attended and major concerns included dust control, fence location, home setbacks
along the east property line, timing of development, tree removal, and privacy. The homeowner of
the home on Lot 38 in the adjacent tract has a swimming pool and requested that the second story
window for the home on Lot 17 be designed so that the future homeowners will not be able to see
into his backyard. The applicant agreed to use a clerestory type window for this home. The applicant
said that he intends to start home construction soon after approval of the Tentative Tract Map and
expects completion of homes within a year.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within
a 300-foot radius of the project site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Tract
Map 15955 and Variance 00-03 through adoption of the attached resolutions of approval with
issuance of a Mitigated Neg~eclaration.
Dan Coleman
Acting City Planner
DC:BLC\ma
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "B" - Tentative Tract Map
Exhibit "C" - Site Plan
Exhibit "D" - Grading Plan
Exhibit "E"- Elevations
Exhibit "F" - Initial Study Parts I and II
Exhibit "G"- Design Review Committee Action Agendas
Resolution Recommending Approval of Tentative Tract Map 15955
Resolution Recommending Approval of Design Review for Tentative Tract 15955
Resolution Recommending Approval of Variance 00-03
Standard Conditions for Tentative Tract 15955
Standard Conditions for Design Review for Tentative Tract 15955
~ ~ ~r ~ IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
"'"-,""- Tt~ACT NO. 15955
-- ....- .... x ~ /~
/
/ / /I
22-UNIT
FAMILY _
HOMES :---
PROJECTDESCRIPTION
PLAN ,,='-,'~ ~ ~ 1.1
CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
'P~'NTA'n',[ reACT U.~ ~5~5~ 8C-.ALE: 1~= 30'~#
T.7
ENVIRONMENTAL
" ' ~.~ INFORMATION FORM
C,~o, Ra.choo~c.mo.g.~,,..,~go~.,o, (Part I - Initial Study)
(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 the information requested in this application be
provide~l in full. ~
INCOMPLETE APPLICA TIONS WILL NO T BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure
that the application is complete at the time of submittal; City staff will not be available to perform work required to provide missing
information.
ApplicationNumberfortheprejecttowhichthisformpertains: Tentative Tract M~ 15955
Project Title: ~'/c~ Cuc~monga Homes
Name&Addreasofprojectowner(s): Ohin~-chu Kao Lee Personal Trustier al
2208 N. ~dwards Ave.~So. E1 Monte, 0A. 917~
Name & Address of developer or project sponsor: geffre~ Ta-~ en Lee
2208 N. Edwards Ave. ,So. E1 Monte, CA. 91733
Contact Person &'Address: Jeffrey Ta-Jen T,ee
2208 ~. Edwards Ave.,So. E1 Monte~ CA. 91733
Telephone Number: (626) 279-9388 Fax (626) 279-9389
Name & Address ofpersonpreparing this form (if different from above); Ken_~e S. Ling/ODS Engineering
738 E. Cumberland~ Orance, C~. 92865
TelephoneNumbe/? (714) 283-9212
/~x/~//~/r "/~"
INITSTD1 .WPD - 4/96 Page I
Information indicated by asterisk (*) is not required of non-construction CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff
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 color photographs which show representative views into the site from the north, south, east and west;
views into and from the site from the pdmary access points which se~e-e the site; and representative views of significant
features from the site. Include a map showing location of each photogreph.
3) Project Location (descdbe): San Bernardino Road and approx. 270 ft. west of
Winnery Ridge Drive
4) Assesso/~s Pamel Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessary):
APN 208-091-08
'5) Gross Site Area (ac/sq. ft.): 4.69 Ac. / 204,296 sQ.f~.
'6) Net Site Area~ (~otal Site size, minus area of public streets'& proposed dedications):
3.62 Ac. / 157,687 sq.ft.
7) Descdbe gn~ 'prbposed general plan amendment or Jon~ change which wodld affect the project site (attach additional sheet
if necessao,:
Include a desc~tion of afl pe~its which will be necessa~ from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental
agencies in ~er to ~1~ implement the p~ect:
Grading permit, encrpachment permi~, building permi~ from
city. Sewer and water permit from C~camong~ County '~a~er
District.
INITSTD1 .WPD - 4/96 Page 2
Descdbe, the physical setting of the site as it exists before tl~e., project including information on topography, soil stab lity, plants
and animals, mature trees, trails and reads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on site
(including age and condition) and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of significant features descdbed. In addition,
site all sources of information (L e.., geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeologica/ surveys, traffic studies):
Topography m~p~w~th 2 ft. contour interval was prepared for the
site. The site gently slope approx. 85 toward southeast.
'The site is a vacant land. There are very few mature trees
on site which is covered by light growth of grass and weeds.
1 O) Descdbe the known cu/turel and/or historical aspects of the site. Site all sources of information (books, published reports and
oral history): . _
None
11) Descdbe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site (aircraft, roadway noise, etc.) and how they will affect
proposed uses:
There are no major noise sources other than normal traffic
noise from street.
INITSTD1.WPD - 4~96 Page 3
12) Describe the proposed project in detail. This should providE~ an adequate description of the site in terms of ultimate use which
will msblt from the prosed project. Indicate if them am proposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur
with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment. A~tach additional sheet($) if necessary:
The tentative Tract map consists of 23 lots.
~The 'single fami'ly 10t size range from 5,0~0 sq. ft. t~o ~14,7~O
~sq. ft. The development will be completed in two phases.
Phase 1 -- Lot 1 through 8 end 20 t~rough 23
Phase 2 -- Lot 9 through 19 ~J
13) Descdbe the sun-~unding properties~ inc~uding inf~rmati~n ~n p~ants and anima~s and any cu~tura~~ hi~t~dca~~ ~r scenic aspects-
Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops.
department stoma, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.):
East -- Existing single family homes
Northwest -- Existing single family homes
West -- Existing single family homes
South -- Cardio Fit Sports Clubs, Rancho Towne Center
14) ~#thep~p~sedp~ectchangetbepa~em~sca~e~rcha~cter~fthe$urroun~nggene~a~a~fthep~ect?
Ac o"
c raing to the tentative map, the site is to be utilized for
23 single family residences. The development will not change
the pattern, scale or character of the surroundin~ area.
INITSTDI.WPD - 4~96 Page 4
1~ Indica~ ~e type of shoG~ and Ion~ noise ~ be ge~era~ ~cluding soume and amounL How will ~ese noise ~ve~
a~ct a~acen! pmpe~es and on-site uses. What me~o~ of sound pmo~g am pmposed?
The majority of noise come from the traffic. This noise level
will not affect the adjacent properties.
Indicate pmposed mmovals an~or mplacements of matum or scenic tmes:
There are no mature or scenic trees on site. There are one
avocado tree and two pine trees.i
1~ Indicate any bo~es of water ~nclud~g domestic water supp#es) ~to which the site d~ins:
No body of water is on site.
18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clafification, please contact
the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591.
a. Residential (gal/day) 1 3 ~, 800 ~--pd Peak use (gal/Day) 27,600 gpd
b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) Peak use (gal/min/ac)
19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal Septic Tank ~ Sewer. If septic tanks am proposed, attach
percolation tests. If discharge to a sanita~ sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (See
Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591.
a. Residential (gal/day) 6 ~ 21 0 gpd
b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac)
RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS:
20) Number of residential units: 2 ~
Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size:
5,040 (min) - 14,750 (max) sq,~'~,
Total net lot"~i~_. 142~760 ~q.ft.w~h 23 lov.~= t~h~ ~v¢~
lot size is 6,207 sq.ft.
INITSTD1 .WPD - 4/96 Page 5
Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale unit~):
21) Anticipatedrangeofsalepdcesand/orrents:
SalePfice(s) $ 180,000 to $ 250,000
Rent (per month) $ to
22) Specify numberofbedrooms by unit type:
Pla~ 1 -- 3 Bedrooms
Plan 2 -- 4 Bedrooms
Plan 3 -- 3 Bedrooms plus ddn
2~ Ind~atean~c~atedhouseholds~ebyunittype:
Plan 1 -- Two adults and 1 chil~
Plan 2 -- Two adults and 2 children
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: 1 2
b. Junior High:
4
c. Senior High
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS
25) Desc~be type ~f use(s) and maj~r functi~n(s) ~f c~mmercia~~ industria~ ~r instituti~na~ uses:
t~/A
26) Total floor area of commercial, industrial, or institutionai uses by type;
N/A .
INITSTD1 .WPD - 4/96 Page 6
27) Indicate hours of operation:
28) Number of emp/oyees: Total: N /A
Maximum Shift:
Time of Maximum Shift:
29) Pr~videbreakd~wn~fanticipatedj~bc~assi~cati~ns~inc~udingwageandsa/aryranges~aswe/~a$anindicati~n~fthera~e
of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary).*
30) Estimafion of the number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the City.,
'31) For commercial and industrial uses only, indicate the source, type and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be
vedfied through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572-6283):
ALL PROJECTS
32) Have the water, sewer, fire, and flood control agencies serving the project been contacted to determine their ability to provide
adequate service to the proposed project? If so, please indicate their response.
xpplican~ has not con~acted ye~.
INITSTD1.WPD - 4/96 Page 7
33) In the k, nown history of this property, has there been any,rise, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials?
Examples of hazardous and/or toxic matedals include, but"are not limited to P , · · · ·
CB s; radioactive substances; pesticides and
herbicides; fuels, oils, solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage of any of the above.
Please list the materials and describe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use. if
known.
34) Will the proposed project involve the temporary or long-term use, storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic
materials, including but not limited to those examples listed above? If yes, provide an inventory of afl such materials to be
used and proposed rnethod of disposaL The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be
shown and labeled on the application plans.
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for
adequate 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 be#eL I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted
before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
INITSTD1 .WPD - 4196 Page 8
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: Tentative Tract 15955
2. Related Files: Tentative Tract 14055 (approved)
3. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT
15955 - LEE - A residential subdivision and design review of detailed site plan and
elevations for 22 single-family lots on 4.39 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential
District (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of San Bernardino Road,
east of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-091-08.
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Jeff Lee
2135 Huntington Drive, Suite 202
San Marino, CA 91108
5. General Plan Designation: Low-Medium Residential
6. Zoning: Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre)
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Single-family homes in the Low-Residential District
to the north and east, vacant land in the Office Professional District to the west, and the
Thomas Winery Plaza in the Special Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific
Plan to the south.
8. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
9. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Brent Le Count
Associate Planner
(909) 477-2750
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.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15955 - Lee Page 2
( ) 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
( ) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources
(X) 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
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Signed:
Brent Le Count, AICP
Associate Planner
June 6, 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
established community? ( ) ( ) (X)
COMMENTS:
a-d) The proposed project was designed in accordance with the Development Code. The
project site is located on the north side of San Bernardino Road, which has a general
plan designation of Low-Medium Density Residential. No increase in density or plan
amendment is proposed and therefore no impacts will result from the project.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15955 - Lee Parle 3
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposah
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped
area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a-b) Construction activities at the site will be short-term and will not attract new employees
to the area. The proposed project will result in 22 single-family residences in the Low-
Medium Density Residential District (4-8 du/ac), no increase in density is proposed. The
proposed project is consistent with the general plan land use density for the site, and will
not result in a significant increase in population not otherwise planned by the City in its
forecasts.
d) The site is currently void of any structures. No existing housing is located on-site.
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)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15955 - Lee Parle 4
· Comments:
a-c) General Plan Figure V-4 Geotechnical Hazards indicates that the inferred Red Hill Fault
Zone runs through the project site. A Geologic Investigation was performed during the
processing of Tentative Tract 14055 (also approved for the site) to determine whether
any actual fault lines are present. The report, prepared by Leighton and Associates
dated June 7, 1990, concluded that there are no traces of the Red Hill Fault trending
through the site.
b) The site is not located near a body of water.
d) The site is relatively flat, there are off-site slopes along the north boundary of the site but
these have been in place for several years without serious mass wasting events.
f-h) The site is relatively flat, so grading will be minimal. Grading will even out the site and
create the necessary slope gradient to allow proper site drainage and avoid erosion.
Soil type on-site and in the vicinity is Hanford-Greenfield. This soil association is not
indicated to be subject to instability. The Building and Safety Division will require a soils
report, prior to issuance of building permits. New structures are required to meet current
earthquake standards as required by the Uniform Building Code. The impact is not
considered significant.
i) The site contains no unique geologic or physical features.
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 watem, 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)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15955 - Lee Parle 5
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 incremental changes in absorption rates and
drainage patterns due to an increase of paved surface area. The City Engineer must
review and approve site and drainage plans that show that all runoff will be conveyed
to existing and proposed drainage facilities which were designed to handle the subject
water flows.
b) Existing flood control/drainage improvements in the vicinity provide adequate flood
protection.
c-e) The project site is not located near a body of water. Storm-water runoff will be conveyed
to the existing public storm drain system as approved by the City Engineer.
f-i) The project will not interfere with groundwater management practices in the area
because the site is not used for groundwater recharging.
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) Potential impacts to air quality are consistent with the Public Health and Safety Super-
Element within the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. During construction, there is the
possibility of fugitive dust being emitted during site grading. However, the project, at
4.39 developed acres, is below the AQMD Threshold of Potential Significance for Air
Quality Impacts. Any impact to air quality is thus considered tess than significant.
b) There are sensitive receptors, residences, adjacent to the project site. During
construction, exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and equipment, and fugitive
dust generated by vehicles and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces could affect
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15955 - Lee Parle R
these residences. NOxand PM10 levels may be exceeded during this phase, however
due to the relatively short duration of construction and implementation of mitigation, the
impact will be less than significant. The following mitigation measures will ensure
impacts will be at less than significant levels.
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 the 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 clean alternative fuel
powered equipment 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.
4. The construction contractor shall ensure that all bare ground surfaces will
be sprayed with water or other acceptable dust palliatives to minimize wind
erosion and fugitive dust emissions.
c-d) The proposed project is to construct 22 single-family residences on 4.39 acres of land.
This will not generate emissions that could cause climatic changes or objectionable
odors.
Significant
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
Tentative Tract 15955- Lee Parle 7
· Comments:
a) The project will result in increased vehicle tdps compared to the current vacant land.
The impact will be less than significant because the project is preposed to be developed
within the specified density range for the site.
b-c) Intemal streets with access to San Bemardino Road have been designed to the City of
Rancho Cucamonga standard for lines of sight at intereections, and provide ample
access for both routine and emergency purposes. There are no incompatible uses
anticipated.
d) The project design meets the parking standards of the Development Code.
e-f) The site design does not conflict with altemative transportation routes nor will it cause
hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists.
g) The site is not close enough to any airport to need noise or hazard abatement measures.
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., hedtage trees,
eucalyptus windrew, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
eucalyptus grove, sage screb habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal
pool)"? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) The project site does not fall within an area identified for endangered, threatened, or rere
species or habitats.
b) There are existing Avocado trees along east boundary. Explain that Avocado fruit
beadng trees are exempt from Tree Preservation Ordinance.
c) The site does not support any locally designated natural communities.
d) There is no dparian or wetland habitat on-site.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15955 - Lee Parle R
· e) The project site is surrounded by developed properties. It does not function as a
dispersal or migration corridor·
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Use non-renewable resoumes 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)
Comments:
a-b) The project will not conflict with any energy conservation plans nor be wasteful.
c) The project site is not located within an area classified as a Mineral Resource Zone.
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:
a/c-d) There is no evidence of prior commercial or industrial uses. No evidence of discarded
drums, containers, hazardous wastes or discolored soils have been observed. There
was no indication of underground storage tanks or illegal dumping of refuse on-site.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15955 - Lee Pa~e 9
· b) The tract map has been designed to accommodate emergency vehicles and'is
accessible from two access points.
e) The site is surrounded by existing developed land and not located in a fire hazard area.
Significant
10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) The project will increase noise in the general sense of replacing a vacant lot with a tract
of homes, but the relatively small size of the development ensures the increase will be
to less than significant levels. The project is consistent with other residential uses
nearby·
b) The site does not fall within an area subject to excessive noise levels according to Figure
V-9 of the General Plan.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the fo/lowing 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-e) The project is proposed to be developed in accordance with the density provisions for
the Low-Medium Residential District (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre)· No increase in
density is proposed. Standard Conditions of Approval from the Uniform Building and
Fire Codes will be placed on the project. No mitigation is required.
Fire and Police protection - Additional protection will be required for the increased
population and number of homes. However, as the project requires no more resources
than are accommodated within the General Plan, the impact is less than significant·
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15955 - Lee Page 10
Schools - The proposed project will incrementally increase the need for schools through
the potential for increased population growth. Consistent with the City of Rancho
Cucamonga General Plan and Development Impact Fees established by the school
district, the developer will pay apl appropriate development impact fees.
Parks - The proposed project will incrementally increase the need for park and recreation
services through the potential for increased population growth. Consistent with the City
of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and Development Impact Fee Schedules adopted
by the City Council, the developer will pay apl appropriate development impact fees.
Public facilities -The proposed project will incrementally increase traffic on adjacent
streets. Consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and Development
Impact Fee Schedules adopted by the City Council, the developer will pay apl appropriate
development impact fees.
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 er distribution
facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a-g) The project will include the construction of 22 new single-family residences. The
proposed development will extend as necessary existing systems and utilities are
available in the immediate area. The proposed project will not require major
modifications or alterations to the existing utility systems.
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? ~ ~L~ ~[~ ~.~ ~ ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15955 - Lee Parle 11
Comments:
a-b) The surrounding area is developed and includes other residential neighborhoods and
commercial development to the south. The proposed housing development will blend
with existing surroundings.
c) The project will create new light and glare as the site is currently vacant. Landscaping
will be in accordance with City landscaping requirements for residential neighborhoods
and will buffer the site. The impact is not considered significant.
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)
Comments:
a-e) The site is relatively small, vacant, and has been previously disturbed, therefore the
likelihood of affecting historical or cultural resources is minimal and impacts are not
significant. There are no known historical or cultural resources on this property.
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) The proposed project will incrementally increase the need for park and recreation
services through population growth. The project is consistent with the City of Rancho
Cucamonga General Plan and the developer will pay the appropriate fees in accordance
with Development Impact Fee Schedules adopted by the City Council.
C
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15955 - Lee Parle 12
· c) There is no impact to existing recreational opportunities as the site and property
surrounding the project area is designated for residential and commemial development.
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)
Comments:
a) The project site does not contain Natural Resources as identified on Figure V-3 of the
General Plan. Additionally, the site does not contain any Coastal Sage Scrub,
Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, or Delhi-Sands flowering-loving fly habitat. No
sensitive species were detected on-site and it is unlikely any will move on to the site due
to the lack of natural habitat.
b) During construction, there is the possibility of fugitive dust to be emitted from grading the
site. Nonetheless, dust emissions could be sufficient to warrant the use of water or
other dust palliatives at this site. 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. NOxand PM~o levels may be exceeded during this phase. Implementation of
mitigation measures associated with approval of the map will reduce impacts to less
than significant. ~ ~ ~) ~
...... , u- o- u e:55AM; 90947?2847 => 562 945 0364; #3/3
h)~ti.~t ~tudy lot C~ty of Rancho Cucamnn~a
.~ent. ahve Trac 15955 - LoC .... Page
c) Th,~ dcvelo,u~r is required Io pay development impacl tee~ estabfished by the C{ty
Council the tat~ of whfc~ ~avu been scl to m~tigate tho polontiat ~mpacts
g0vernmenl~ so.ices to less than si~nificanl To the extent the p~uject may impact
se~ces will be ~iligaled by payment of rules and fees set Dy each utill~ agency. Thc
proJ~[ will also ~y Irans~atio~ ~a~
Th~ proposed project on 4 39 acres wou~ flol cause subslaflfiaJ a~verse eflecls o~,
~mmer~al area along San Bemard~no Road Mitigation measures will redt~ce any
EARLIER ANALYSES
EaHicr analyses may bo used where, purs~ant m lhe tiering, program EIR, or olher CEQA procesS.
one or moro effect5 have been adequately analyzed in an ~r EIR or ~g~t~ve Declaration per
Secl~on I~Ga(c)(3)(D) The effects identified above lot th~s prelect wore w~thm the scope of and
aaequale~y analyzed In the loll~ing earhur 0ucument(s) pursuant Io applicable I~al stewards, and
earlier analyses were uteri/ed in completing this tn~lial Study and are available lot review m
el Rancho Cuca~nga, Plann~ D~on olfice5. 105~ Civic Center Drw~ ~check all that apply):
(X) Genera~ Plan EIR
(Ce,ihed A~) I 6. 1981)
(X) Masler Enwronmcnlal Assessment for the 198g General Plan Updale
[SCH ~88020115, cedihed Janua~ 4. 1989)
(X) Negative Declaration lot Tentative Tract la405, codified December f0, 1~92.
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I ced~fy that I am lhe appflcanl for the prolecl described ~n Ibis Initial Sludy I acknowledge th~l
City of Rancho Cucamonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and21092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: Tentative Tract 15955 Public Review Period Closes: June 28, 2000
Project Name: Project Applicant: Jeff Lee
Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the north side of San Bemardino Road, east of
V~neyard Avenue - APN: 208-091-08.
Project Description: TENTATIVE TRACT 15955 - LEF -A residential subdivision and design review of the
detailed site plan and elevations for 22 single family lots on 4.39 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential
District (4-8 dwelling units per acre).
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an
Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is
proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
[] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment.
[] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this
proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate
the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required.
Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related
documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic
Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847.
NOTICE
The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period.
June 28, 2000
Date of Determination Adopted By
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:40 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren September 14, 1999
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15955 - LEE - A residential
subdivision and design review of detailed site plan and elevations for 23 single family lots on
4.39 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on
the north side of San Bernardino Road, east of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-091-08.
Backqround: In 1992, the Planning Commission approved a tentative tract and design review on
this site for a 20 lot project (Exhibit "A"). Earlier this year, the Commission granted a time
extension which extended the approvals for the 20-lot project until December 9, 1999. At this time,
the applicant is proposing an alternate street configuration with 23 lots.
Desiqn Parameters: The applicant is proposing to shift the tract entrance from the from the site's
west edge to its mid-point along the San Bernardino Road frontage. The lots range in size from
5,010 to 13,230 square feet. The applicant is proposing four floor plans, ranging in size from 1,782
to 2,002 square feet.
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. There are two flag lots (Lots 9 and 14) and a "difficult" lot, which does not meet lot depth
requirements (Lot 12). Eliminating one lot would provide better site design and flexibility
to satisfy all code requirements. Lots should have sufficient room to provide varied
setbacks along street frontages.
2. There is a lack of variation in the proposed Floor Plans and Elevations. Of the four Floor
Plans, three are nearly identical, with only one elevation each. The Planning Commission's
Residential Design Guidelines indicate for 23 lots, there should be five floor plans with
3 elevations each.
3. All lots are proposed to have two-story dwellings, using an architectural style that
emphasizes vertical massing. The surrounding neighborhood is predominately single story.
A revised architectural approach, and introduction of single story plan(s) on corner lots and
in strategic locations abutting existing single story neighborhoods is recommended to
address neighborhood compatibility.
4. Plan D rear elevation forms a long (48 feet), two-story wall plane at the minimum rear yard
setback on Lots 9, 12, and 13. Revise to break up the wall plane, incorporate single story
elements, and avoid "walling off" existing residences to the north.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Increase decorative paving in shared driveways and provide more artistic pattern (banding
is monotonous). Remove decorative paving in the proposed public street.
2. Upgrade the quality of submittal package: include dimensions, colors, and materials on
each elevation, insert Floor Plans and Elevations in sequential order, add details to Site
Plan.
DRC COMMENTS
TT 15955 ~ LEE
September 14, 1999
Page 2
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Design Review Committee continue the project
to allow revisions.
Attachment
Desiqn Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pan Stewart, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren
The developer requested a continuance to allow time for his development team to address major
issues identified in the Design Review committee comments. The Committee agreed to continue
the project and provided the following direction:
1. The proposed street layout is acceptable.
2. Plans should be revised to address all major and secondary issues listed above.
3. Single story plan and/or single story elements are needed to address neighborhood
compatibility.
4. A neighborhood meeting is recommended.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Brent Le Count February 29, 2000
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15955 - LEF - A residential
subdivision and design review of detailed site plan and elevations for 23 single family lots on
4.39 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre), located
on the north side of San Bernardino Road, east of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-091-08.
Background: In 1992, the Planning Commission approved a tentative tract and design review on
this site for a 20-lot project. Time extensions have been granted for this map to December 2000.
The current application represents an alternative street configuration with 23 lots.
The current design was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Fong) in
September 1999 but was not approved. The applicant had requested a continuance to allow time
to address issues identified at the meeting. The Committee had the following comments:
1. The p~'oposed street layout is acceptable.
2. Plans should be revised to address all major and secondary issues identified by staff. See
below.
3. Single-story plan and/or single story elements are needed to address neighborhood
compatibility. All homes are still proposed to be two-story; however, Plan B has a single
story element.
4. A neighborhood meeting is recommended. The applicant has not yet held a meeting but is
willing to do so, prior to scheduling for Planning Commission.
Previously identified issues:
1. There are two flag lots (Lots 9 and 14) and a "difficult" lot (Lot 12), which does not meet lot
depth requirements. Eliminating one lot would provide better site design and flexibility to
satisfy all code requirements. Lots should have sufficient room to provide varied setbacks
along street frontages.
The applicant has not revised the lot layout. The street system causes variable front yards
to occur given the substantial amount of lot frontage on cul-de-sac bulbs. There are some
interior side yard setback encroachments but they can be alleviated through creative re-
plotting and re-orientation (see item 3 below).
2. '[here is a lack of variation in the proposed Floor Plans and Elevations of the four Floor
Plans, three are heady identical, with only one elevation each. The Planning Commission's
Residential Design Guidelines indicate for 23 lots there should be five Floor Plans with three
Elevations each.
The applicant has complied by provided five Floor Plans with three elevations each. The
Floor Plans range from 1,686 up to 2,090 square feet. The revised design provides
variation between home plans through the use of roof style, colors, wainscoting, reverse
plotting, wood accents, and garage door styles.
3. All lots are proposed to have two-story dwellings, using an architectural style that
emphasizes vertical massing. The surrounding neighborhood is predominantly single story.
A revised architectural approach and introduction of single story plans on corner lots and
in strategic locations abutting existing single story neighborhoods is recommended to
address neighborhood compatibility. C % :[~ :~ ~
DRC ACTION AGENDA
'I-I' 15955 - LEE
February 29, 2000
Page ,2
Plan B has a single story element on half of the Floor Plan. The homes along the north
project boundary are proposed to have horizontal change of plane but almost no vertical
relief. The homes along the east side have an average rear yard setback of 28 feet where
a 15-foot setback is required. These homes also have bay windows and second story
window pop-outs to add visual interest. The homes plotted on comer lots (all Plan E) are
proposed to have a small one-story element for part of the side elevation, which steps back
to a two-story.
Recommendation: Provide a more interesting entry theme by plotting another home plan (besides
Plan E) on some corner lots. Suggest using some Plan B Floor Plans on comer lots with the one-
story element on the comer side yard. The following home plotting adjustments will provide a more
visually interesting street scene and alleviate side yard setback encroachments:
1. Re-orient home on Lot 16 to provide 5/10-foot side yard setbacks.
2. Plot Plan B home on Lots 20 and 23.
3. Plot Plans D or E homes on Lots 18 and 21.
The Committee should discuss whether it is essential to provide a single story home plan
and, if not, whether the architectural design of the homes sufficiently mitigates the impacts
of two-story homes.
4. Plan D rear elevation forms a long two-story wall plane at the minimum rear yard setback
on Lots 9, 12, and 13, Revise to break up the wall plane, incorporate single story elements,
and avoid "walling off' existing residences to the north.
The homes along the north project boundary have been completelyredesigned with more
horizontal wall relief to break up the wall plane, Window pop-outs and belly bands are also
provided. The existing home sites to the north are approximately 10 feet higher than the
home sites within the project.
5. Increase decorative paving in shared driveways and provide more artistic pattern.
All driveways are now proposed to have concrete grid score lines and shared driveways will
have brick bands to add visual interest.
6. Upgrade the quality of the submittal package: include dimensions, colors, and materials on
each elevation, insert Floor Plans and Elevations in sequential order, add details to Site
Plan.
The revised plans are better than those previously submitted. Colors and materials are
called out on Elevations and Floor Plans are included. No revised Site Plan has been
submitted and the overall development package can stand further upgrading related to
detailed callouts (driveway paving), dimensions, and wall details/sections. Committee should
review building materials sample board and colors.
7. All walls visible from streets and all retaining walls shall be decorative masonry.
8. Provide a minimum of 2 trees per front yard area.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
TD 15955 - LEE
February 29, 2000
Page 3
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the plans be revised in light of the above
comments and any further Committee discussion and brought back for further review before
proceeding to Planning Commission.
Attachment
Design Review Committee Action:
The Committee requested that the project be revised in light of staff's comments and the following
additional comments and brought back for further review:
1. The tract appears overly tight with insufficient lot depth and side yard setbacks. Eliminate Lot
9 and incorporate the extra land area into surrounding lots to provide a more open and useable
lot layout with more generous side yards. Maintain a minimum 15-foot setback between home
on Lot 10 and the south property line.
2. Vary grid pattern for driveway paving.
3. The Committee is in favor of eliminating the Plan E home plan and of increasing the percentage
of Plan B's floorplan.
4. Use Plan B (one-story) on comer lots whenever possible.
Members Present: Larry McNeil, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:40 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren September 14, 1999
ENVIRONMENTSL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15955 - LEE - A residential
subdivision and design review of detailed site plan and elevations for 23 single family lots on
4.39 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located
on the north side of San Bernardino Road, east of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-091-08.
Background: In 1992, the Planning Commission approved a tentative tract and design review
on this site for a 20-lot project (Exhibit "A"). Earlier this year, the Commission granted a time
extension, which extended the approvals for the 20-lot project until December 9, 1999. At this
time, the applicant is proposing an alternate street configuration with 23 lots.
Design Parameters: The applicant is proposing to shift the tract entrance from the site's west
edge of its mid-point along the San Bernardino Road frontage. The lots range in size from
5,010 to 13, 230 square feet. The applicant is proposing four Floor Plans, ranging in size from
1,782 to 2,002 square feet.
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. There are two flag lots (Lots 9 and 14) and a "difficult" lot, which does not meet lot depth
requirements (Lot 12). Eliminating one lot would provide better site design and flexibility
to satisfy all code requirements. Lots should have sufficient room to provide varied
setbacks along street frontages.
2. There is a lack of variation in the proposed Floor Plans and Elevations. Of the four Floor
Plans, three are nearly identical, with only one elevation each. The Planning
Commission's Residential Design Guidelines indicate for 23 lots, there should be five
Floor Plans with three Elevations each.
3. All 'lots are proposed to have two-story dwellings, using an architectural style that
emphasizes vertical massing. The surrounding neighborhood is predominately single
stop/. A revised architectural approach, and introduction of single story plan(s) on
corner lots and in strategic locations abutting existing single story neighborhoods is
recommended to address neighborhood compatibility.
4. Plan D rear elevation forms a long (48 feet), two-story wall plane at the minimum rear
yard setback on Lots 9, 12, and 13. Revise to break up the wall plane, incorporate
single story elements, and avoid "walling off" existing residences to the north.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Increase decorative paving in shared driveways and provide more artistic pattern
(banding is monotonous). Remove decorative paving in the proposed public street.
DRC COMMENTS
'Fl' 15955 - LEE
September 14, 1999
Page 2
2. Upgrade the quality of submittal package: include dimensions, colors, and materials on
each elevation, insert Floor Plans and Elevations in sequential order, add details to Site
Plan.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Design Review Committee continue the
project to allow revisions.
Attachment
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren
The developer requested a continuance to allow time for his development team to address
major issues identified in the Design Review Committee comments. The Committee agreed to
continue the project and provided the following direction:
1. The proposed street layout is acceptable.
2. Plans should be revised to address all major and secondary issues listed above.
3. Single story plan and/or single story elements are needed to address neighborhood
compatibility.
4. A neighborhood meeting is recommended.
SITE PLAN
~NCHO C~C~ONGA
CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Brent Le Count April 18, 2000
TENTATIVE TRACT 15955 - LEE- A residential subdivision and design review of detailed site plan
and elevations for 22 single family lots on 4.39acres of land in the Low Medium Residential Distdct
(4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of San Bernardino Road, ,~ast of Vineyard
Avenue - APN: 208-091-08.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
The Committee reviewed the revised plan, which showed a reduction from 23 to 22 lots. The
Committee recommends approval.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 15955, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 22 LOTS ON 4.39 ACRES
OF LAND IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING
UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SAN
BERNARDINO ROAD EAST OF VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-091-08.
A. Recitals.
1. Jeff Lee filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map 15955, 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 28th day of June 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.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on June 28, 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 on the north side of San Bemardino
Road, east of Vineyard Avenue, with a street frontage of 370 feet and lot depth of 540 feet and is
presently vacant; and
b. The property to the norlh of the subject site is developed with single-family homes,
the property to the south consists of the Thomas Winery Plaza, the property to the east is developed
with single-family homes, and the property to the west is vacant; and
c. The site falls within the Red Hill Fault Zone and a detailed fault study was
conducted in 1992 which found no trace of the fault on site; and
d. Short-term air quality impacts associated with grading and construction will be
mitigated through implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration; and
e. The design of the street layout affords safe and efficient traffic circulation; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 15955 - LEE
June 28, 2000
Page 2
f. The tract is designed at five dwelling units per acre, towards the Iow end of the
permitted density range for the 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. That the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and
any applicable specific plans; and
b. The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General
Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and
c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and
d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and
e. The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and
f. The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the
public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed
subdivision.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Miligated Negative
Declaration, together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for
the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the
findings as follows:
a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines
promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared
therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this
Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative
Declaration with regard to the application.
b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant
environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been
reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the project which are listed
below as Conditions of Approval.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the
proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon
which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning
Commission during the public headng, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of
adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT15955- LEE
June 28, 2000
Page 3
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.
Enqineerinq Division:
1) The existing overhead utilities (telecommunication and electrical) on the
project side of San Bemardino Road shall be undergrounded along the
entire project frontage extending to the first pole off-site (east and west)
prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever
occurs first. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement
to recover one-half the City adopted cost for undergrounding from the
future redevelopment as it occurs on the opposite side of the 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.
2) The developer shall honor any applicable reimbursement agreements
and pay a reimbursement for the curb, gutter, and pavement
improvements constructed by O.A.S. Investors on the north half side of
San Bernardino Road fronting Tentative Tract 15955.
3) Submit a final drainage study to verify that San Bernardino Read can
carry the additional flows resulting from this development. If San
Bernardino Road cannot carry the additional flows, the developer shall
construct storm drains consistent with City policies, as required by the
City Engineer.
4) Provide a landscape maintenance easement for the area between the
perimeter wall and the San Bemardino Road right-of-way on Lots 1
through 4.
5) Retaining walls in Landscape Maintenance District areas shall be a
maximum of 30 inches tall (exposed height). Sidewalk-adjacent to the
retaining wall (5 feet wide) is preferable to a 1-foot landscape strip.
Environmental Mitiqation Measures:
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 the 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 clean alternative fuel-
powered equipment 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
Tr15955 - LEE
June 28, 2000
Page 4
4) The construction contractor shall ensure that all bare ground surfaces
will be sprayed with water or other acceptable dust palliatives to
minimize wind erosion and fugitive dust emissions.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2000.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary
I, Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 28th day of June, 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 15955
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:
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.
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.
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. A 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
'I-1'15955 - Lee
June 28,2000
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 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 period
of time.
9. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City
with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the
monitoring results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified
to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The
monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the
Community Development Director prior to the issuance of building permits.
MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III)
Project File No.: TT 15955 Applicant: Jeff Lee
Initial Study Prepared by: Brent Le Count Date: June 28~ 2000
Air Quality
The construction contractor shall select the construction CP B/C At Plan Check A/C 1,2, 3, 4
equipment used on-site based on Iow-emission factors and throughout
and high-energy efficiency. The construction contractor construction
shall ensure the construction grading plans include a
statement that all construction equipment will be tuned
and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's
specifications.
The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean CP B/C Throughout A 3, 4
alternative fuel-powered equipment where feasible, construction
The construction contractor shall ensure that CP/BO B At plan check C 2
(Z construction grading plans include a statement that work
(;~ crews will shut-off equipment when not in use.
..~ The construction contractor shall ensure that all bare CP/BO B/C Plan check and A/C 2, 3, 4
ground surfaces wirl be sprayed with water or other throughout
acceptable dust palliatives to minimize wind erosion and construction
fugitive dust emissions.
Key to Checklist Abbreviations
Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification Sanctions
CDD - Community Development Director A - With Each New Development A - On-site Inspection 1 - Withhold Recordation of Final Map
CP - City P~anner or designee B - Prior To Construction B - Other Agency Permit / Approval 2 - Withhold Grading or Building Permit
CE - City Engineer or desi,~nee 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 desi,(;nee 6 - Revoke CUP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: TENTATIVE TRACT 15955
SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
APPLICANT: JEFF LEE
LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF SAN BERNARDINO ROAD AND EAST OF VINEYARD
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:
A. General Requirements co~.o~e~o. Date
1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its .__j !
agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the
alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents,
officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents,
officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City
may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but
such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
2. Approval of Tentative Tract No. 15955 is granted subject to the approval of Variance 00-03. .__/~__/__
3. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter of approval, and all / /
Standard Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and
construction plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check.
B. Time Limits
1. This tentative tract 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 which __/ /__
include site plans, amhitectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign
program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and the
Development Code regulations.
2. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be / /
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
Project No.: 'ir 15955
COmD{etion Date
3. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for ~/ /
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or
approved use has commenced, whichever comes first.
4. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development / /
Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in
effect at the time of building permit issuance.
5. All greund-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be ! 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.
6. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the __j /.~
adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map.
7. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, /
including proper illumination.
8. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property /__/
owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this
landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and
approved prior to the issuance of building permits.
9. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double /_ /
wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the
adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all
contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences
along the project's perimeter.
10. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each ___j !
support post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two Y~-inch lag bolts, to withstand high
winds. Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall
extend at least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade.
11. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. / /
12. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron to maintain an open feeling and ~/ /
enhance views.
13. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. ~/ /
14. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. / /
15. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be ~/ !
manufactured products,
D, Building Design
1. Standard.patio cover plans for use by the Homeowner's Association shall be submitted for /
City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
2. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or / /
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally
integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
Details shall be included in building plans.
sc-2-oo tO
2
Project NO.: 3'r 15955
Cornoletion Date
E. Landscaping
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home ___/ /
landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape
amhitect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance ef building
permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shal~ be protected with a construction barrier j /
in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans.
The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees
shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's
recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods.
3. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 er 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.
4. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or / /.___
greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their
appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-
gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover
In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall
also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and
shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting
required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the
developer prior to occupancy.
5. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be .~/ /
continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each
individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units,
an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in
satisfactory condition.
6. Front yard and comer side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the ~ L
Development Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and
slope planting.
7. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be I_.._/
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.
8. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, ___/ /
the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
· 9. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and _._/ /
approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural
growth characteristics of the selected tree species·
F. Environmental
1. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cos't of ___/ /
implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required
to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the
amount of $719.00, prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory
performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the
City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation
measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents
shall be considered grounds for forfeit.
sc-2-oo C_. 5"z/
3
Project No.: 'n' 15955
Comoletion Date
Other Agencies
1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and __! !
location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead
structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the
design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to
the issuance of building permits.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
H. General Requirements
1. Submit four complete sets of plans including the following: _~/ /
a. Site/Plot Plan;
b. Foundation Plan;
c. Floor Plan;
d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan;
e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and
size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams;
f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and
waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating
and air conditioning; and
g. Planning Division Project Number (i.e., TT if, CUP #, DR if, 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., TT 15955). The applicant shall comply with the
latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code,
National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes,
ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Please contact the
Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable
handouts.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to ___/ /
existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees
may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee,
Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees.
Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division
prior to permit issuance.
3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation / /
and prior to issuance of building permits.
4. 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.
sc- -oo
4
Project NO.: 'IT 15955
Completion Date
5. Submit pool plans to the County of San Bernardino's Environmental Health Services / /
Department for approval.
J, New Structures
1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances / /
considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness.
2. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. / /
3. Roofing materials shall be Class "A."
4. Exterior walls shall be constructed of the required fire rating in accordance with UBC Table / /___
§-A
5. Openings in exterior walls shall be protected in accordance with UBC Table 5-A. /~/
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. 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. 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):
3~3 total feet on San Bernardino Road.
3. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. __/ /
4. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated / /
or noted on the final map.
5. A maintenance agreement shall also be granted from each lot to the adjacent lot through the __/ /
CC&Rs.
SC-2-O0 ~ %~,~) ..~"~
5
Project No.: TF 15955
Comoletion Date
Street Improvements
1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, j !
landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City
Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter,
AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and'street trees.
2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: / /
Curb& A.C. ] Side- ] Drive ] Street I Street I Comm I Median I Bike I Other I
Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail
San Bernardino
X X X b/e ]
Road
I
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) cross qutter/spandrel.
3. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety / /
lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered
Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security
shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street
improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a / /
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any
other permits required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, / /__
and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or ~/~
reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future
traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the
street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City
Engineer.
Notes:
(1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum
of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized
steel with pull rope or as specified.
e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City / /
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer, -- --
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with __/ /
adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A
cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be
refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall / /
be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots.
6
Project No.: .TF 15955
Completion Dat{,
hl Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan / /
check.
4. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in / /
accordance with the City's street tree program.
5. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with /. /
adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project
intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commemial 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 /. /
~hall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or
~ssuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways,
medians, paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Lendscape
Maintenance District: All streets within the tract.
2. Public landscape areas are required to incorporate substantial areas including (40%) of ___/ /
mortared cobble or other acceptable non-irrigated sudaces.
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. 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.
P. Utilities
1. Provide separate utility services to each pamel including sanitary sewerage system, water, j /
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
prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the
case of al! 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.
sc-=-oo
7
Project NO.: 'l'r 15955
Completion Date
(9PPLICANT' SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT,
09) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
R. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Mello Roes 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: 1,000 gallons per minute, Per '97 UFC Appendix III-/~, 3, (b) i__/
(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.
3. Fire hydrants are required. Alt required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, ._..j /
flushed, and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials en site (i.e.,
lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department
personnel.
4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval Required ..__/ /
hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch
riser with a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shalt be upgraded to meet
this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and
model numbers.
5. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to
final inspection. / /
6. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted:
a. All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 32. /
7. Emergency secondary access shall be provided in accordance with Fire District standards. ___/ /
8. 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. $132 for Single Family Residential Tract (per phase).
NOTE: SEPARATE PLAN CHECK FEES FOR TENANT IMPROVEMENTS, FIRE PROTECTION
SYSTEMS (SPRINKLERS, HOOD SYSTEMS, ALARMS, ETC.), AND/OR ANY
CONSULTANT REVIEWS WILL BE ASSESSED UPON SUBMI'I-i'AL OF PLANS.
NOTE: A SEPARATE GRADING PLAN CHECK SUBMI']-rAL 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 REGISTED CIVIL ENGINEER.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW
FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15955, FOR 22 LOTS ON 4.39 ACRES OF LAND
IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS
PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SAN BERNARDINO
ROAD EAST OF VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-091-08.
A. Recitals.
1. Jeff Lee filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map 15955, including
design review of homes, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution,
the subject Tentative Tract Map Design Review request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 28th day of June 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.
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 hearing on June 28, 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 on the north side of San Bemardino
Road, east of Vineyard Avenue, with a street frontage of 370 feet and lot depth of 540 feet and is
presently vacant; and
b. The property to the nor[h of the subject site is developed with single-family homes,
the proper~y to the south consists of the Thomas Winery Plaza, the property to the east is developed
with single-family homes, and the property to the west is vacant; and
c. The site falls within the Red Hill Fault Zone and a detailed fault study was
conducted in 1992 which found no trace of the fault on site; and
d. Short-term air quality impacts associated with grading and construction will be
mitigated through implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration; and
e. The design of the street layout affords safe and efficient traffic circulation; and
f. The design of the homes is modest, yet tasteful, and will add to the quality of the
neighborhood; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR FOR TT15955
June 28, 2000 ~
Page 2
g. All of the homes are two-story, but those on comer lots are designed with one-story
elements facing the corner side street; and
h. The homes are set as much as 18 feet below the level of exisfing homes to the
north, which will help preserve views of the valley from the existing homes.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in pa~'agraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the I'~eneral Plan; and
b. That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code
and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and
c. That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions
of the Development Code; and
d. That the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not
be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration, together with all wdtten and oral repods 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
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-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR FOR TT 15955
June 28, 2000
Page 3
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below
and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Planninq Division:
1) The home on Lot 17 shall have second-story windows designed to
discourage views into the backyard of the home to the east. A
clerestory window is acceptable.
2) The perimeter wall along the east property line shall be no less than 6
feet high relative to the west side of the wall.
3) All walls, including perimeter walls, between-home connecting walls,
walls visible from streets, the wall along the east tract boundary, and all
retaining walls, shall be decorative masonry with decorative cap. No
wood fencing or precision block fencing allowed in areas visible from
public rights-of-way. If stucco is used, it shall be applied to both sides
of walls.
4) No retaining wall shall exceed a height of 3 feet within the front yard or
comer side yard area. No retaining wall in a side or rear yard shall
exceed 4 feet in height.
5) Provide at least two trees per front yard area.
6) Plot homes on comer lots to maximize the setback from the comer side
street.
7) All homes shall have decorative driveway paving per the approved
Landscape Plan.
8) Provide wrought iron fencing on top of retaining walls along north
property line and specify vine planting along south side of walls to
screen.
9) Lower corner lots to eliminate/reduce corner side yard slopes and
retaining wails,
10)Provide a maximum 5 percent driveway grade for the first 18 feet in
front of garages for all lots.
11)A Minor Exception shall be processed for any walls in excess of 6 feet
in height.
6, The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2000.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION REsoLUTIoN NO.
DR FOR TT15955
June 28, 2000
Page 4 :
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
A'I-rEST:
Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary
I, Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do hereby cer[ify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 28th day of June, 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 15955
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:
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.
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.
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. A 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 Pmgmm
TT15955 - Lee
June 28, 2000
Page2
3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City .,~taff'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.: TT 15955 Applicant: Jeff Lee
Initial Study Prepared by: Brent Le Count Date: June 28, 2000
Air Quality
The construction contractor shall select the construction CP B/C At Plan Check A/C 1,2, 3, 4
equipment used on-site based on Iow-emission factors and throughout
and high-energy efficiency. The construction contractor construction
shall ensure the construction grading plans include a
statement that all construction equipment will be tuned
and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's
specifications.
The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean CP B/C Throughout A 3, 4
alternative fuel-powered equipment where feasible, construction
"" The construction contractor shall ensure that CP/BO B At plan check C 2
construction grading plans include a statement that work
~ crews will shut-off equfpment when not in use.
'~ The construction contractor shall ensure that all bare CP/BO B/C Plan check and A/C 2, 3, 4
~'.ground sudaces will be sprayed with water or other throughout
acceptable dust palliatives to minimize wind erosion and construction
fugitive dust emissions.
Key to Checklist Abbreviations
Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification Sanctions
CDD - Community Development Director A - With Each New Development A - On-site Inspection I - Withhold Recordation of Final Map
CP - City Planner or designee B - Prior To Construction B - Other Agency Permit / Approval 2 - Withhold Grading or Buildin§ Permit
CE - City En,(Jineer 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
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15955
SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
APPLICANT: JEFF LEE
LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF SAN BERNARDINO ROAD AND EAST OF VINEYARD
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:
A. General Requirements com.r~o. ~e
1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City,
its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the
alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents,
officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents,
officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City
may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action
but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
2. Approval is granted subject to the approval of Vadance 00-03.
3. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter of approval, and all
Standard Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and
construction plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check.
B. Time Limits
1. Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or
approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions
are allowed.
C. Site Development
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which
include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign
program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and
the Development Code regulations
2. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
Project No: DR for TT 15955
Comoletion Date
3. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for /
r~nsistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment
building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or
approved use has commenced, whichever comes first.
4. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development /
Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in
effect at the time of building permit issuance.
5. 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.
6. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the /
adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map.
7. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner /
including proper illumination.
8. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property /
owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this
landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and
approved prior to the issuance of building permits.
9. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double /
wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the
adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all
contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences
along the project's perimeter.
10. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each /
support post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two %-inch lag bolts, to withstand high
winds. Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall
extend at least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade.
11. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. /
12. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron or black plastic coated chain /
link to maintain an open feeling and enhance views.
13. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. /
14. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. /
15. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be /
manufactured products.
D. Building Design
1. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowner's Association shall be submitted for /
City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
2. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or /
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally
integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
Details shall be included in building plans.
Project No: DR for 11' 15955
ComDlelion Date
E. Landscaping
1. A detailed landscape and in'igation plan, including slope planting and model home I
landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed
landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance
of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a constroction barrier /
in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on th(; grading
plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for
transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow
all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming
methods.
3. All 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.
4. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or /
greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their
appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area,
1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate; ground
cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope
shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees
and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope
planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by
the developer prior to occupancy.
5. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be / /
continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each
individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those
units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in
satisfactory condition.
6. Front yard and comer side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the I
Development Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and
slope planting.
7. 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.
8. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas,
the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
9. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural
growth characteristics of the selected tree species.
F. Environmental
1. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of
implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required
to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the
amount of ~719.00, prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory
performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the
City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation
measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental
documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit.
sc-2 o £
3
Project No: pR for TT
Completion
Other Agencies
1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and 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 four complete sets of plans including the following: /
a. Site/Plot Plan;
b. Foundation Plan;
c. Floor Plan;
d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan;
e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and
size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams;
f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and
waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating
and air conditioning; and
g. Planning Division Project Number (i.e., TT #, CUP #, DR #, etc.) clearly identified on
the outside of all plans.
2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils /
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 pdor 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., 'iT 15955). 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 penmit application. Please contact the
Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable
handouts.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to /
existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees
may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee,
Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees.
Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division
prior to permit issuance.
3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation /
and prior to issuance of building permits.
4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday /
through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays.
Project No: DR for TT 15955
Coml)letion Date
5. Submit pool plans to the County of San Bernardino's Environmental Health Services
Department for approval. --/----
J. New Structures
1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances /
considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness.
2. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. /
3. Roofing materials shall be Class "A."
4. Exterior walls shall be constructed of the required fire rating in accordance with UBC Table
5-A
5, Openings in exterior walls shall be protected in accordance with UBC Table 5-A.
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 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 / /
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):
3._~3 total feet on San Bemardino Road.
3. Comer property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards.
4. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated
or noted on the final map.
5. A maintenance agreement shall also be granted from each lot to the adjacent lot through the
CC&Rs.
sc-2 o ?1
5
Project No: DR for TT 15955
ComDlefion Date
~1. Street Improvements
1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos,
landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City
Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter,
AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees.
2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike Other
SanStreet Bemardino Name Gutter Pvmt walk X Appr. Lights X Trees X Trad' Island Trail b/e
Road
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) cress gutter/spandrel.
3. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety
lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered
Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Secudty
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 o~
reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future
traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the
street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City
Engineer.
Notes:
(1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum
of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized
steel with pull rope or as specified.
e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with
adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A
cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be
refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall
be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots.
sc-2 o
6
Project No: DR for TT 15955
CornDletion Date
h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal fer first plan /
check.
4. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Slandards 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 corr~mercial 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 !
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: All streets within the tract.
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 I
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. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final I /
map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage
facilities sh. all be installed as required by the City Engineer.
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
prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision er 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.
sc-2 o C ?S
7
Project NO: DR fo; 'IT 1595S
Com~lelion Date
APPLCANT, SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT,
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 (CFI:)) for the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct to finance construction and/or maintenance of a
fire station to serve the development. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the
developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs.
2. Fire flow requirement shall be: 1,000 gallons per minute, 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.
3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed,
flushed, and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e.,
lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department
personnel.
4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required
hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-
inch riser with a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to
meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands
and model numbers.
5. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to
final inspection.
6. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted:
a. All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 32.
7. Emergency secondary access shall be provided in accordance with Fire District standards.
8. 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).
NOTE: SEPARATE PLAN CHECK FEES FOR TENANT IMPROVEMENTS, FIRE PROTECTION
SYSTEMS (SPRINKLERS, HOOD SYSTEMS, ALARMS, ETC.), AND/OR ANY
CONSULTANT REVIEWS WILL BE ASSESSED UPON SUBMI'i-I'AL 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.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
S. Security Hardware
1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors.
Project No: DR for ~'T 15955
ComPletion Date
2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are
within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead holt shall be
used.
3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts 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 re[lective for
nighttime visibility.
9
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE 00-03, A
REQUEST TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT DEPTH FOR LOTS 3, 11, AND
15 WITHIN TENTATIVE TRACT 15955 ON 4.39 ACRES OF LAND IN THE
LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER
ACRE), LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SAN BERNARDINO ROAD,
EAST OF VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 208-091-08.
A. Recitals.
1. Jeff Lee filed an application for the approval of Variance 00-03, as described in the title
of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Vadance request is referred to as "the
application."
2. On the 28th day of June 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.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on June 28, 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 on the nodh side of San Bernardino
Road, east of Vineyard Avenue, with a street frontage of 370 feet and lot depth of 540 feet and is
presently vacant; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with single-family homes,
the property to the south consists of the Thomas Winery Plaza, the property to the east is developed
with single-family homes, and the property to the west is vacant; and
c. The site is of an unusual, triangular shape which severely restricts lot configuration;
and
d. The Vadance requested represents the minimum reduction in lot depth necessary
to reasonably accommodate the project; and
e. The lot depth for Lots 3 and 15 will be reduced by 2 feet and the depth of Lot 11
will be reduced by 23 feet. The proposed lot depth for Lots 3 and 15 represents slightly more than
a 2 percent reduction, which is not considered significant or noticeable. Lot 11 has an almost
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VA 00-03 - LEE
June 28, 2000 ~-
Page 2
triangular shape and a significant portion of the lot is much deeper than 90 feet, therefore the impact
on the street scene is not significant; and
f. The developer will be required to install front yard landscaping, including a
minimum of two trees per front yard area which will reduce any potential visual impact resulting from
the lot depth reductions; and
gl The average lot depth for the overall tract is well in excess of the, 90-foot lot depth
requirement; and
h. The project complies with all other applicable requirements of "the Development
Code; and
i. A similar Variance was granted for a previously approved subdivision for the site
which had two less lots than the current subdivision which demonstrates that even with reduction
in the number of lots, a Variance would likely still be necessary to accommodate reasonable
development of the site; and
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That strict or literal interpretation and enfomement of the specified regulations
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives
of the Development Code.
b. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other
properties in the same district.
c. That strict or literal interpretation and enfomement of the specified regulation would
depdve the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district.
d. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district.
e. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forlh below.
Plannin,q Division:
1. The developer shall install front yard landscaping, including a minimum
of two trees per front yard area to reduce any potential visual impact
resulting from the lot depth reductions.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this i:{esolution.
7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VA 00-05 - LEE
June 28,2000
Pag~ 3
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2000.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
A3-FEST:
Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary
I, Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 28th day of June, 2000, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
T H E C ) T Y OF
I~AN Cll 0 CUCAHONGA
DATE: June 28, 2000
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner
BY: Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND TIME EXTENSION FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 - FU-MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - A request for a
time extension of a previously approved tentative tract map for the development
of 159 single family lots on 24.56 acres of land in the Medium Residential District
(8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and
Development Code areas located between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route,
west of the Cucamonga Creek Control Channel - APN: 207-211-01, 18 through
21, 31, 32, and 34. Related Files: Development Review 99-27 and Variance 99-
06. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted on August 11,1999.
Background: Tentative Tract 15540 was approved by the Planning Commission on June 23,
1993, for a two-year period. Since that time, State Senate Bill 428 and Assembly Bill 771
granted automatic time extensions to June 23, 1998. On May 14, 1997, a time extension for the
Tentative Tract alone was requested by the applicant and approved by the City Planner. This
extended the Tentative Tract expiration date for one-year to June 23, 1999.
On August 11, 1999, the Planing Commission approved a time extension request, which
extended the tentative tract map to June 23, 2000 (Exhibit "D"). The approval included the
issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Subsequently, the City has adopted guidelines
for the implementation of the California Quality Act (CEQA), which require adoption of the
Mitigation Monitoring Program by the Planning Commission. Mitigation monitoring is needed to
ensure that adopted mitigated measures are implemented. Included with this Tentative Tract
time extension request, staff has attached a Mitigation Monitoring Program and Checklist for
adoption by' the Commission. This will bring the project entitlement into conformance with the
latest adopted CEQA Guidelines.
ANALYSIS:
A. The City Council, on January 6, 1999, amended the City's Subdivision Ordinance to
establish a three-year initial approval period for tracts (increased from two years
previously). In addition, the amendment allows the Planning Commission authority to
grant time extensions in 12-month increments for up to five years (a maximum of eight
years from the original time approval), which is the maximum allowed under the State
ITEM E
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT15540 TE
June 28,2000
Page 2
Subdivision Map Act Section 66452.69(e). There are four more time extensions available
for this project (final expiration on June 23, 2004).
Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension and compared the proposal with current
development criteria outlined in the Development Code and the Foothill Boulevard Specific
Plan. Based on this review, the Tentative Tract Map does meet the development
standards for the Medium Residential District.
B. Design Review and Variance: The related Design Review and Variance for the Tentative
Tract Map expired on June 23, 1998. A new Design Review and Variance application was
submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Commission on July 28, 1999.
In December 1998, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 596 establishing a five-year
approval period, with no time extensions, for Development/Design Review and Variance
applications. Therefore, under the current local law the new approved Design Review and
Variance applications expire on July 28, 2004
C. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been prepared by the applicant.
Staff completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist with the previous time extension
request on August 11, 1999 and found that conditions in the area have not changed
appreciably since the Tentative Tract was originally approved June 23, 1993. Staff
recommends adherence to the mitigation measures for cultural resources and tree
removal, which were included in the original project approval and the adoption of the
attached Mitigation Monitoring Program. Neither the environmental impacts, nor the
mitigation measures are being changed by this action.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners
within a 300-foot radius of the project site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission grant a one-year time
extension for Tentative Tract 15540 and adopt the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program
through the adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Mitigated Negative
uan L;oleman
Acting City Planner
RZ:DC:gs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter From Applicant
Exhibit "B" - Location Map
Exhibit "C" - Tentative Tract Map
Exhibit "D" - Tentative Tract Time Extension Chart
Exhibit "E" - Initial Study Part II
Resolution of Approval
MADOLE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. OF THE INLAND EMPIRE
Consulting Civil Engineering
Land Planning and Surveying
10601 CHURCH STREET RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 TELEPHONE (909i 948-1311
SUITE 107 FAX (909) 948-8464
May 17, 2000 J.N. 604-1299
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Community Development Departmen:
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
ATTN: Mr. Dan Coleman; Principle Planner
RE: TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 TIME EXTENSION
Dear ~Mr. Coleman:
Tentative Tract 15540 will expire on June 23, 2000. Our Client is requesting a one year
extension to June 23, 2001. This additional time is needed to process the final map
documents, and to prevent undo finan¢ iai hardship on the partnership.
Respectfully,
MADOLE AND ASSOCIATES, IN('.
OF THE INLPuND EMPIRE
Agent for FU-MArLIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Location Map
,0~j C
Building footprints
Project Site Tr15540
0.3 0 0.3 Miles S
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15540
TENTATIVE TRACT NO, 15540
..._...~,,~,,............ . . .
... r., ~,. - .............
TENTATIVE TRACT 15540
TIME EXTENSION CHART
Action Extension
TT15540 Expiration
(Extensions) Time
Original Approval ~ 2 Years June 23, 1995
June 23, 1993
Senate Bill 428 ,~ 2 Years June 23, 1997
October 12, 1993
Assembly Bill 711 ~,1. 1 Year June 23, 1998
June 6, 1996
*City Planner ~ 1 Year June 23, 1999
May 14, 1997
Planning Commission ~. 1 Year June 23, 2000
August 11, 1999
* May 5, 1997, staff received letter from applicant, requesting a one-year extension.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIiST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 - FU-MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
2. Related Files: VARIANCE 93-03 AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 93-04
3. Description of Project:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15540 - FU-MAI LIMITFI')
PARTNERSHIP - A request for a time extension of a previously approved tentative tract
map including design review for the development of 159 single family lots on 24.56 acres
of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan and Development Code areas located between Foothill Boulevard
and Arrow Route, west of the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel - APN: 207-211-
01, 18 through 21, 31, 32 and 34.
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Fu-Mai Limited Partnership
867 South Atlantic Boulevard
Monterey Park, CA 91754
5. General Plan Designation: Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
6. Zoning: Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
North: Existing Art Studio and Traffic School; Office
South: Existing apartments and single family homes; Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling
units per acre)
East:Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel
West:Existing mobile home park, apartment, market and vacant land
8. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
9. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Rudy Zeledon
Assistant Planner
(909) 477-2750
"E"
Initial Study for of Rancho Cucamonga
TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 2
'10. 'Other agencies whose approval is required: Cucamonga County Water District
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
( ) Land Use and Planning (~') Transportation/Circulation (~') Public Services
( ) Population and Housing (~') Biological Resources (v') Utilities and Service Systems
(~') Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (~') Aesthetics
(v') Water ( ) Hazards (~') Cultural Resources
( ) Air Quality (~') Noise ( ) Recreation
( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
( ) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
(v') i find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
( I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Initial Study for ' of Rancho Cucamonga
TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation
is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to
mitigate the significant effects identified.
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? ( ) ( ) (v~ )
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ( ) ( ) (~,')
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community? ( ) ( ) (v~)
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposak
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( ) (~/)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( ) (~')
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( ) (~)
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in
or expose l~eople t,o potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
·
Initial Study for '"City of Rancho Cucamonga
TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 4
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) (~') ( )
g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Comments:
a,b,c
and d) The northwest portion of the project site falls within the Red Hill Fault Zone per
Figure V-4 of the General Plan and is subject to potential fault rupture, ground
shaking, and ground failure. The General Plan also indicates that "differential
subsidence could occur across the Red Hill fault causing ground shaking." A
Geologic Fault Study was prepared to identify any fault traces on-site and establish
mitigation measures if any fault traces were found. The report found no evidence
of faulting on the site. See Geologic Fault investigation Study by RMA Group dated
December 4, 1992.
The site will be graded to accommodate the proposed structures. Grading will be
conducted under supervision of a licensed surveyor or civil engineer to ensure
compliance with applicable regulations. The impact is not considered significant.
4. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?. ( ) (v') ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ( v' )
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( )
Initial Study for 'l;ity of Rancho Cucamonga
TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 5
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ( ) ( ) (¢)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ( ) ( ) (~')
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations, or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ) (¢')
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ) (~/)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ) (v')
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? ( ) ) (~/)
Comments:
a) Paving and hard scape necessary to accommodate the projec, t will result in
increased runoff from the site. Drainage will be conveyed to existing facilities, which
have been designed to handle the flows.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) (~')
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) (~')
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) (v')
Initial Study for , of Rancho Cucamonga
TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 6
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) (~') ( )
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) (~')
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ( ) (~')
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) (~')
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) (~/)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( ) ( (v')
g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( (~/)
Comments:
a) The project will not exceed the maximum density allowed in the district in which it's
located. However the project will generate additional vehicle trips around the project
area. The applicant will be required to complete the necessary street improvements
and provide a traffic signal (at the Foothill Boulevard access point) to accommodate
the vehicle trips that will be generated by the project. The number of trips generated
by the project is not expected to be significant.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees,
Eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) (~) ( ) ( )
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
Eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
·
Initial Study for "City of Rancho Cucamonga
TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 7
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and
vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Comments:
a) The site contains many mature tress which are in conflict with the proposed
development and improvements. An arborist report was prepared for the project site
to determine the significance of the trees and the feasibility of relocating them to
areas, which are not in conflict with the proposed project. The Planning
Commission approved a Tree Removal Permit subject to the following
mitigations (see Approved Resolution 93-46):
i) Trees No. 1-16, 22-23, 36, 37, 39, 41, 43-45, 47-57, 59, 61-63, 66-69, 72,
74, 75, 78-84, 89, 91, 93-95, 97, 99, 102-t39, 141-147, 149,150, 152-155,
157, 158, 160, t6t, t 63-t67, 170, 172-t87, 19t-t93, 195-201, and 203-220
may be removed as required to improve the property per the final site,
grading, and landscaping plans and the final map. Replacement of all
trees are required, excepted for trees No. 22-33, 35, 37, 39, 41, and 43-
45.
ii) Trees No. 17-21, 34,36, 38, 40, 42, 46, 58, 60, 151, t62, 188-190, 194, 202,
And 221 shall be preserved in-place per the consulting arborist report.
iii) Trees No. 64, 65, 70, 7t, 73, 76, 77, 85-88, 90, 92, 96, 98, 100, 10t, 140,
148, 156, 159, 168, 169, 171, and 222 shall be preserved in-place or
relocated per recommendations of the consulting arborist report.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposah
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?. ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) (v')
·
Initial Study for -'City of Rancho Cucamonga
TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 8
$. 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)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v~)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v~)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (v') ( )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) (v') ( )
Comments:
a) The project involves the construction of 159 single family homes. Construction
activity is likely to result in an increase in noise levels from associated grading and
development activity. Construction hours will be limited as required by the
Development Code, to lesson any construction related disturbance in noise levels
to the surrounding properties. The resulting residential project is not likely to
produce a significant increase in existing noise levels.
b) The General Plan indicates future noise levels exceeding 70 Ldn along Foothill
Boulevard and exceeding 65 Ldn along Arrow Route, which requires detailed
analysis of noise attenuation measures. Significant noise impact on the residents
will likely result, if sound attenuation devices (interior and exterior) are not
incorporated into the project design to screen noise impacts created by traffic on
Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route. An acoustical analysis was prepared by J.J.
Van Houton and Assoiates, Inc., on December 21, 1992, to determine what
mitigated measures would be necessary to reduce noise levels to a permissible
Initial Study for '-City of Rancho Cucamonga
TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 9
level. To mitigate significant adverse traffic impacts from Foothill Boulevard and
Arrow Route, the noise study recommended that, in order to mitigate noise to "safe"
levels, a minimum 6-foot high wall be constructed along both Foothill Boulevard and
Arrow Route, along the top of the proposed street scape berms and/or slopes.
These walls are already incorporated into the conceptual design of 1:he subdivision.
The noise impact is not considered significant.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Schools? ( ) ( ) (~) ( )
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
.Comments:
a) When Resolution 93-46, approving Tentative Tract 11540, was approved, a
Standard Condition was placed on the project, which required the applicant to ;
consent to or participate in the establishment of a Mello-Ross Community Facilities
District to finance or construction and/or maintenance of necessary school facilities.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
propose/result in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) ~')
b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( )
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) ~')
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (
e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) (v') ( )
t~ Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( )
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (
Initial Study for '-City of Rancho Cucamonga
TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 10
· Comments:
e) As a condition of tract approval, desilting facilities will be required for off-site
drainage entering the Arrow Route storm drain and revision of City plans for the
connection of a private storm drain to the Arrow Route storm drain. The resulting
impact on services in not likely to be significant.
"13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
() () ()
c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ~ ) ( )
Comments:
c) New light and glare will be created since the site is currently vacant. A condition of
approval will require the applicant to submit a Lighting Plan for review and approval
to ensure minimal impacts to the surrounding properties. As a result of these
measures, the effects of the new light generated is not expected to be significant.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) (~') ( ) ( )
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
() () () (v')
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (
Comments:
c) The project site has historical significance because it was used as a Labor Camp to
house Italian Prisoners of War during the later part of World War II (1944-1946). On
May 11, 1993, the City Council approved Resolution 93-122, which designated the
~/ Initial Study for ty of Rancho Cucamonga
.../ TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 11
Cucamonga Labor Camp site a local Historic Point of Interest. As part of the
condition of approval for the tract, the historical significance of the site will be
documented through the incorporation of plaques or similar historic monuments to
be located on the site. In addition, if any significant artifacts are found during
grading procedures, all grading activity on the site shall cease and a cultural
resources survey prepared by a certified archaeologist under the satisfaction of the
City shall be provided. The installation of the historical plaques will serve to
mitigate the loss of the remaining elements of the prisoners ¢,f War Camp.
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal'.
a) increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( )
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have
the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal,
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
b) Short term: Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one which occurs
in a relatively brief, definitive period of time.
Long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
05/20/1999 15:55 909-94~-8464 [,1ADDLE AND Ag~OCIATE PAGE L~4
SENT aY: R CuCAlaONGA C0M Pt;V; 5-18.9~ 14:10; 9094772047 => g0~ ~48 e464; #2/~
Initial Siudy for City of Rancho Cucamonga
TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 12
c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that ,._
are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the Incremental reflects 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.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have
environmental effects which wiil cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly'/ ( )
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 analyged in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per
Section 15065(c)($)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope ot and
adequately a~alyzed in the following eadier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
such effects were addressed by mitigatiOr~ measures based on the earlier analysis Trte following
earlier analyses were utilized In completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City
of Rancho Cucarnonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply):
General Plan
(Certit"~,d Al~ril 6, 1981)
Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR
(SCH tt.87021615, certified $eptemper 't6. 1987)
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I
have read this Initial Study en~ the proposed mitigatto~ measures. Further, I have reviae~ the
project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the ~roposed mitigafioe measures to avoid
effe~ or mRigate the effects to e Dotnt where cisaHy no ~ign~icant environmental effects would
OCCUr.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR
THE TIME EXTENSION AND ADOPTION OF MITIGATION MOTORING
PROGRAM OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
15540, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 159 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON
24.56ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
(8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
SPECIFIC PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AREAS, LOCATED BETWEEN
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ARROW ROUTE, WEST OF THE
CUCAMONGA CREEK CONTROL CHANNEL - APN: 207-211-01, 18
THROUGH 21, 31, 32 AND 34.
A. Recitals.
1. Fu-Mai Limited Partnership has filed an application for the extension of the approval of
Tentative Tract Map No. 15540, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map Time Extension request is referred to as "the
application."
2. On June 23, 1993, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 93-46, thereby
approving Tentative Tract Map No. 15540, subject to specific conditions and time limits.
3. On August 11, 1999, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 99-81, thereby
approving a one-year time extension for Tentative Tract Map No. 15540 and adopting a Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
4. On June 28, 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.
5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
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 June 28, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The previously approved Tentative Tract Map is in substantial compliance with the
City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and
b. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map approval will not cause significant
inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies;
and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT15540~ FU-MAILIMITED PARTNERSHIP
June 28, 2000
Page 2
c. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map approval is not likely to cause public
health and safety problems; and
d. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local ordinance;
and
e. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map is in compliance with the Mitigated
Negative Declaration adopted by the Planning Commission on August 11, 1999; and
f. Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program and Checklist will bring the project
entitlement into conformance with the latest adopted CEQA Guidelines; and
g. Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program and Checklist will not result in any
change to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration.
3. Based upon the facts and information and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension for:
Tentative Tract Applicant Expiration
Tentative Tract 15540 Fu-Mai Limited June 23, 2001
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby modifies the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 93-46, and
incorporated herein by this reference, to add the following conditions:
Planninq Division
1) The applicant shall agree to defend, at his sole expense, any action
brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of
the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish 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 the applicant of his obligations under this
condition.
EnRineerinq Division
1) All conditions from Planning Commission Resolution No. 93-46,
approving Tentative Tract 15540 shall apply.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2000.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
'CI'15540-FU-MAILIMITED PARTNERSHIP
June 28, 2000
Page 3
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary
I, Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 28th day of June, 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 15540
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 projec:t This program
has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are
implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code).
Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements:
'1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and
the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval
are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project.
2. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This
procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom
and when compliance will be reported.
3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring
progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon
recommendations by those responsible for the program.
Program Management - The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project
planner, assigned by the City Planner, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project
planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly
and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the
conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department.
Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
1. A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in
performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant.
2. A 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 odginal authority for processing the
project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga - Lead Agency
PlanningDivision
10500 Civic Center Ddve
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Mitigation Monitoring Program
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 requiting no further monitoring will be signed off
as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP
Reporting Form.
6. Unanticipated circumstances may adse requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation
measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions.
An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City department
and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel.
7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of
construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after 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 to the City. Said plan shall identity the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether
the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall
conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior
to the issuance of building permits.
I:\FINAL\CEQA'uMMP Form-rev.wpd
MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III)
Project File No.: Tentative Tract 15540 Applicant: Fu-Mai Limited Partnership
Initial Study Prepared by: Rudy Zeledon Date: June 6, 2000
· Trees No. 1-16, 22-23, 35, 37, 39, 41,
43-45, 47-57, 59, 61-63, 66-69, 72, 74, CP D As Necessary A 3
75, 78-84, 89, 91, 93-95, 97, 99, 102-
139, 141-147, 149,150, 152-155,157,
158, 160, 161, 163-167, 170, 172-187
191-193, 195-201, and 203-220 may
be removed as required to improve the
property per the final site, grading, and
landscaping plans and the final map.
Replacement of all trees are required,
except for trees No. 22-33, 35, 37, 39,
41, and 43-45.
· Trees No. 17-21, 34,36, 38, 40, 42, 46,
58, 60, 151, 162, 188-190, 194, 202, CP D As Necessary A 3
and 221 shall be preserved in-place per
the consulting arborist report.
· Trees No. 64, 65, 70, 71, 73, 76, 77,
85-88, 90, 92, 96, 98, 100, 101, CP D As Necessary A 3
140,148, 156, 159, 168, 169, 171, and
222 shall be preserved in-place or
relocated per recommendations of the
consulting arborist report
· The installation of the historical plaque.~
will serve to mitigate the loss of the CP D As Necessary D 3
remaining elements of the prisoners of
War Camp.
Key to Checklist Abbreviations
CDD - Community Development Director A - With Each New Development A - On-site Inspection I - 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 - 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:\PLANNING\FINAL\CEQA\MMCHKLST,WPD
THE CITY OF
~ANCI~O CUCAMONGA
Staff Report
DATE: June 28, 2000
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner
BY: Michael Smith, Planning Aide
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 00-20 - AYALA - An
appeal of the City Planner's denial of a request to remove one mature tree in the front
yard at 7631 Zircon Avenue - APN: 208-931-42.
REGULATIONS: The City of Rancho Cucamonga's Tree Preservation Ordinance is intended to
preserve and protect large trees for their natural beauty, shade, and wind protection; to prevent soil
erosion; and to counteract air pollution. The Ordinance requires a permit when a homeowner desires
to remove a tree on their property. The Ordinance does not require notification of adjoining property
owners because the request involves less than five trees on private property.
BACKGROUND: The Tree Removal Permit application filed by Eduardo Ayala (Exhibit "G") stated
that the sole reason for removal was "to pour concrete slab for RV parking." The paving will allow the
applicant to drive a recreation vehicle from Zircon Avenue into a proposed paved parking space in the
south side yard behind a fenced area (Exhibit "C-2"). The applicant proposes paving a driveway that
will be approximately 23 feet long measured from the street to the front setback and 14 feet wide as
measured from the existing paved driveway towards the south property line. The existing driveway is
23 feet long x 16 feet wide. Combined, the width of the concrete paving in the front yard would be 30
feet. After investigation by staff, the City denied the request because it was concluded that RV
access could be accommodated without removal.
ANALYSIS: Tree removals on private property are evaluated under Section 19.08.070 of the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code that establishes the following criteria for considering removal:
1. "The condition of the tree(s) with respect to disease, danger of collapse of all or any portion of the
tree(s), proximity to an existing structure, or interference with utility services."
Facts: The applicant has not submitted any arborist report on the health and condition of the
tree. Staff inspection indicates that the Shamel Ash tree is healthy and in excellent
condition, is located about 20 feet from house, is not in danger of collapse, and is not
located near or interfering with utilities.
2. "The necessity to remove a tree in order to construct improvements which allow economic
enjoyment of the property."
ITEM F
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 00-20
June 28, 2000
Page 2
Facts: The applicant proposes to remove the tree in order to expand the ddveway to ;
accommodate recreational vehicle access for storage in the side yard. The City's RV
regulations require that it be stored entirely within the side or rear yard to maximize
screening. The applicant indicated that they are currently paying $78.00 a month for a
storage facility. Staff believes that RV access can be accommodated without removal of
the tree. The tree canopy is higher than the roof of the house which should provide
adequate clearance for the 12 foot high RV. There is a smaller, minor limb that could be
pruned if necessary. The tree trunk is located about 3 feet behind the curb-adjacent
sidewalk and 9 feet from the existing driveway. The RV's dimensions are 30 feet long x
9 feet wide x 12 feet high, which will require widening their existing drive approach by 4
feet to provide maneuverability around the corner of the garage (Exhil3it "C-3").
3. 'q'he number of trees existing in the neighborhoods; and the effect the removal would have on the
established character of the area and the property values."
Facts: The tree is a street tree within the tract, with each lot typically having one street tree. The
subject parcel has another street tree near the intersection. The street trees are
consistent along Zircon Avenue, and appear to be the original street trees planted by the
developer. The nearest street tree is approximately 25 feet to the south. The tree is a
theme tree and its removal would have a negative aesthetic impact on the
neighborhood.
4. "Whether or not such trees are required to be preserved by any specific plan, community plan,
condition of approval, or designated as an historic landmark."
Facts: The tree was planted by the original developer to fulfill a standard condition of approval
for street trees. There is no specific plan, community plan or historic designation.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal (uphold the
City Planner's decision to d. eP, y Tree Removal Permit 00-20) through the adoption of the attached
Dan Coleman
Acting City Planner
MS:DC:gs
Attachments: Exhibit"A" - Vicinity Map
Exhibit "B" - Location Map
Exhibit "C" - Existing Site Plan
Exhibit "C~1" - Site Plan with Proposed Paving
Exhibit "C-2" - Site Plan with RV for comparison
Exhibit "C-3" - Site Plan with Modified Paving
Exhibit "D" - Photographs
Exhibit "E" - Appeal Letter
Exhibit "F" - Denial Letter
Exhibit "G" - Tree Removal Permit Application
Resolution of Denial
GXmmT 'K ....
June 01, 2000
Secretary of the Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Subject: Tree Removal Permit TRP 00-20
To Whom it may Concern:
This is to inform you that I have received notification regarding the City
Planning Department's denial of my request to remove one Camphor trec in my
property located at: 7631 Zircon Avenue. I am writing this letter as a notification of
my intention to appeal that decision.
If you have any questions you may contact me at (909) 484-8676 or (909)
229-8003 (eellphone). Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
T -H E C I T Y O F
i2A NC HO C UCA MONO A
May 22, 2000
Edward Ayala
7631 Zircon Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
SUBJECT: TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TRP 00-20
Dear Mr. Ayala:
The Planning Division has reviewed your application for Tree Removal Permit 00-20, requesting
the removal of one Camphor tree.
Based on review of the application and site inspection, staff has made the following findings:
1. The applicant proposes the removal of one Camphor tree located at 7631 Zircon Avenue
so that they may pave an area in the tree's vicinity for Recreation Vehicle (RV) parking.
2. The Camphor tree is healthy with no apparent flaws and provides generous shading in its
surroundings.
3. The tree is part of a neighborhood theme and is an aesthetic resource.
4. The area beneath the tree is large enough to allow paving without removal of the tree.
Pruning the tree will allow the applicant to reasonably park his RV.
Therefore, your request has been denied.
This decision shall be final following a ten (10) day appeal period. Any appeals shall be
made in writing to the Secretary of the Planning Commission along with a $62 filing fee. If you have
any questions, please contact the City of Rancho Cucamonga at (909) 477-2750 Monday through
Thursday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Sincerely,
CO~EVEL(;tP"~NT DEPARTMENT
Dah--C'd[eman, -
Principall.~lPlanner ,~_~
DC:MS:mlg Mayor William J, Alexonc~er Councilmember Paul Biane
Mayor Pro-Tem Diane Williams Councilmeml~er Bob Duff.on
/ Jack Lam, AICP. City Manager Councilmember James V. Curatalo
l~)*~l?~::~nter Drive-- F~O. Box 807 · Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 * (909) 477-2700 * FAX (909] 477-2849 ./
Tree Removal Permit
lop e
Non-Deve m nt
Ordinance No. 276, pertaining to the preservation of trees on pdvate property, requires that no person remove or relocate any
woody plants in excess of fifteen (15) feet in height and having a single trunk circumference of fifteen (15) inches or more and
multi-trunks having a circumference of thirty (30) inches or more (measured twenty-four (24) inches from ground level), without
first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit from the City.
Location of Subject Site: -Tb,'~l '¢~
Name, Address, Telephone of Applicant: ~L(~J,O"g[,t~],-
Name, Address, Telephone of Property Owner (if other than applicant):
Reasons for Removal (attach
Proposed Method of Removal:
App,icant's Signature:
This application shall include a plot plan indicating location of all trees to be removed and retained. The species, number,
and size of the trees to be removed shall be so designated. If a tree is diseased, then a written statement from a licensed
arborist stating the nature of the disease shall be required.
I'-I APPROVED
BY: Reasons:
Date:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE CITY
PLANNER'S DENIAL OF TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 00-20, A REQUEST TO
REMOVE ONE MATURE TREE IN THE FRONT YARD AT 7631 ZIRCON
AVENUE WITHIN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING
UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
APN: 208-931-42.
A, Recitals.
1. Eduardo Ayala filed an application for Tree Removal Permit 00-20, as described in the
title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tree Removal Permit request is
referred to as "the application."
2. On the 22nd day of May, the Planning Division denied the application and notified the
applicant in writing of their decision. This decision was timely appealed to this Planning Commission
on June 1, 2000.
3. On the 28th day of June 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga considered the appeal and concluded said meeting on that date.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting on June 28, 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 at 7631 Zircon Avenue on the southeast
comer of Zircon Avenue and Yew Street with a street frontage of 50 feet and lot depth of 109 feet
and which is presently improved with a single family residence;
b. The surrounding properties are improved with single family residences located
within the Low (L) Residential Zone; and
c. The applicant contemplates the removal of one mature Shamel Ash street tree that
is about 35 feet in height, located in the public right-of-way at 7631 Zircon Street and is 3 feet east
of the sidewalk and 9 feet south of the existing driveway. The tree is part of a street tree system that
was installed by the odginal subdivision developer as a condition of development. The neighborhood
is consistently planted with the same street tree. There is another street tree on the subject property
near the intersection. The closest street tree is approximately 25 feet to the south.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TRP 00-20 - AYALA
June 28, 2000
Page 2
d. The tree was inspected by staff and determined to be healthy, in excellent
condition, and not in danger of collapse. The applicant has not submitted an arborist report or other
evidence to the contrary.
e. The application states that the reason for removing the tree is to pour a concrete
slab driveway for recreation vehicle access to their interior side yard.
f. The tree meets the heritage criteria of, and is protected by, the Tree Preservation
Ordinance (RCMC 19.08.030), which the stated purpose thereof is to preserve and protect heritage
trees within the City of Rancho Cucamonga as a natural aesthetic resource.
g. The tree in question has a large, round headed canopy which is higher than the
roof of the one-story garage nearest the tree; therefore, provides sufficient clearance for the intended
recreational vehicle access. The applicant indicated that their recreational vehicle measures 30 feet
long, 9 feet wide, and 12 feet in height. Further, staff encouraged the applicant to consider
judiciously pruning select limbs or branches without the need for a tree removal permit.
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 tree is not diseased, in danger of collapse, in proximity to an existing structure,
nor interfering with utilities.
b. The tree does not interfere with the applicant's goal to provide recreational vehicle
access to the interior side yard.
c. The tree is part of an extensive street tree planting in the neighborhood and the
removal would have a negative effect upon the established character of the area.
d. d. The tree was required as a condition of approval of the original subdivision.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby denies the appeal and upholds the City Planner's decision to deny the
application,
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TRP 00-20 - AYALA
June 28, 2000
Page 3
I, Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 28th day of June 2000, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: