Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001/01/24 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY JANUARY 24, 2001 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 __ I1. ANNOUNCEMENTS II1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 13, 2000 January 10, 2001 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-74 - CENTEX - A request to construct six single family homes within Tract 1~'659 on 3.6 acres of land in the Very-Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue south of Wilson Avenue - APN: 255-511-01 through 06. B. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-55 - CENTEX - A request to approve building and design of 92 single family residences within Tentative Tract 16058 on 18.8 acres in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located near the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and 6th Street - APN: 210-062-31. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 01-01C - 2000 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - In accordance with Article 10.6 Section 65580-65589.5 of the California Government Code, a revision and update of the City's Housing Element, including the State-mandated analysis of restricted, affordable units at-risk of conversion to market rate through June 30, 2010. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-49 - LENNAR HOMES - A residential subdivision of 70 single family lots on 47.9 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda and Summit Avenues - APN: 225-171-05, 12, 13, 20, 22, and 25. Related files: Tentative Tract 16147 and Tree Removal Permit 00-35. E. VARIANCE 00-09 (TRACT NO. 10035) - CONCORDIA HOMES - A request to allow retaining walls approximately 10 feet in height where a maximum height of 4 feet is allowed, and slope cjradients of approximately 1.5:1, where a maximum gradient of 2:1 is allowed for 20 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Predera south of Red Hill Country Club Drive- APN: 207-641-01 through 10 and 207-631-01 through 11. Related files: Development Review 00-47 and Tree Removal Permit 00-41. (Continued from January 10, 2001 ) VI. NEW BUSINESS F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-47 (TRACT NO. 10035) - CONCORDIA HOMES - The Design Review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 20 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Predera south of Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-641-01 through 10 and 207-631-01 through 11. Related files: Variance 00-09 and Tree Removal Permit 00-41. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of er~vironmental impacts for consideration. (Continued from January 10, 2001) Page 2 G. SIGN PERMIT REQUEST FOR TARGET (UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM 134) - An appeal of the City Planner denial of a sign permit request for additional signage for the Target store in Terra Vista Town Center - APN: 1077-421-068 and a portion of 087. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 99-40. H. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-69 - ROBERT K. LAIRD - A request to construct a 6,348 square foot single family home on .71 acre of land within Tract 11626 in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre), located at 8923 Laramie Drive - APN: 1061-810-06. Related file: Minor Exception 00-12. I. MINOR EXCEPTION 00-12 - ROBERT K. LAIRD - A request to extend the maximum building height from 30 feet to approximately 33 feet and the detached garage height from 16 feet to approximately 17.5 feet on a 6,348 square foot single-family home on .71 acre of land within Tract 11626 in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre), located at 8923 Laramie Drive - APN: 1061-810-06. Related file: Development Review 00-69. VII. 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. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS J. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROGRESS - Oral report IX. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ADJOURN TO A WORKSHOP IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING IN THE RAINS ROOM TO DISCUSS A MASTER PLAN FOR VICTORIA ARBORS - AMERICAN BEAUTY. I, Gall Sanchaz, 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 January 18, 2001, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. Page 3 Vicinity IVlap Planning Commission January 24, 2!001 .- .. ~ · .' :: -' - -. Sphere of Influence ~ .... ;_ .~,_L~L~, · H, --- ~ .................. ~j .. . . ~ . ~ ;;....' Hillside ~:.. _ B~ny~n E,F ~ ~ > C is Citywide City of Rancho Cucamon~a ~ Cl~ HALL THE C I T Y OF I~AN CHO CUCAMONGA Staff Report DATE: January 24, 2001 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-74 - CENTEX - A request to construct six single family homes within Tract 12659 on 3.6 acres of land in the Very-Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue south of Wilson Avenue - APN: 255-511-01 through 06. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Backqround: The six lots represent build out of Tract 12659, which was originally approved by the Planning Commission on November 13, 1985. On July 9, 1997, the Commission approved Development Reyiew 97-10 for homes within the main portion of the tract to the west of the ~ubject lots. These homes have been constructed. B. Surroundin.q Land Use and Zoninq: North Single Family Homes across Wilson Avenue; Low Residential (2 tb 4 dwelling units per acre) Etiwanda North Specific Plan South- Single Family Homes within Tract12659; Very Low Residential (1-2 dwelling units per acre) Etiwanda Specific Plan East - Cucamonga County Water Distdct Facility; Very Low Residential (1-2 dwelling units per acre) Etiwanda Specific Plan West - Single Family Homes within Tract12659; Very Low Residential (1-2 dwelling units per acre) Etiwanda Specific Plan C. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Very Low Residential (1-2 dwelling units per acre) North - Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) South - Very Low Residential (1-2 dwelling units per acre) East Very Low Residential (1-2 dwelling units per acre) West - Very Low Residential (1-2 dwelling units per acre) D. Site Characteristics: The six lots have been rough graded and frontage improvements including curb and gutter, Class I Bike Path, and driveway approaches have been installed. There is an existing pdvate home trail along the west edge of the lots and a public horse trail and Bike Path along the north boundary of tract (within Metropolitan Water District right-of- way). The site slopes from north to south at approximately 6 percent. ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 00~74 - CENTEX HOMES January 24, 2001 Page 2 ANALYSIS: A. General: There are two home plans proposed, each with a reversed footprint. Plan I (3,717 square feet) is one-story and has a ranch, bungalow, and traditional style and the Plan II home (4,710 square feet) is two-story and has a ranch and bungalow style. The garages are placed well behind the front of the homes. The home design incorporates the use of traditional materials and building forms consistent with the Etiwanda Area and with the existing homes to the west. The front of the homes are very tastefully designed and will enhance the Etiwanda Avenue street scene. The issue of 360-degree architecture is particularly crucial for this project, as all sides of the homes will have visual prominence due to the size, grade, and location of the lots. The side and rear elevations of the homes have been upgraded accordingly to include many of the amhitectural enhancements found on the front. Because of the location and elevation of the existing driveway approaches, portions of on-site driveways will be as steep as 12 pement. Typically, single-family homes are allowed to have maximum driveway grades of 5 pement. In this case; however, there are large driveway areas that are relatively flat to allow for safe and convenient parking of vehioles so absolute compliance with the 5 pement policy isn't necessary. B. Desiqn Review Committee: The Design Review Commitlee (McNiel, Stewart, Coleman) reviewed the project on December 19, 2000, and recommended approval with conditions. Refer to the attached Design Review Action Agenda (Exhibit "G") for further details. C. Gradinq Review Committee: The Grading Review Comrnittee reviewed the project and recommends approval with conditions as outlined in the attached Resolution of Approval. D. Environmental Assessment: The lots fall within Tract '12659 for which the Planning Commission issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration on November 13, 1985. The lots were graded with the original tract in the late 1980s. The Planning Commission issued another Mitigated Negative Declaration for Development Review 97-10 (for build out of Tract 12659) on July 9, 1997. No further environmental clearance is necessary for development of the six lots. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Cornmission approve Development Review 00-74 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions. Respec.~ffully submi_.~ City Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" Site Plan Exhibit "C" Grading Plan Exhibit "D" Landscape Plan Exhibit "E" Floor Plans Exhibit "F" Elevations Exhibit "G" Design Review Committee Action dated December 19, 2000 Resolution of Approval with Conditions SITE UTILIZATION MAP FOR LOTS 1-6, ~RACT NO. 12659-3  DETAILED SITE PLAN ~ FOR ~ -' LOTS 1-6, TRACT NO. 12659-3 ~^~ ,--~' LOTS 1-6, TRACT NO. 12659-3 .. :~ 5~'~ ..... t .,^,,_,,^- l LOT 2 ,xL~ '~' CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN ETIWANDA ESTATES TRACT 12659-3 LOTS 1-~ ~T~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. CENTEX HOMES CORPORATION o CORONA, CA. [] PLAN 1 · 3,717 SQ. FT. ROOF PLAN FOR CLIFORNIA RANCH OAROE CONFIOURATION FOR CALIFORNIA RANCH A_ND CALI~ORi~IA BUNOALOW ELEVATIONS tF. T I W A N D A A V ~:~.. m CENTEX HO1V~.S RANCHO CUCA1VIONGA, CA PLAN 2 · 4,710 SQ. FF. ROOF PLAN FOR CALIFORNIA RANCH ELEVATION · E T I W A N D A AVE.= ~._ CENTEX HOMES ~=,~ RA/WCHO CUC;dVlONGA, CA -.. PLAN 2 · 4,710 SQ. ROOF PL,Alq FOR CALIFORNIA RANCH I~LI~VATION · E T I W A N D A A V E.~ CENTEX HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA PLAN 1 ELEVATIONS .E T IWAN D A AVE. - CEN'I'I~X HO1VIES RANCHO CUCA/VIONGA, CA PLAN 1 'E T I W A N D A CENTEX HOMES Ra%NCHO CUCAI~ONGA, CA -~ PLAN 2 .~.~, ...... ELEVATIONS .......... -E T IWAN D A AVE. ,~ CEN'r~ HO~S .... ~CHO CUC~ONOA, CA. PLAN 2 =E T I W A N D A A V E.~ CENTEX HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA ,~_, DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:20 p.m. Brent Le Count December 19, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-74- CENTEX- A request to construct six single family homes within Tract 12659 on 3.8 acres of land in the Very-Low Residential District (0 to 2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue south of Wilson Avenue - APN: 255-511-01 through 06. Background: The six lots represent build out Tract 12659, which was originally approved by the Planning Commission on November 13, 1985. On July 9, 1997, the Commission approved Development Review 97-10 for homes within the main portion of the tract to the west of the subject lots. These homes have been constructed. Desi.qn Parameters: The six lots have been rough graded and frontage improvements including curb and gutter, Class I Bike Path, and driveway approaches have been installed. Due to the location and elevation of the existing driveway approaches, portions of on-site driveways will be as steep as 12 percent. Typically, single-family homes are allowed to have maximum ddveway grades of 5 percent. In this case; however, there are large driveway areas that are relatively flat to allow for safe and convenient parking of vehicles so absolute compliance with the 5 percent policy isn't necessary. There is an existing private horse trail along the west edge of the lots, and a public horse trail and Bike Path along the north boundary of tract (within Metropolitan Water District right- of-way). There are two home plans proposed, each with a reversed footprint. Plan I (3,717 square feet) is one-story and has a ranch, bungalow, and traditional style, and the Plan II home (4,710 square feet) is two-story and has a ranch and bungalow style. The garages are placed well behind the front of the homes. The home design incorporates the use of traditional materials and building forms consistent with the Etiwanda Area and with the existing homes to the west. The fronts of the homes are very tastefully designed and will enhance the Etiwanda Avenue street scene. The sides and rears of the homes however receive far less articulation, use of special materials, and visual interest than the fronts. The issue of 360-degree architecture is particularly crucial for this project, as all sides of the homes will have visual prominence due to the size, grade, and location of the lots. Staff ~omments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Upgrade the side and rear elevations of the homes to provide further 360-degree architectural quality. This can be accomplished by adding features from the front of the homes including divided light windows, shutters, pot shelves, stone veneer, trim lines, dormer and bay windows (including metal roofs). Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. Retaining walls located in front yard areas shall be limited to 3 feet in exposed height. All other retaining walls not visible from the street shall be limited to 4 feet in height. In all cases the retaining walls shall be constructed of gray split face block to match the existing walls within the remainder of Tract 12659. 2. All wood and other siding/veneer materials shall wrap outside corners and terminate only at interior corners or other logical stopping point (e.g. chimney). 3. Provide side yard fencing and return fencing between homes. EXHIBIT "G" ~ I :-'-'~ DRC COMMENTS DR 00-74 - CENTEX December 19, 2000 Page 2 .policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. All ground-mounted equipment, including air conditioners and Edison boxes, shall be fully screened from off-site views. This may require the construction of Iow walls as no property line fencing is proposed. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the above comments. Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee recommended approval subject to staff's comments. The applicant agreed to the design revisions. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 00°74 FOR TRACT 12659, ON 3.6 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE SOUTH OF WILSON AVENUE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) DISTRICT OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 225-511-01 THROUGH 06. A. Recitals. 1. Centex Homes filed an application for Design Review 00-74 for Tract No. 12659, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 13th day of November 1985, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved Tentative Tract 12659. 3. On the 24th day of January 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider 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 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 January 24, 2001 including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds and concludes as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan in that it involves development of existing lots of record at a density well within that specified for the site with homes that will enhance the appearance of the community; and b. That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the purposes of the district in which the site is located in that the homes will have consistent 360-degree architectural quality and will enhance the street scene; and c. That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Etiwanda Specific Plan including all applicable setbacks, slope gradients, and building height limitations; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-74- CENTEX HOMES January 24,2001 Page 2 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 in that it represents provident development of existing lots of record with reasonably sized homes and associated landscaping and hardscape improvements. 3. The Planning Commission issued a Mitigated Negatiive Declaration on November 13, 1985, for Tract 12659 of which the subject six lots are a part. 'i'he Planning Commission issued another Mitigated Negative Declaration for Development Review (,)7-10 (for build out of Tract 12659) on July 9, 1997. No further environmental clearance is necessary for the application. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2 and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated he~'ein by this reference. Plannin~ 1) Retaining walls located in front yard areas shall be limited to 3 feet in exposed height. All other retaining walls not visible from file street shall be limited to 4 feet in height. In all cases, the retaining walls shall be constructed of gray split face block to match the existing walls within the remainder of Tract 12659. 2) All wood and other siding/veneer materials shall wrap around outside comers and terminate only at interior comers or other logical stopping point. 3) Provide side yard fencing and return fencing between homes. 4) All ground-mounted equipment, including air conditioners and Edison boxes, shall be fully screened from off-site views. This may require the construction of Iow screen walls. 5) Replace any missing equestrian trail fencing. 6) Re-grade and resurface existing equestrian trail as necessary. 7) The corner of Wilson Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue shall be improved with Qluercus Coccinea trees consistent with the Community Entry concept per Figure 5- of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. En ineerin Division 1) All missing public improvements along Etiwanda Avenue shall be installed per the approved improvement plans, City Drawing No. 1;!81 Sheet 7-8, Revision No. 2. 2) Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public improvements, prior to issuance of a City building permit. 3) Prior to any work being performed in the public righl~-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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-74- CENTEX HOMES January 24,2001 Page 3 5, The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2001. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Bred Bullet, Secretary I, Bred Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of January, 2001, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: Development Review 00-74 SUBJECT: Six new single family homes APPLICANT: Centex Homes LOCATION: Southwest corner of Wilson Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, ,[909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its _._/ / agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval 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 e)ctensions are allowed. C. Site Development 1. The sitE; shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include / / site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Etiwanda Specific Plan SC-12-00 I Project No, DR 00-74 Completion Date 2. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and / / State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 3. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be __/ / submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for / / consistency prior to issuance of any permits {such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 5. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, / / all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 6. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be / / located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 7. A detai~ed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and weed __~/___/ control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and construct all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements. a. Provide a 24-foot by 24-foot corral area in the rear yard. Grade access from corral to trail / / with a maximum slope of 5:1 and a minimum width of 10 feet. b. For single family residential development within the Equestrian/Rural Overlay District, at least / / one model home shall be provided with a constructed 24-foot by 244oot corral with appropriate fencing. 8. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall not prohibit the keeping the equine / / animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors of homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&Rs. 9. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the ___/ / Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 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 ~/2-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. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron to maintain an open feeling and / / enhance views. 12. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. / / 13. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. / / SC-12-00 2 Project No. DR 00-74 Completion Date 14. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veceers may be manufactured ~ / pro,3ucts. D. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles on / / this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit parking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas. E, Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in /.~/ the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 ~ /__ slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 3. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater / /_ slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 4. For single family residential development, all slope planting and 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. 5. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development ~/ / Code and/or Etiwanda Specific Plan. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street -- trees and slope planting. 6. Special landscape features such as specimen size trees and intensified landscaping, is required / / along the comer of Wilson Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue per Figure 5-11 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. 7. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the /___/ perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the de~veloper. 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. Project No, DR 00-74 Completion Date F. Environmental 1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock /.__/ Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. G. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location / / of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: H. General Requirements 1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: --/ / a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size 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 prior to permit issuance. I. Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be / / marked with the project file number (i.e., CUP 98-01). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. SC-12-00 4 Project No. DR 00-74 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to Completion Date existing unit(s), the applicant shall / / pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and / / prior to issuance of building permits. -- 4. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all ___/ / supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits. 5. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday /.. / through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. J. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for required occupancy separation(s). .___/___/ 2. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. / / K. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City / / Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final gradieg plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soil.,; report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to ___/ / pertorrn such work. 3. A geolegical report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the / / time of.application for grading plan check. - 4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. / / 5. In hillside areas, residential developments shall be graded and constructed consistent with the /.~/ standards contained in the Hillside Development Regulations Section 17.24.070. 6. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for / / existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 5(;) cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California Registered Civil Engineer. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Me~lo Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. The developer / / shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. SC-12-00 5 Project No. DR 00-74 Completion Date 2. Fire flow requirement shall be: /--/ 1,750 gallons per minute, Per '97 UFC Appendix Ill-A, 3, (b) (Increase). -OR x A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. x 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. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be / / submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of the required fire protection system. 6. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final / / inspection. 7. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: __-/ / x All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 32. 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: x $132 for CCWD Water Plan review/underground water supply. x $132 for Single Family Residential Tract (per phase). 9. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1997 UBC, UFC, / / UPC, UMC, and RCFD Standards 32 and 15 and 1996 NEC. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: M. Security Hardware 1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. / / 2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within / / 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. ___/ / 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. SC-12-00 6 Project No. DR 00-74 Completion Date O. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime ___/ / visibility. SC-12-00 7 t h e c i t ,f/,, o f Rancho Cucamonga St tff Report DATE: January 24, 2001 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner BY: Sal Salazar, AICP, Associate Planner Duane Morita, Contract Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-55 - CENTEX - A request to approve building and design of 92 single-family residences within Tentative Tract Map 16058 on 18.8 acres in the Low- Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located near the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Sixth Street. APN: 210-062-31. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Project Density: 4.9 dwelling units per acre. B. Surrdundinq Land Use and Zoninq: Project Site - Vacant land; Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) North Vacant land; Industrial Park (Subarea 16) South Single-Family Residential; Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) East Industrial uses; General Industrial (Subareas 4 and 5) West Single-Family Residential ('FI' 15727); Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) Nor[h Industrial Park, Subarea 16; Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) South Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) East General Industrial, Subarea 4 and 5 West Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) D. Site Characteristics: The project site is located near the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Sixth Street and is vacant. The site gently slopes in the southern direction and is neighbored by existing single-family residences to the south and west. No sensitive plants or animals exist on- site. Remnants of a Eucalyptus windrow exist along the northerly boundary. Potentially historic residences are located on the southeast section of the project. Refer to Exhibit "A," which provides a location map of the project site. ITEM B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 00-55 - CENTEX January .'_~4, 2001 Page 2 ANALYSIS: A. Backqround: In June 14, 2000, the City approved Tentative Tract Map 16058, which subdivided the 18.8-acre site into 92 single-family residential lots, one lot for a private park, one lot for off-site access, and seven lettered lots for internal roadways. Refer 'to Exhibit "B" for a reduction of the approved Tentative Tract Map 16058. B. General: Proposed Development Review 00-55 includes building plans and elevations; Conceptual Site, Grading, and Landscaping Plans associated with construction of the 92 single-family lots and; overall Tentative Tract Map. Development Review 00-55 proposes three house plans with three elevation styles. Additionally, alternative window designs affecting shape, actual number of windows, and surrounds are also being proposed for those elevations directly facing Archibald Avenue. All homes will be two-story structures; no single-story homes are being proposed. The floor plan for Plan 1 will range from 2,942 to 3,167 square feet in size, and have three bedrooms, loft area, recreation room, three bathrooms, and a three-space garage. Optional features include a 14-foot x 12-foot 4-inch fourth bedroom, 14-foot 8-inch x 14-foot 8-inch loft or retreat, and 14-foot x 14-foot 8-inch guest room. The floor plan for Plan 2 will be 2,937 square feet in size, and have two bedrooms, large upstairs bonus room (44 feet 4 inches x 19 feet), den or office, two bathrooms, and a 2~-space garage. Optional features include an 11-foot 8-inch x 12-foot third bedroom, 12-foot 4-inch x 13-foot 4-inch fourth bedroom, and three-space garage. The floor plan for Plan 3 will be 3,772 square feet in size, and have four bedrooms, large upstairs bonus room (27 feet 4 inches x 18 feet 4 inches), den, three bathrooms, library, and a three-space garage. Optional features include an 11-foot 4-inch x 10-foot fifth bedroom, 11-foot 4-inch x 12-foot 8-inch sixth bedroom, fourth bathroom, larger family room (15 feet 8 inches x 12 feet), and "grandma" suite option (1.4 feet 8 inches x 17 feet 4 inches). Refer to Exhibit "C" for a reduction of proposed design and building plans. Depending upon the particular plan, light brown stucco exterior walls, with either brown or gray blend concrete fiat tile or "S" tile will be provided. Accent features include brown or green blend wood trim, wood shutters, and stucco recesses. Gray or brown stone veneer will be provided on certain elevations. Staff finds the building plans to be well designed. The elevations are characterized by strong vertical and horizontal changes. Roofs include varied hip and gable designs, which make for interesting elevations. Though three-car garages are being proposed, the garage does not dominate the front elevations of the various plans. Window surrounds and treatments are provided for all elevations, not only for the front elevations. Furthermore, the Conceptual Site Plan, building elevations, and Conceptual Grading Plan comply with the various requirements and development standards of the City's Development Code, relating to setbacks, landscaping, lot size, fences and walls, etc. The aforementioned plans also comply with the Conditions of Approval established with Tentative Tract Map 16058. Refer to Exhibits "D" and "E" for a reduction of the Conceptual Site Plan and Conceptual Grading Plan, respectively. C. Desi.qn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Mcl~leil, Stewart, Coleman) reviewed the project on January 2, 2001, and recommended approval. The Design Review Committee meeting Act on Agenda and minutes are attached (Exhibit "F"). D. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval with the conditions listed in the attached Flesolution of Approval. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 00-55 - CENTEX January 24,2001 Page 3 E. Gradinq Committee: The Grading Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval with the conditions listed in the attached Resolution of Approval. F. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the Cucamonga Cornerpointe project (Tentative Tract 15727), which was certified by the City Council on November 20, 1996. The EIR analyzed the conversion of the area bordered by Archibald Avenue, and Sixth and Fourth Streets from Industrial Park to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). The area affected by the currently proposed Development Review 00-55 was included in the analysis. Low-Medium Residential development resulting with Tentative Tract Map 16058 and Development Review 00-55 was evaluated in the EIR. In addition, a Negative Declaration was prepared and approved by the City in November 1999, which evaluated environmental impacts resulting from the General Plan Amendment, Industrial Area Specific Plan, and Development District Amendment for the project site that allowed the change to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) from Industrial Park. The environmental documents concluded that Low- Medium Residential development of the project site will not result in any adverse environmental impact with mitigation. FACTS FOR FINDING: A. The proposed project is consistent with objectives of the General Plan and Development Code; and B. The proposed project will comply with all applicable provisions and standards of the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), including height limitations and setbacks; and C. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and D. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment; and E. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. REcoMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review 00-55 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. City Planner BB:SS\Dlvl~ma Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Tentative Tract Map 16058 Exhibit "C" - Proposed Building and Design Plans Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit "F" - Design Review Comments for January 2, 2001 Resolution of Approval for Development Review 00-55 TENTA~VE TRACT NO. 16058 · 8'.-0" 2~'~'~ ~c ~ ~ '~A ~ ~ ~ -- Co neeptunl Front Elevations-Plan 1 t h.o Rancho Cucamonga, California . --. ...... .... ~.~'~*~' C o n ce p t u a I F I o o r P I a n 1- 2,942 sqft- 3,167 sqft Centex at The Hawthornes 0~:~;.~ ~T ~ Rancho Cucamonga, California Rear I~levado. Conceptual Exterior Enhanced Elevations-Plan lA CENTEX Centex at The Hawthornes .o.~..,~ Rancho Cucamo_nga, Ca-li.fornia 0,~~ [] 0 K~ Right Elevation . . Archibald Elevation l. ot ~22 Conceptual Kxterlor Knhnnced Elevntlons-Plan lA N T E XCe n t e x at T h e H a w t h o r n e s O~,~.~..~.~,~,~ Rancho Cucamong~ California ~ o ~ 3.~ [] [] Conceptual Exterior Enhanced Elevations-Plan lB CENTEX Centex at The Hawthornes o ~.~I.. Rancho Cucamonga, California ~,~...'..:.:~::.::::: Archlbuld Elevation- Lots#16&21 Conceptual Exterior Enhanced Elevat. ions-Plan lB CENTEX Centex at The Hawthornes Rancho Cucamonga, California O~ Conceptual Exterior Enhanced Elevations-Plan lC CENTEX Centex at The Hawthornes ~,.~.,,. Rancho Cucamon§a; Cslifornia ~"'~':':';::~'"":::~. [] 0 Conceptual Front Elevations-Plan 2 Centex at The Hawthornes O.'~:.:~-~.-GR.~.~-'?' Rancho Cucamonga, California D [] 0 ~ o nee p t u a I F i e o r P ! a n 2- 2,~3~ sqrt CENTEX C.entex at The Hawthornes Rancho Cucamonga, California 7 Conceptual Exterior Enhanced Elevations-Plan 2A CENTEX Centex at The Hawthornes O~ l~ancho Cucamonga, Cal.ifornia O O Rliht Eleutlon Root Phn Pear Eleva*Jon~ '~ ~ ~ Left Elevation Conceptual Exterior Enhanced Elevations-Plan 2B CENTEX Centex at The Hawthornes o m,,.... Rancho Cucamonga, Cal.ifornia 'i~.',~,.:',',;~.'.~:~ .*.~ *~,m 9° Archibald Elevation Lot#20 Conceptual Exterior Enhanee, d Elevations-Plan 2B CI:NTEX Centex at The Hawthornes i~l~l K"rGY GROUP Rancho Cucamonga, California ' V~~ . . ,[ O O Conceptual Exterior Enhanced Elevations-Plan 2C CENTEX C.entex at The Hawthornes [] ~.=.~ Rancho Cucamonga, California ............... · -~ .=__~0 [] trchlbtld~Elevttton. Lots #18 ConceptUal Exterior Enhanced Elevations-Plan 2C CENT.EX Centex at The Hawthornes Rancho Cucamonga, C~lifornia ':::::"':':':::~'~"":::: --- 101 .Conceptual Front Elevations-Plan 3 C E N T E X C .e n t e x at T h e H a w t h o r n e s Rancho Cucamonga, California 0~'~-.,.::.;~..~ C o n ce p t u a i F I o o r P ! a n 3- 3,772 sqft Centex at The Hawthornes · I ::;;'*.~:~'**'~'.. :,7 :,:.~':': C E N T E X Rancho Cucamonga, California o .__. "12 o C'ENTEX Centex at The Hawthornes o ~.~. Rancho Cucamonga, California o o o Right Iqevi~on ': :':.' .. ':~:J~ :.'~ '~'"~J'~ ~'"~:':~" ? :.U ':' '"'" Conceptual Exterior Enhanced Elevations-Plan 3A N T ~ X C e n t e x at T h e H a w t h o r n e s 0~.., Rancho Cucamonga, Catifornia ~ Rf~bt Elevadon Conceptual Exterfor EnhAnced EievRtions-~lAn CENTEX Centex at. The Hawthornes OKYY GROUP ~.=~ Rancho Cucamong~ Catifornia ~.~ ===. ~ 14 0 o [] Conceptual Exterior Enhanced Elevations-Plan 3C CENTEX Centex at The Hawthornes Rancho Cucamonga, California 0 0 Archibald Elevation Lot #17 Conceptuoi Exterior Enhanced Elevations-Plan 3C CENTEX Centex at The Hawthornes OKTGY GROUP ,~,.... Rancho Cucamonga, Califprnia ~.:~:'~"~:~-~:..~ '-' 151 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:10 p.m. Sal Salazar January 2, 2001 DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW 00-55 ('CT 16058) - CENTEX - A request to approve building plans and design of 92 single-family residences on an 18.8-acre site. The residential subdivision was previously approved by the Planning Commission as Tentative Tract Map 16058. The site is located near the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and 6th Street. APN: 210-062-31. Backqround: On June 14, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map 16058, which subdivided the 18.8-acre site into 92 single-family residential lots, one lot for a private park, one lot for off-site access and seven lettered lots for internal roadways. The proposed Development Review 00-55 includes building plans and elevations; and Conceptual Site, Grading, and Landscaping Plans associated with construction of the 92 single-family lots. See Exhibit "A" for a reduction of the approved Tentative Tract Map 16058. Desi.qn Parameters: The project site is presently vacant and is neighbored by existing single-family residential development to the west and south. The area to the north is vacant. Potentially historic residences are directly located on the southeast. Development Review 00-55 proposes three house plans with three elevation styles. Additionally, alternative window designs affecting shape, actual number of windows, and surrounds are also being proposed for those elevations abutting Archibald Avenue. All homes will be two-story; no single-story homes are being proposed. The floor plan, for Plan I will range from 2,942 to 3,167 square feet in size, and will have three bedrooms, loft area, recreation room, three bathrooms, and a three-car garage. Optional features include a 14'-0" x 12'-4" fourth bedroom, 14'-8" x 14'-8" loft or retreat, and14'-0" x 14'-8" guest room. The floor plan for Plan 2 will be 2,937 square feet in size, and will have two bedrooms, large upstairs bonus room (44'-4" x 19'-0"), den or office, two bath rooms, and a 2 1/2-car garage. Optional features include an 11 '-8" x 12'-0" third bedroom, 12'- 4" x 13'-4" fourth bedroom, and three-space garage. The floor plan for Plan 3 will be 3,772 square feet in size, and will have four bedrooms, large upstairs bonus room (27'-4" x 18'-4"), den, three bathrooms, library, and a three-car garage. Optional features include an 11'-4" x 10'-0" fifth bedroom, 11 '-4" x 12'-8" sixth bedroom, fourth bathroom, larger family room (15'-8" x 12'-0"), and "grandma" suite option (14'-8" x 17'-4"). Refer to Exhibit "B" for a reduction of proposed design and building plans. Depending upon the particular plan, light brown stucco extedor walls, with either brown or gray blend concrete flat tile or "S" tile will be provided. Accent features include brown or green blend wood trim, wood shutters, and stucco recesses. Gray or brown stone veneer will be provided on certain elevations. Staff finds the building plans to be well designed. The elevations are characterized by strong vertical and horizontal changes. Roofs include varied hip and gable designs, which make for interesting elevations. Though three-car garages are being proposed, the garage does not dominate the front elevations of the various plans. Window surrounds and treatments are provided for all elevations, not only for the front elevations. Furthermore, the Conceptual Site Plan, building elevations, and Conceptual Grading Plan comply with the various requirements and development standards of the City's Development Code, relating to setbacks, landscaping, lot size, fences and walls, etc. The plans also comply with the Conditions of Approval established with Tentative Tract Map 16058. Refer to Exhibits "C" and "D" for a reduction of the Conceptual Site Plan and Conceptual Grading Plan, respectively. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Exhibit "F" DRC COMMENTS DR 00-55 - CENTEX January 2, 2001 Page 2 Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be thE; focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Staff finds that the proposed appl cat ons comply with the development standards contained m the City's Development Code and those Conditions of Approval established with Tentative Tract Map 16058, and will result in development of well-designed single-family residences. Therefore, there are no issues. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Para Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Salvador M. Salazar The Committee reviewed the project and recommended approva~l. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-55, THE DESIGN AND BUILDING PLANS OF 92 SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, LOCATED NEAR THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND SIXTH STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF-APN: 210-062-31. A. Recitals. 1. Centex filed an application for approval of Development Review 00-55, which includes the design and building plans of 92 single-family residences, 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 24th day of January 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on January 24, 2001, including written staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with objectives of the General Plan and Development Code; and b. The proposed project will comply with all applicable provisions and standards of the Low-Medium Residential Distdct (4-8 dwelling units per acre), including height limitations and setbacks; and c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and d. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment; and e. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. Based upon the facts and information contained in the November 1996 Cucamonga Comerpointe Environmental Impact Report and the November 1999 Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 99-05A, Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 99-02, and Development District Amendment 99-03, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment. Further, based upon PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-55 - CENTEX January 24,2001 Page 2 the substantial evidence contained in the Environmental Impact Report and Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the meeting, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 1) The project shall comply with Conditions of Approval of Resolution No. 00-60, which approved Tentative Tract Map 16058. 2) The project shall comply with mitigation measures established with the 1996 Cucamonga Comerpointe Environmental Impact Report. 3) Residential design and development shall comply with the Development Standards for the Low-Medium Residential Disl:rict, including height limitations and setbacks, and provision of barbecues for all residential lots. 4) Shutters for second-story windows of residences facJng Archibald Avenue (proposed Lots 15 through 22) shall be provided. En ineedn Division 1) The project shall comply with Conditions of Approval of Resolution No. 00-60, which approved Tentative Tract Map ~16058. 5. The Secretary to this commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2001. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman A'FI'EST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of January 2001, by the following vote-to-wit: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-55 - CENTEX January 24, 2001 Page 3 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-55 SUBJECT: 92 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES APPLICANT: CENTEX SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND SIXTH LOCATION: STREET ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements completion Date 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its ~ / agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City., its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter of approval, and all Standard /__/ Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and constructiol 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 Development Code regulations. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commencecl thereon, all Conditions /. / of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Project No. DR 00-55 Completion Date 3. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for _~/ / consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 4. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code /__/ and all other applicable City Ordinances. 5. All trash pick-up shall be for individual units with all receptacles shielded from public view. /___/ 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. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the /__/ Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 8. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property / / owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all / / lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. 10. Eight-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 owne~_at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's perimeter. 11. A 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each support post for all wood fences, with a / / minimum of two ~-inch lag bolts, to withstand high winds. Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall extend at least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade. 12. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. / / 13. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/~ences and sidewalk. / / 14. Return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. / / 15. Recreation area/facility shall be provided as required by the Development Code. /. /__ 16. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured / / products. D. Building Design 1. An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units and / / for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other alternative energy systems are demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. All swimming pools installed at the time of initial development shall be supplemented with solar heating. Details shall be included in the building plans and shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. sc- o0 2 Project No. DR 00-55 Completion Date 2. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowner's Association shall be submitted for City / / Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. E. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in / / the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 ~/___/ slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 3. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater / / slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 4. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continuously / / maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until ()ach individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 5. Front yard and comer side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development / /___ Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 6. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included /.___/ in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordit~ated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 7. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering / / sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along Archibald Avenue. 8. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the / / perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 9. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the .__/ / design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 10. 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. 11. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of / / Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. F. Environmental 1. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the .issuance of building permits, The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if sc-,o-oo 3 Project No. DF{ 00-55 Completion Date appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report. 2. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of __/ / implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $ 719.00 prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory pertormance 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. 3. In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final certificate of occupancy), the / /___ applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. G. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location / of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COtJPMANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: General Requirements 1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: /.__/ a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size 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. / / Amhitect'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. Project No, DR 00-55 CornD~etion Date I. Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shal~ be / marked with the project file number (i.e., CUP 98-01). The applicant shall comply with the latest --- -- adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to __/ __ existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and /. prior to issuance of building permits. -- 4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday / / through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. -- J. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering / / use, area, and fire-resistiveness. -- -- 2. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for required occupancy separation(s). / / 3. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. / /.. K, Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City .__/ / Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to / / perform such work. 3. 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 chock submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California Registered Civil Engineer. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. The developer / / shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CPD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire 5 $ Project No. DR 00-55 Completion Date 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: / / a. 1,750 gallons per minute, Per '97 UFC Appendix Ill-A, 5, (b) (Table). 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. b. Other: City Standards. 7. Fire department access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apparatus. All required fire / / department access roadways must be completed during Phase I to avoid dead-ends in excess of 600 feet. If access is phased, all structures must be protected by an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 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 CCWD Water Plan review/underground water supply. b. $132 for Single Family Residential Tract (per phase). **Note: Separate plan check fees for Tenant Improvement work, fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 9. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1997 UBC, UFC, / / UPC, UMC, and RCFD Standards 32 and 15 and 1996 NEC. 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 SUBMITTAL OF PLANS. NOTE: A SEPARATE GRADING PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL IS REQUIRED FOR ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AND FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS WHERE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PROPOSED WILL GENERATE 50 CUBIC YARDS OR MORE OF COMBINED CUT AND FILL. THE GRADING PLAN SHALL BE PREPARED, STAMPED AND SIGNED BY A CALIFORNIA REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Security Hardware / / 1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. SC-lO-OO 6 Project No. DR 00-55 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 bolt shall be used. 3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. / / N. Windows 1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted / / from frame or track in any manner. O. Building Numbering / 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. THE CITY OF I~ANCH 0 CU CAH ON C,A Staff Report DATE: January 24, 2001 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Tom Grahn, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 01-01C - 2000 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - In accordance with Article 10.6, Section 65580-65589.5 of the California Government Code, a revision and update of the City's Housing Element, including the State-mandated analysis of restricted affordable units at- risk of conversion to market rate through June 30, 2010. BACKGROUND: The draft Housing Element is primarily an update of the existing document's technical data. The basic analysis of the Housing Element and the information presented indicates what changes have occurred and updates applicable technical aspects so that the document is based on current conditions. The draft Housing Element will retain its current division into three sections: Parts One, Two and Three. · Part One is an overview and summarizes the technical data. Part One has been updated to address technical issues only. · Part Two presents the goal, objectives, policies, and programs for the five-year period beginning July 1, 2000, and ending June 30, 2005, including the assignment of responsibility for accomplishments, expected funding resources, and the schedule for completion. Part Two contains the goal, objectives, and policies established with the 1994-1999 Housing Element and these remain unchanged, with the exception of slight changes in wording for clarification, and the elimination of programs no longer applicable. Changes in wording were proposed to clarify accomplishments, financing sources, and the schedule for completion. ITEM C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 01-01C -2000 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE January 24, 2001 Page 2 · F'art Three contains the Technical Appendix. A Technical Appendix, that contains 11 sections, supports the 2000-2005 Housing Element update. All sections of the Technical Appendix contain content and analysis required by the Housing Element State Law. The Technical Appendix reflects the 1990 Census, as well as other sources through January 1,2000. The sections of the Technical Appendix are: Section I: Introduction. Section Il: An analysis of population and employment trends. Section II1: An analysis and documentation of household characteristics. Section IV: An inventory of land suitable for residential development. Section V: An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels. Section VI: An analysis of potential and actual non-governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for all income levels. Section VII: An analysis of special housing needs. Section VIII: An analysis of opportunities for energy conservation. Section IX: An analysis of units restricted and affordable to Iow-income families that are at risk of converting to market rate. Section X: The Redevelopment's Agency's adopted affordable Housing Production Plan. Section XI: Evaluation of programs included in the 1994 Housing Element. GENERAL PLAN TASK FORCF: On December 16, 2000, the General Plan Task Force reviewed the draft 2000 Housing Element update. The information presented to the Task Force included Parts One and Two of the update. The Task Force recommended forwarding the document to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Parts I and II will eventually be reformatted and incorporated into the overall General Plan update document. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The Initial Study Parts I and II have been completed. Staff has determined that no significant impacts would result from the 2000 technical update to the Housing Element. Environmental issues will need to be analyzed when formal housing development proposals are submitted. When specific development projects are proposed, existing environmental review requirements will be initiated to ensure adequate analysis of impacts. Any significant impacts noted will be mitigated through the City's development review process. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 01-01C - 2000 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Janua~ 24,2001 Page 3 CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing with an 1/8-page advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the attached Resolution recommending approval of GPA 01-01C to the City Council, direct staff to forward a copy of the draft 2000 Housing Element update, including the Technical Appendix, to the State Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") for the mandated 45-day review period, respond to HCD's comments, and then forward the draft 2000 Housing Element to the City Council. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:TG:mlg Attachments: Exhibit"A" - Initial Study 2000 Housing Element Update (Including Parts One, Two, and Three) - (Under separate cover) Resolution Recommending Approval ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (Part I - Initial Study) City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division (9o9) 477-27~0 The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the proposed project so I that the City may review the project pursuant to City po ic es, ordinances, and guidelines; the J 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 provided in full. JNCOMPLETE APPLICA TIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSEi~. 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 b,e available to perform work required to provide missing information. Application Number for this project: General Plan Amendment 014)1C Project Title: Housing Element Update 2000 Name & Address of Project Owner(s): City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Name & Address of Developer or Project Sponsor: Name & Address of Contact Person: Thomas Grahn, AICP, Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga (909) 477-2750, ex 4312 Name, Address and Telephone Number of Person Preparing This Form (if different from above): Page 1 (~ z-/ Rev. 05/18/2000 Attach additional sheets if necessary. Information indicated by astedsk (*) is not required of non-construction CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff. '1 ) Provide a full-scale (8- I/2 X 11 ) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s), which includes the projec~ site, and indicate the site boundaries. 2) Pr~vide a set ~f c~~~r ph~t~graphs which sh~w representative views int~ the site fr~m the n~rth~ s~uth~ east and west; views into and from the site from the primary access points which serve the site; and representative views of significant features from the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. 3) Project Location (describe): Citywide. 4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers: Not applicable. *5) Gross Site Area (ac/sq. ft.): 37 square miles '6) Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets & proposed dedications): Not applicable. 7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change, which would affect the project site: None. 8) Check all permits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other govemmental agencies in order to fully implement the project: Grading Permit Building Permit Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (909) 477-2770 Cucamonga County Water District (909) 987-2591 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (septic) (909) 782-4130. [] Air Quality Management District (909) 396-2468 [] Caltrans (909) 45797 [] County Environmental Health Services (909) 391-7570 [] Other: 9) Describe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site (aircraft, roadway noise, etc.) and how they will affect proposed uses: None. Page 2 Rev. 05/18/2000 1 O) Describe the proposed project in detail. This should provide an adequate description of the site in terms of ultimate use, which will result from the proposed project. Indicate if there are proposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment. Attach additional sheets if necessary. State mandated Housing Element Update in accordance with Article 10.6, california Government Code {;65580-65589.5. 11) Will the proposed project change the pattern, scale, or character of the surrounding genera/area of the project? No. The project is a technical update to the 1994 Housing Element. 12) Indicate the type of short-term and long-term noise to be generated, including source and amount. How will these noise levels affect adjacent properties and on-site uses? What methods of soundproofing are proposed? Not applicable. '13) Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic trees. Not applicable. 14) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains. See Master Environmental Assessment for the General Plan technical update certified January 4, 1989 (SCH 88020115). 15) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, p/ease contact the Cucamonga County Water District at (909) 987-2591. a. Residential (gal/day) N/A Peak use (gal/day) N/A b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) N/A Peak use (gal/mid/ac). N/A 16) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal (check one): _Septic Tank .Sewe~. If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed, indicate expected daily sewage generation: (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, p/ease contact the Cucamonga County Water D~tdct at (909) 987-2591. a. Residential (gal/day) N/A b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) N/A Page 3 Rev. 05/18/2000 RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: '17) Number of residential units: Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size): Not applicable. Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): '18) Anticipatedrangeofsalepricesand/orrents: Sale Price(s) $. to $ Rent (per month) $. to $ '19) Specifyfloorplanarea(squarefeet, excludinggarage)andnumberofbedroomsbyunittype: Floor plan Square Feet No. Bedrooms Floor plan 1 Floor plan 2 Floor plan 3 Floor plan 4 Floor plan 5 Floor plan 6 *20) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: '21) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project: Contact the appropriate School Districts as shown in Attachment B: a. Elementary:. b. Junior High: c. Senior High:. COMMERClAL~ INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS: 22) Describe type of use(s) and major function(s) of commemial, industrial, or institutional uses: Not applicable. Rev. 05/18/2000 23) Total floor area of commercial, industrial, or institutional uses by type: 24) Indicate hours of operation: Day a.m. To p,m. Monday To Tuesday To Wednesday To Thursday To Friday To Saturday To Sunday To 25) Number of employees: Total: Maximum Shift: Time of Maximum Shift: a.m. to .p.m. 26) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the City 27) For commercial and industrial uses only, indicate the source, type and amount of air pollution emissions. Data should be verified through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572-6283: ALL PROJECTS: 28) 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: Not applicable. 29) In the known history of this property, has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include, but are not limited to: PCB's; radioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides; fuels, oils, solvents, and otherflammable liquids and gases. Also, note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the matedals and descdbe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use, if known. Net applicable. Rev. 05/18/2000 30) 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 all such materials to be used and proposed method of disposal. The location ofsuch uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. Not applicable. 31 ) Describe the physical setting of the site as it now exists (before the project) including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, 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 described. In addition, cite all sources of information (i.e., geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies): See Master Environmental Assessment for the General Plan technical update certified January 4, 1989 (SCH 88020115). 32) Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.): See Master Environmental Assessment for the General Plan technical update certified January 4, 1989 (SCH 88020115). 33) Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Site all soumes of information (books, pu.b_lished reports, amhaeological surveys, oral history, etc.): See Master Environmental Assessment for the General Plan technical update certified January 4, 1989 (SCH 88020115). 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 to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Ranch oCucamonga. ~L~(~ Date: 1/02/2001 Signature: Print Name: Thomas Grahn, AICP Title: Associate Planner Page 6 ~..- ~;~ Rev. 05/18/2000 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: General Plan Amendment 01-01C - Housing Element Update 2000 2. Related Files: 3. Description of Project: State mandated Housing Element Update in accordance with Article 10.6, Sections 65580-65589.5 of the California Government Code. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 5. General Plan Designation: N/A 6. Zoning: N/A 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: N/A 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: Tom Grahn, AICP, Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: California Department of Housing and Community Development Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Amendment 01-01C Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ' ( ) Transportation/Cimulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resoumes ( ) Aesthetics ( ) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Mandatory Findings o~' Significance ( ) Recreation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (X) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Signed: ~-4.~r~~-~- I To--m Grahn, AICP Associate Planner January 24, 2001 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. I I ISJgnilJcant Pnco~e~trpo~l~lrrlpact Ir~act LeSs h'noact Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotenfiaJtyUnless Then 1. LN~IDUSEANDPI_ANI~IG. Would the proposah a) Conflict with general plan designation or ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? I Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Amendment 01 ~01C Palqe 3 l~gnificant Impact Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Polentiatly Unless Than S~gnificant Mitiga~on Si0nificant No c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) vicinity? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) established community? Comments: a-d) The 2000 Housing Element update does not change the Land Use designations of the General Plan. 2. POPULATiON AND HOUS~G. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) housing? Comments: a-c) The primary purpose of the Housing Element is to address existing and projected housing need, specifically as mandated by the State and quantified by the Southern California Association of Government's 1999 Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The housing element does not create a demand for new housing, but attempts to meet existing and projected housing needs through its goal, objectives, policies, and programs. Implementation of the housing conservation objectives of the Housing Element may result in the repair and rehabilitation of the City's housing stock. The 2000 Housing Element continues programs for repair and rehabilitation of existing housing, which is expected to result in the positive impact of preserving and maintaining the useful life of the existing housing stock. 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, ncluding liquefaction'~ ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Amendment 01-01C Page 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potemial~y Un~ess Than Significant Mitigation Significant No g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a-i) The 2000 Housing Element update will not result in or expose people to geologic impacts occurring from fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, landslide, erosion, or subsidence. The housing element does not create a demand for new housing, but attempts to meet existing and projected housing needs through its goal, objectives, policies, and programs. 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration ( ) ( ) (X) of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any ( ) ( ) (X) water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction ( ) ( ) (X) of water movements? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either ( ) ( ) (X) 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? ( ) ( ) (X) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) (X) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of ( ) ( ) (X) groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: a-i) The implementation of water conservation objectives of the Housing Element has contributed to an overall reduction in the rate of water consumption from 1989 to 1999, based on the population and total water demand. The overall water consumption in the City increased from 39,662 acre-feet in 1989 to 49,200 acre-feet in 1999. While the total water consumption has increased, the per capita consumption has decreased from 0.438 acre-feet in 1989 to 0.403 in Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Amendment 01-01C Page ,g Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Than 1999. Continuation of the water conservation objectives is expected to result in a positive impact on water consumption. The 2000 Housing Element update will not result in water impacts that include changes in absorption rates, exposure of people or property to water related hazards, impacts to surface water quality, changes of surface water in any water body, changes in currents or water movements, changes in the quality of ground waters, altered direction or rate of flow of ground water, impacts to groundwater quality, or the reduction of public water supplies. The housing element does not create a demand for new housing, but attempts to meet existing and projected housing needs through its goal, objectives, policies, and programs. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposah a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to ( ) ( ) (X) an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, ( ) ( ) (X) or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: . .-a-d) Based on current zoning, between 57,292 and 58,798 housing units will be available at build-out, which is consistent with the 1988 General Plan Technical Update Master Environmental Assessment estimate of 58,868 units; therefore, there is no change in the impact on air quality. The MEA found that the anticipated growth of the City would have a significant impact on the ambient air quality in the City, which could not be mitigated below a level of significance and a statement of overriding considerations was adopted. Efforts to achieve a more favorable jobs/housing balance in the City have been successful, resulting in an increase in the jobs/housing balance. The people who live and work in the City increased from 10% in 1980 to 22% in 1990. The Housing Element objective is 30%. Revised programs to reduce the jobs/housing balance are expected to further reduce commuter trips and result in a positive impact on congestion and air quality. 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., ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Amendment 01-01C Page 6 Impact Polentially I Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Mitigation Significant NO C) Inadequate emergency access or access to ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) (X) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or ( ) ( ) (X) bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting ( ) ( ) (X) alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a-g) The 2000 Housing Element update will not result in traffic and cimulation impacts that include increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion, hazards to safety from design features, inadequate emergency access, insufficient parking, hazards or barriers to pedestrians, conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation, or rail or traffic impacts. The housing element does not create a demand for new housing, but attempts to meet existing and projected housing needs through its goal, objectives, policies, and programs. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: -a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or ( ) ) ( ) (X) their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, ( ) ) ( ) (X) eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., ( ) ) ( ) (X) eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and ( ) ) ( ) (X) vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ) ( ) (X) Comments: a-e) The 2000 Housing Element update will not result in biologic resource impacts to endangered or threatened species or their habitats, locally designated species, wetlands, or migration corridors. The housing element does not create a demand for new housing, but attempts to meet existing and projected housing needs through its goal, objectives, policies, and programs. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Amendment 01-01C Significant Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially UnleSs Significant Mitigation 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation ( ) ( ) ( (X) plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and ( ) ( ) ( (X) inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known ( ) ( ) ( (X) mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? Comments: a-c) The 2000 Housing Element update will not result in energy and mineral rasoume impacts that conflict with adopted energy conservation plans, use non- renewable resources in a wasteful manner, or result in the loss of availability of a known mineral. The housing element does not create a demand for new housing, but attempts to meet existing and projected housing needs through its goal, objectives, policies, and programs. 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) brush, grass, or trees? Comments: a-e) The 2000 Housing Element update will not result in hazards that involve a risk of accidental explosion, the possible interference with an emergency response plan, the creation of any health hazard, the exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards, or increased fire hazards. The housing element does not create a demand for new housing, but attempts to meet existing and projected housing needs through its goal, objectives, policies, and programs. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Amendment 01-01C Pa,qe 8 Potentially Impact Impact Significant Issues and Supporting information Sources: Potentially Unless Than 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-b) The 2000 Housing Element update will not result in an increase in existing noise levels, nor in the exposure of people to severe noise levels. The housing element does not create a demand for new housing, but attempts to meet existing and projected housing needs through its goal, objectives, policies, and programs. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) roads? _e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a-e) Housing and population projections and the analysis of housing needs and constraints may serve as a planning tool for public services, but has no direct impact on needed public services. Schools and other services are discussed in Section VI of the 2000 Housing Element update Technical Appendix. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Communication systems? ( ) (X) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution ( ) (X) facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) (X) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) (X) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) (X) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Amendment 01-01C Page 9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pote~ltially Unless Than Comments: a-g) Housing and population projections and the a~nalysis of housing needs and constraints may serve as a planning tool for public services, but have no direct impact on needed utilities and service systems. Various services are discussed in Section VI of the 2000 Housing Element update Technical Appendix. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic ( ) ( ) (X) effect? c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a-c) The 2000 Housing Element update will not affect a scenic vista or highway, will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect, nor will it create light or · glare. The housing element does not create a demand for new housing, but attempts to meet existing and projected housing needs through its goal, objectives, policies, and programs. 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 ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) the potential impact area? Comments: a-e) implementation of the goals, objectives, policies, and programs that encourage the preservation and maintenance of historic structures have been successful. These programs will be revised and retained in the 2000 Housing Element update and are expected to result in a positive impact on the City's cultural resources. 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Amendment 01-01C Page 10 Impact LeSS Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Po~entietly ~Jnless Than Comments: a-b) Housing and population projections and the analysis of housing needs and constraints may serve as a planning tool for public services, but have no direct impact on needed recreation services. Schools and other services are discussed in Section VI of the Technical Appendix of the 2000 Housing Element update. 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have ( ) (X) 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 ( ) (X) to achie~,e 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.) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts ( ) (X) 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 ( ) (X) environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Amendment 01-01C Page 11 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless T~an Comments: a-d) The environmental setting for the 2000 update of the Housing Element is provided by the Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) for the Technical Update of the General Plan, 1988, certified January 4, 1989 (State Clearing House Number 88020115). The housing element does not of itself create a demand for new housing, but attempts to meet existing and projected housing needs through its goal, objectives, policies, and programs. The 2000 Housing Element update is a technical update of the document and changes will not result in impacts greater than those described in the City's MEA, and for some items may be less. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (-X) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Sect/on 2fO9f and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: General Plan Amendment 01-01C Public Review Period Closes: January 24, 2001 Project Name: 2000 Housing Element Update Project Applicant: City of Rancho Cucamonga Project Location: Citywide Project Description: In accordance with Article 10.6, Section 65580-65589.5 of the California Government Code, a revision and update of the City's Housing Element, including the State-mandated analysis of restricted, affordable units at-risk of conversion to market rate through June 30, 2010. 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: .($) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. if adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding am included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-~27~0_ or Fax (9_0_9) 4~?-28~__7._ ................. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. January 24, 2001 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 01-01C, TO REVISE AND UPDATE THE HOUSING ELEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 10.6 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 01-01C as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the proposed Housing Element Amendment." 2. On January 24, 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucam0nga 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 January 24, 2001, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The proposed revision and amendment to the Housing Element will not have a significant impact on the environment as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Initial Study Part II; and b. The proposed Housing Element Amendment is in substantial conformance with the provisions of Article 10.6 of the California Government Code; and c. This proposed Housing Element is consistent with the other elements of the General Plan as provided through the organization and construction of the General Plan into super elements in which the goal, objectives, and policies contained in these elements are interrelated and dependent upon one another, and as a result of the technical update to the General Plan adopted on January 4, 1989; and d. The proposed amendment furthers the attainment of the City's overall housing goal through the development and implementation of the 5-year action program and quantified objectives that promote the preservation, maintenance, and development of housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 01-01C- 2000 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE January 24, 2001 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. That the proposed Housing Element Amendment is in conformance with the General Plan; and b. That the proposed Housing Element Amendment will not have significant impacts on the environment; and c. That the proposed Housing Element Amendment is in substantial compliance with the provisions of Article 10.6 of the California Government Code. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows; a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this. Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the requirements and regulations that have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presurnption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment No. 01-01C. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2001. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 01-01C - 2000 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE January 24, 2001 Page 3 BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of January 2001, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: THE CITY OF I~ANCHO CUCAMONGA Staff Report DATE: January 24, 2001 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Kirt A. Coury, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-49 - LENNAR HOMES - A residential subdivision of 70 single-family lots on 47.9 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (up to-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the southwest corner of Etiwanda and Summit Avenues - APN: 225-17105, 12, 13, 20, 22, and 25. Related Files: Tentative Tract 16147 and Tree Removal Permit 00-35. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The related Tentative Tract 16147 was reviewed by the Planning ~eOmmission on January 10, 2001. The project is in the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District, which quires a conditional use permit to ensure that development along Etiwanda Avenue is consistent with the historical character and quality of the street. The special development criteria in the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District requires homes along Etiwanda Avenue to face the street, maintain a minimum separation of 25 feet between homes, and provide special streetscape design. The applicant has prepared a streetscape elevation addressing the previously mentioned criteria, as well as fencing and landscaping and demonstrating a house product orientation along Etiwanda Avenue, as shown in Exhibit "C." Staff believes the applicant has successfully attained the desired character while minimizing driveway access. 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 Conditional Use Permit 00-49 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. Respectfully submitted, City Planner Attachments: Exhibit"A"- Location Map Exhibit "B" - Tentative Tract Map Exhibit "C"- Streetscape Plan Exhibit "D"- Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 10, 2001 Exhibit "E" - Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-03 Resolution of Approval with Conditions ITEM D Loction Map CUP 00,49  ~ Project Site [ I parcels ~ 0,,,~r;~v $ T H E C IT Y OF I~A N C H 0 C U C AI~I 0 N GA Staff Report DATE: January 10, 2001 TO:. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Kid A. Coury, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16147 - LENNAR HOMES - A request to subdivide 47.9 acres of land into 70 lots for the purpose of single-family home construction in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan located on the southwest corner of Etiwanda and Summit Avenues - APN: 225-171-05, 12, 13, 20, 22, and 25. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit 00-49 and Tree Removal Permit 00-35. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Project Density: 1.46 dwelling units per acre. B. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North: - Single-family homes; Estate Residential (1 dwelling unit per acre), Etiwanda Specific Plan South:- Vacant land; Very Low Residential (1-2 dwelling units per acre), Etiwanda Specific Plan East: Single-family homes; Very Low Residential (1-2 dwelling units per acre), Etiwanda Specific Plan West: - Construction of single-family homes; Very Low Residential (1-2 dwelling units per acre), Etiwanda Specific Plan C. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site: - Very Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) North: - Very Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) South: - Very Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) East: Very Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) West: - Very Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) D. Site Characteristics: The 47.9 acre site is currently vacant, and gradually slopes from the north to south, at approximately 6 percent. There is an existing home, shown as "not-a- part," in the middle of the project's frontage along Etiwanda Avenue. The land to the north is primarily vacant with a few scattered homes. The site is surrounded by single-family PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 'I-I' 16147 - LENNAR HOMES JANUARY 10, 2001 Page 2 homes to the east and west (under construction). There is a 300-foot wide strip of land Separating this project from the 210 Foothill Freeway to the south. A Community Trail is required along Summit Avenue within the Metropolitan Water District right-of-way, and a (;lass I Bike Path is required within the parkway along Etiwanda Avenue. Local feeder trails are required for access to the rear of each lot. Although no homes are proposed at this time, the lots are designed for homes to face Etiwanda Avenue with only two lots to allow driveway access on Etiwanda Avenue. ANALYSIS: A. General: The current proposal is for a subdivision only, no home plans are yet provided. The Etiwanda Specific Plan requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, and a minimum average lot size of 25,000 square feet (25,207 squ~are feet average is proposed). The project site is also located within the Equestrian Overlay District and Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District. A Conditional Use Permit is required for all proposed developments within the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District, which is scheduled for your next agenda. B. Desiqn Review Committee.: The Committee members (McNeil, Stewart and Coleman), reviewed the project on December 5, 2000, and recommended approval. Action comments have been attached for your convenience (Exhibi! "D"). C. Technical and Gradinq Review Committee.~: The Grading Committee reviewed the project on December 5, 2000. The Technical Review Committee reviewed the project on December 6, 2000. Both Committees recommended approval of the project subject to conditions contained in the attached Resolution of Approval. D. Trails Advisory Committee,' The Trails Advisory Commitlee reviewed the project on December 13, 2000, and recommended approval subject to conditions outlined in the attached Resolution of Approval. E. Tree Removal Permit: The site contains several large Eucalyptus trees, which appear to be remnant windrows. The Etiwanda Specific Plan requires windrows along Etiwanda Avenue and Summit Avenue to be preserved, and allows others to be removed subject to replacement. An Arborist Study for the trees indicates that rnany are marginally worthy of preservation, and about two-thirds are not worthy of preservation. The project proposes to remove all or some of the trees, and replace with new windrow planting consistent with Etiwanda Specific Plan requirements. F. Environmental Assessment: The Initial Study has been completed. Staff determined that the project could have significant adverse environmental impacts on short-term air quality an~'l noise levels during site preparation, such as grading and equipment exhaust, and biological resources because of tree removal. Mitigation measures will be required to reduce the short-term air quality and noise impacts to a less than significant impact, and to require tree replacement. If the Planning Commission concurs, then the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ~ 16147- LENNAR HOMES JANUARY 10, 2001 Page 3 CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Dai~y Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all prope~y owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Tract 16147 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:KC/jc Attachments: Exhibit '%" Location Map Exhibit "B" Tentative Tract Map Exhibit "C" Grading Plan Exhibit "D" Design Review Action dated December 5, 2000 Exhibit "E" Initial Study Resolution of Approval with Conditions ~"~ Loction Map TT 16147 parcels S TENTATIVE TRACT 1~"147 k DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:00 p.m. Kirt Coury December 5, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16147 - LENNAR HOMES - A request to subdivide 47.9 acres of land into 70 lots for the purpose of single family home construction in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan located on the southwest corner of Etiwanda and Summit Avenues - APN: 225-171 - 05, 12, 13, 20, 22, and 25. Desiqn Parameters: The site is currently vacant and gradually slopes from north to south at approximately 6 percent. There is an existing home, shown as Not-A-Part, in the middle of the project's frontage along Etiwanda Avenue. The land to the north is primarily vacant with a few scattered homes. The site is surrounded by single-family homes to the east and west (under construction). There is a 300-foot wide strip of land separating this project from the future 210 Foothill Freeway to the south. A Community Trail is required along Summit Avenue within the parkway, and a Class I Bike Path is required within parkway along Etiwanda Avenue. Local feeder trails are required for access to the rear of each lot. Although no homes are proposed at this .time, the lots are designed for homes to face Etiwanda with only two lots to allow driveway access on Etiwanda Avenue. The project is subject to the Very Low Residential standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, which require a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet and a minimum average lot size of 25,000 square feet (25,207 square feet average proposed). The project site is also located within the Equestrian Overlay District and Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District. A Conditional Use Permit is required for all proposed developments within the Etiwanda Avenue Oveday District. The site contains several large Eucalyptus trees, which appear to be remnant windrows. The Etiwanda Specific Plan requires windrows along Etiwanda Avenue and Summit Avenue to be preserved and allows others to be removed subject to replacement. An Arborist Study for the trees indicates that many are marginally worthy of preservation and about two-thirds are not worthy of preservation. The project proposes to remove all or some of the trees and replace with new windrow planting consistent with Etiwanda Specific Plan requirements. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: Maior Issues: Staff feels there are no major design issues. The applicant has diligentlyworked with staff to address major concerns regarding Etiwanda Avenue character, lot layout and access points. The attached Concept Plan shows how homes could be plotted with their front facing Etiwanda Avenue. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Trails - There are several staff concerns regarding trail locations that will be reviewed by the Trails Advisory Committee. Policy Issues: The following item is a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Show access ramps on the Grading Plan from private equestrian easements to the corrals per Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-226. Maximum slope gradient of 5:1 and a I~ minimum width of 10 feet. D DRC COMMENTS TT 16147 - LENNAR HOMES December 5, 2000 Page 2 2. Clearly delineate on the Grading Plan the 24-foot x 24-foot corral area, and a 70-foot radius there from, for each lot per Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-226. 3. Existing Eucalyptus windrows along Etiwanda Avenue ,and Summit Avenue shall be presen/ed or replaced per Etiwanda Specific Plan Section 5.41.200. This allows removal of individual diseased or damaged trees so long as they are replaced with 15-gallon minimum Spotted Gum Eucalyptus trees. All other existing on-site Eucalyptus windrows shall be replaced with 5-gallon Spotted Gum Eucalyptus trees planted 8 feet on center in accordance with Etiwanda Specific Plan Sections 5.41.400 and 500. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project subject to the above comments. Desiqn Review Committee Action: Member Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner Kirt Coury The Committee recommended approval subject to working with trails issues and details with staff. ' - NVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (Part I - Initial Study) (909) 477°2?50 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 INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS 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 aubmittal; City staff w#l not be available to perfon'n work required to previde, mis$ing infom;ation. Application Number for the project to which this form pertains: Project Title: Ran~'hn qllmmi~- T~? sofpmjectowner(s): ~-nche ?_'mm'_'t IV 16027 Brookhurst St, Suite G-25 Yountain Valley~ Ca 92708 Name & Addres$ of developer or pmject sponsor 'Colorado Pac±f±c Construction 16027 Brookhurst St. Sulte G-25 Founta±n Valle¥~ Ca 92708 Contact Person & Address: Ric Stephens, Planning Director 937 South Via Latat Suite #500 Colton, CA 92324 Telephone Number ( q fi q ) 7 P ~ - ~ 1 ~ 1 Name & Address of person preparing this form (ii'different from above): Monica S. Ronchetti ~7 ~qouth Via Lata: ~quit~ ~500 Number. (909) 783-0101 INITSTD1 .WPD - 4/96 · Page 1 Infon'nation i/~dicated by astedsk (°) is not required of non-construction CUP's unless otherwise requested by slaf~ '1) Pr~vide a fu~~ sca~e (8-1/2 x11) c~py ~f the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which inc~udes the preject 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 primary access points which se~--ee the site; and representative views of significant features from the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. 3) ProjectL.ocation(descdbe): Went .~id~ nfEfiw~n~= AIFP South of Summit Ave. North of Nigh]and Ave. 4) Assesso/s Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessary): '5) Gross Site Area (ac/sq. ft.): 4 7.9 acres '6) Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets & proposed dedications): 4 1 o 4 acres 7) Descdbe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessary: Includeadesc~tionofallpe~itswhichw~benecessa~ ~mtheCityofRanchoCucamongaandothergovemmental agencies~o~erto~ ~plementtheproject: DeveloDment/D~si~n R~vi~w: ~n~ ~it, ~ Tmpr~v~m~nt~: Building Permits, and Tree Removal Permit INITSTD1 .WP[:,- 4/96 · Page 2 Describe the physical se~ing of the site as it exists be~ the p~ect including ~ation on topog~phy, soil stab#iD, plants and annals, matu~ trees, t~#s and ~ads, d~inage coupes, and scenic aspects. Descdbe any existing st~ctu~s on site ~eluding age and condi#o~ and the use of the st~ctu~s. A~ach photog~phs of s~nificant ~atu~s described. In addition, site ali souses of ~ation ~.e., geological an~or hyd~logic studies, biotic and a~heo/ogical su~eys, t~c studies); The site was formerly used for dry agriculture and most of the flat areas show evidence of this prior use. In addition, the site contains Eucalyptus tree windrows that are also indicative of a~ricultural use. Diskin~ has occured recently on portions of the site~ and the remaining areas have been abandoned and are dominated by weeds. Dirt roads cross the property from east to west. They were probably created for the former agricultural operations. The site is located on the Etiwanda alluvial fan at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains. The site is relatively flat, with only minor changes in topography due to past agricultural uses. The soils are uniformly a sandy loam and highly disturbed by diskinq, There is one plant community on the property consisting of ruderal-annual grassland which is severely affected by diskin~ operations in some areas. The mixed ruderal-annual grassland plant community is composed of annual grasses and weeds with some wildflowers. Dominant species observed during the field surveys include grasses such as red brome, rip,ut grass, and cheatgrass. Short- podded mustard, White tumbleweed, and Russian thistle. Slender wild ~e~cr~et~e~mo~cult~ias~o~hi$todcala~pectsoft~esile.$itea~lsou~e$~f~ati~n(bo~s~published~po~sa~d o~lhisto~: 11) Desc~be any n~ise s~urces and their ~eve~s that n~w a~ect the site (aircraft~ r~adway n~ise~ etc.) and h~w they wi/~ a~ect proposed uses: N/A IN;TSTD1 .WPD - ,4t96 ' #9 Continued... grassland are isolated limited stands of scrub vegetation consisting of a few individuals of California buckwheat, Spiney redberry, and squawbush. None of these scrub stands form a significant stand of habitat. Bird species were the most common including California towhee, Mourning dove, White crowned sparrow, American crow, and House finch. Mammal species observed included Botha's pocket gopher, California ground squirrel, Coyote, and Audubon's cottontail. 12) Descdbethepropoaedprojectindetail. Thiashouldprovideanadequatede$cdptionofthesiteinte/Tnsofultimateusewhich will result from the prosed project. Indicate if there are proposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary: 71 Lot Subdivision, Lots only - No house product included. 13) De~cdbe the surreunding pr~perties~ inc~uding inf~rmati~n ~n p~ants and anima~s and any cu~tural, hist~dca~~ ~r scenic aspects~ Indicate.the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.): *Land to the north, east, and west are Very Low (VL) density residential - 2DU/Ac *State Route 30 will occupies the lands to the south. 14) Wi~~ the pr~p~sed pr~ject change the pattem~ sca~e ~r character ~f the surr~unding gener~~ area ~f the pmject? NO INITSTDI.WPD - 4/96 ' a~ctadjacentpmpe~iesandon-siteuses. Wi~atmetho~ofsoundp~ofingaraproposed? The project itself will qenerate minimum additional noise as the sit,, is now vacant. Noise levels generated will not be in excess of normal residential development. The site is subject, to potentially excessive ~iqh traffic noise levels from the Route 30 freeway to the south and Etiwanda Ave to the east. '1~ ~dicatep~posed~mova~an~ormp~cemen~ofmaturaorscen~ ~es: some ,Df the Eucalyptus trees on the property. 1~ In~cateanybo~esofwater~cluding~mesticwaters~plie~towhichthesitedra~s: Run off from the si~ dr~w~ tn fhp t~pppr P~iw~nd~ r~ginn~] m~inlln~ ~h~nn~]. 18) Indicate e):pected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal/day) ~ ~ 0 Peak use (gal/Day) 1 2 0 () b. Commercial/ind. (gal/day/ac) Peak use (gal/min/bc) 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. __ Septic Tank X Sewer. ff septic tanks ara proposed, attach percolation tests. If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (See Attachment A for usage estimates). Forfurther clar#Tcation, please contact the Cucamonga County Water Distfict at 987.2591. a. Residential (gal~day) 2 7 ~) b. Commercial~Ind. (gal/day~ac) RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Number of raaidential units: 71 Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: Avera,~e lot size: 25,225 sg, ft, Minimum lot size_- 21.563. Maximum lot size; 34,823 INITSTD1 .WPD .. 4/96' D '~ Page 5 Attached (indicate whether units am rental or for sale units): For sale- SFD 21)Anticipated range of sale pHc'es and/or rents: Sale Pdce(s) $ N/A to $ N/A Rent (per month) $. to 22) Specify number of bedrooms by unit type; N / A 23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit pe: 24)thdicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project: Contact the apprepdate School Districts as shown in Attachment B: a. Elementary: 3 2.4 b. Junior High: 1 5.1 2 c. Senior High 1 4.4 COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Describe type of use(s) and major functton(s) of commemial, industrial or institutional uses: N / A Optal floor area of commercial, industrial, or ins~tutJonal uses by e: N/A 27) Indicate hou~ of operation: 28) Number of employees: Total: Maximum Shift: Time of Maximum Shift: 29) Provide breakd~wn ~f anticipated j~b c~assi~cati~ns` inc~uding wage and sa~ary ranges~ as we~~ as an indicati~n ~f the rate of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary): 30) Estimation of the number of worker~ 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) 572-6;~.83): N/A ALL PROJECTS adequate se~ice to the proposed project? If so, please indicate their response. INITSTD1 .WPD - 4/96 ' q~ ~ Page 7 In the known history of this properly, has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials? 33) Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include, but are not limited to PCB-~s; radioactive substances; pesticides a~d herbicides; fuels, oils, solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also note underground stot'age of any of the above. Please list the materials and descdbe their use, storege, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use, ff known. No 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 ali such materials to be used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storege and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. Ho o~myabY cerSfy that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for adequate tion of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information presented are t~e and correct tot he best knowledge and belief. I further unde=tand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate  City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Environmental Assessment And Tentative Tract 16147 2. Related Files: Tree Removal Permit 00-35 3. Description of Project: A request to subdivide 47.9 acres of land into 70 lots for the purpose of single family home construction in the Very-Low Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda and Summit Avenues. - APN: 225-171-05, 12, 13, 20, 22 and 25. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Lennar Homes 16027 Brookhurst Street Suite G-25 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 5. General Plan Designation: Very-Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) 6. Zoning: Very-Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) Etiwanda Specific Plan Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: North- Primarily vacant with a few scattered single fa~mily homes across Summit ._ Avenue; Estate Residential (up to 1 dwelling unit per acre), Etiwanda Specific Plan South - Vacant Land; There is a 300-foot wide strip of land separating this project from the future 210 Foothill Freeway to the South; Very-Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) Etiwanda Specific Plan East- Single family homes across Etiwanda Avenue; Very-Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre), Etiwanda Specific Plan West - Construction of single family homes under Tract 13812 (Pacific Crest, Panda); Very-Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) Etiwanda Specific Plan 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: Kirt Coury, Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TENTATIVE TRACT 16147 Page ? ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning (v') Transportation/Circulation ( ) Population and Housing (v') Biological Resources ( ) Public Services (,") Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (,,') Utilities and Service Systems (v') Water ( ) Hazards (,") Aesthetics (¢') Air Quality (,/) Noise ( ) Cultural Resources (¢') Mandatory Findings of Significance (,/) Recreation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (-/') 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; /'Kir~ A~. C~f/.,~ Associate December 18, 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. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentisllyUnless T~lan 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ( ) ( ) (,/) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or ( ( ) ( ) (v') policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Initial Study for TENTATIVE TRACT 16147 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3 c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ( ) ( ) established community? ( ) ('/) Comments: a-d) The project site is located at t~e southwest corner of Etiwanda and Summit Avenues within the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The land use designation is Very Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre). The proposed tract map shows 1.46 units per acre with lot sizes averaging approximately 25,000 square feet on a net site area of 47.9 acres. No increase in density or plan amendment is proposed and therefore no impacts will result from the project. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Po':entially 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? .Comments: a-b) The project consists of the subdivision of 70 single family lots on 47.9 acres of land designated as Very Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda and Summit Avenues. No increase in density or plan amendment is proposed. Therefore, the project will not result in a change in population projections. The Cucamonga County Water District confirmed they have the ability to provide adequate sewer and water service for the project. c) The project is predominantly vacant with three single family homes present along the west side of Etiwanda Avenue. Two of the homes will be demolished and added to the development of the proposed project, while the other home is not a part of this application. Land immediately west of the site is currently being developed as residential. Single family homes exist across both Etiwanda and Summit Avenues. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TENTATIVE TRACT 16147 Page 4 issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Than 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,') d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,,) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,') 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: a-c) According to the Geotechnical Investigation report submitted by Leighton and Associates, performed on August 25, 2000, no active faults have been mapped within, or trending toward the site. As such, the potential for surface rupture at the site is considered to be Iow. The project is not located within the Rancho Cucamonga City Special Study Zone along the Red Hill Fault. The Cucamonga Fault Zone lies approximately 1 mile northerly. These faults are both capable of producing Mw 6.0 - 7.0 earthquakes. Also, the San Jacinto fault, capable of producing up to Mw 7.5 earthquakes, is 7.5 miles northeasterly of the site and the San Andreas, capable of up to Mw 8.2 earthquakes, is 9 miles northeasterly of the site. Each of these faults can produce strong ground shaking. Adhering to the Uniform Building Code will ensure that geologic impacts are less than significant. d) The site is not located near a body of water. e) The site slopes gently toward the south, and is located on the southwest corner of Etiwanda and Summit Avenues. The site is not susceptible to landslides or mudflows. f) The topography will be altered to accommodate the project as the site is currently vacant. Grading will be done in accordance with a grading plan approved by the City Engineer. The impact is not considered significant as the site has a slight slope with minimal grading required. g-h) Soil type on-site and in the vicinity is Tujunga-Soboba (TD-SV/AB). The Geotechnical Investigation report submitted by Leighton and Associates, performed on August 25, 2000, identifies that laboratory test results indicate that the near-surface on-site soils will have a Iow concentration of soluble sulfate, and are considered mildly Initial Study for TENTATIVE TRACT 16147 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5 corrosive to ferrous metals. Based on the laboratory testing, the on-site soil has a very Iow expansion potential. In addition, new structures are required to meet current earthquake standards as required by the Uniform Ruilding Code. The Building and Safety Division, prior to issuance of building permits, will require a soils report for compaction and foundation requirements. The impact is not considered significant. i) The site contains no unique geologic or physical features. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: p,~..,.,,~ 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 ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') hazards such as flooding? 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 ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 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 Foss 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) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff due to the amount of new hardscape proposed on a site which is currently devo d of structures. All runoff will be conveyed to an existing storm drain in Etiwanda Avenue (located easterly of the site), which has been designed to handle the flows and must be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. The impact is not considered significant. initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TENTATIVE TRACT 16147 Page 6 b-e) The project site is not located near a body of water. The applicant will provide a drainage study showing how stormwater runoff will be conveyed during grading/construction. f-i) The project will not interfere with groundwater management practices in the area because the site is not used for groundwater recharge. Significant Issues and Supporting Information Sources: POlentieJly UnI~SS Than 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? ) (..') ( ) ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or ) ( ) ( ) (..-) cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) Comments: a-b) 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 to be generated from grading the 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. NOx and PM~0 levels may be exceeded during this phase, however with implementation of the following mitigation measures, impacts will be reduced to less-than-significant levels. 1. The site shall be treated with water or other soil stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM~o emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 2. Etiwanda and Summit Avenues shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM~0 emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon time of year of construction. 3. Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM~o emissions from the site during such episodes. 4. Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM~0 emissions. Initial Study for TENTATIVE TRACT 16147 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7 5. 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. 6. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. 7. The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. 8. 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 the subdivision of 47.9 acres of vacant land into 70 lots, averaging 25,000 square feet in accordance with the City code. The end use of the proposed project, very Iow residential, will not generate emissions that could cause climatic changes or objectionable odors. Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: 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., (.) ( ) ( ) (v') 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)? g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ) ( ) (v') Comments: a) The project will increase the number of vehicle trips with the future development of single family homes since the site is currently vacant. However, the project does not propose development of the site with a density in excess of that provided for by Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TENTATIVE TRACT 16147 Page Fi the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The project design includes certain street improvements to ensure safe and efficient traffic circulation. b-d) Access to the site is provided by a proposed street off of Etiwanda Avenue. The site is also accessible from Summit Avenue. Both streets will allow full access without impeding the through traffic. Access for emergency vehicles is adequate with two standard 35-foot street entrances. e-f) The proposed devel'opment will not cause a hazard or barrier to pedestrians or cyclists because adequate points of ingress/egress have been provided and there is adequate parking along streets. No bus turnout has been provided. g) Located approximately 9 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport, the site is offset north of the flight path and will not be dangerous to users or aircraft. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Tnar~ 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.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: a,d-e) The project proposes development within the Very-Low Residential District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The surrounding area is developed with residential subdivisions to the north and east, construction of a residential subdivision to the west, and vacant land to the south. There is no wetland habitat on or in the vicinity of the site and because of the development in the area, no wildlife corridors exist. The site is not identified on maps as potential Delhi Flower Loving Fly habitat. The Biological Assessment prepared by Kirtland Biological Services on December 15, 1999, identifies that the impacts to the plant communities and wildlife habitats on the site are not considered significant. As a result, no mitigation is required for impacts to the biological resources of this project. b-c) The site contains several large Eucalyptus trees which are remnant windrows. The Etiwanda Specific Plan allows windrows to be removed subject to replacement; however, it requires those along Etiwanda Avenue and Summit Avenue to be Initial Study for TENTATIVE TRACT 16147 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9 preserved where feasible. As mitigation, the project shall be conditioned to plant replacement Eucalyptus windrows and preserve existing healthy trees per the Etiwanda Specific Plan requirements. ~lssues and Suppoding Information Sources: Potenaally 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) inefficient manner? 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? Comments: a-b) The project will be required to conform to applicable City standards for energy conservation. c) The site is not designated by State Aggregate Resources Area according to the City General Plan, Figure IV-2 AND Table IV-1; therefore, there is no impact. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Po~o.,~y Unless Than 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency ( ) ( ) ( ) (...) response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of ( ) ( ) ( ) (~.) potential health hazards? e) increased fire hazard in areas with flammable ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) brush, grass, or trees? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TENTATIVE TRACT 16147 Page 10 Comments: a-d) There is no evidence of commercial or industrial uses. Although there is no evidence of past vineyard cultivation, there is a potential that the site was used for agriculture given the presence of the eucalyptus windrows. No evidence of discarded drums, containers, or hazardous wastes were observed. There was no indication of underground storage tanks or illegal dumping of refuse on-site. e) The project is located in a hazardous fire area as indicated by Figure V-7 of the General Plan; however, development of the site and standard conditions of approval from the Uniform Building and Fire Codes will be placed on the project so the impact is considered less than significant. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pot,,t~,~yUnless Than 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) increases in existing noise levels? ( ) (,/) ( ) ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) Comments: a) The proposed project may produce noticeable project-related noise during grading and construction. b) The following measures are provided to mitigate the short-term noise impacts: Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed 65 dBA, plus the limits specified in Development Code Section 17.02,120-D, as measured at the property line. Weekly, the developer shall monitor noise levels as specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120. Monitoring at other times may be required by the Planning Division. Developer shall report their findings to the Planning Division within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the above standards, then the Developer shall immediately notify the Planning Division. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. c) According to Figure V-9 (Future Noise Contours) of the General Plan, the subject site is not exposed to excessive noise levels; therefore, the impact is not considered significant. Initial Study for TENTATIVE TRACT 16147 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 11 Potentially Significant ues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Untess Than I 1. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an ,~.~ ~.co~e,eU ~.~,ac~ ~.~a~ 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? c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) ( d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( (,,.) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) Comments: a-e) Fire Protection - The project site, located on the southwest corner of Etiwanda and Summit Avenues, would be served by a fire station located near the corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue, located approximately 2 miles from the project site. Standard conditions of approval from the Uniform Building and Fire Codes will be placed on the project so no impacts to fire services will occur. ~ - Police protection for the area is provided under a contract with the County Sheriff's Department. Additional police protection is not required, as no residential homes are proposed for development at this time. Schools - The Etiwanda School District and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District serve the project area. Both school districts have been notified regarding the proposed development· A standard condition of approval will require the developer to pay the school impact fees. With this standard mitigation, impacts to the School Districts are not considered significant. Parks - The proposed project will result in the subdivision of 70 single family lots, and will generate approximately 210 new people to the area. Therefore, the project will incrementally impact local parks or recreational opportunities. Public Facilities - The proposed project will not significantly increase traffic on adjacent streets and it is consistent with the City's Etiwanda Specific Plan which designates the area as Very Low Residential with suspected future traffic after development. The project proponent will be required to construct necessary street improvements and pay traffic impact fees as established by the City Council to offset the incremental increase in traffic as a result of the project. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TENTATIVE TRACT 16147 Page 12 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Tllan 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢) facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) f) So d waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) Comments: a-g) The project will use existing gas, electrical and communication systems. Solid waste disposal will be provided by the current City contracted hauler who disposes the refuse at a permitted landfill. The project will increase demand upon storm drain systems due to the increased runoff from new hardscape proposed on the currently vacant site. Storm drain improvements will be constructed to direct drainage to .. Etiwanda Avenue located easterly of the site, and will not result in substantial alterations to the master plan of storm drainage. The impact is not considered significant since it can be mitigated by providing proper stormwater drainage per the City Engineer. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potefltially Unless Than 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) (,/) ( ) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) (¢) ( ) Comments: a-b) The project site is not within a scenic vista or scenic highway. The area is designated Very-Low Residential within the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The proposed project will blend with current and proposed surrounding development, and will be designed in accordance with the design guidelines of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. c) The project will create new light and glare with future development of single family homes. However, the site has been identif~,ied..asj~ residential site so future light will Initial Study for TENTATIVE TRACT 16147 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 13 not significantly affect sensitive receptors such as other residential development in the area. Potentially issues and Supporting Information Sources: 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 ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') the potential impact area? Comments: a-e) The site is approximately 47.9 acres. The site is currently vacant and undeveloped with large eucalyptus trees on-site. The Archeological Survey prepared by Tetra Tech, Incorporated dated February 22, 2000, recommends that if archaeological materials are encountered during ground-disturbing activities related to construction within the project area, these activities must be suspended in the vicinity of the find until the deposits are recorded and evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. If human - remains of any kind are found during construction activities, all activity must cease immediately and a qualified archaeologist and the proper authorities must be notified, including the San Bernardino County Coroner and appropriate Native American groups. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or ( ) ( ) (,/) ( ) regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) Comments: a) The developer of the project will be required to pay park development fees as a condition of approval. The impact is not considered significant. b) The proposed project will be constructed on vacant land, which is designated Very Low Residential. Surrounding and adjacent land are also designated residential and are either currently developed, being developed, or proposed for development. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TENTATIVE TRACT 16147 Page 14 The proposed project will be serviced by Summit Park, located on the east side of East Avenue, north of Summit Avenue. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentiatly Unless Than 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 ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) 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.) c)' Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that ( ) ( ) (,,') ( ) are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: a) The Initial Study did not identify any significant adverse impacts to biological resources. b) The 47.9-acre site could generate fugitive dust during site grading. The contractor will be required to minimize dust generation through water applications per the City's standard conditions of approval. Additional mitigation measures presented in Section 5 of this Initial Study will reduce impacts to less than significant. Noise associated with site construction will not result in a significant impact given the small size of the site and the short-term ~u~.~ the construction activity. Initial Study for TENTATIVE TRACT 16147 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 15 c) Cumulative effects of a residential subdivision in the Etiwanda Specific Plan Area were identified in a prev ous environmental docurnent. Appropriate mitigat on measures were developed prior to the implementation of analysis and the Specific Plan. No additional mitigation measures beyond those presented in the specific plan and this Initial Study are required. Subdivision of 70 residential lots would not cause substantial adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly. The Initial Study did not identify any impacts that would have a potentially significant affect to the environment. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): ('") General Plan (Certified April 6, 1981) (v') Etiwanda Specific Plan EIR .. (Certified 1983) ('") Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) ('") Geotechnical Investigation, Leighton and Associates, August 25, 2000 (v') Arborist Report, James Barry M.S., Environmental Consulting, October 5, 2000 ('")Phase I Archaeological Survey, Tetra Tech, Incorporated, February 22, 2000 ('/) Biological Assessment, Kirtland Biological Services, December 15, 2000 Sent By: AEICASC ENGINEERING ;. gog 783 0101 ; Dec-26-O0 18.'29; Page~ De¢-ZG-ZCI00 O3:561m Fros.-LENNAfl S 640206942;' ?-165 P.00Z/OOZ F-384 GENT DY: R ClJC,~lJli~i~A (,~ DEV; 1a-21- 0 1O:a~BJt&l; 906~.772~7 => ~u~ ~ .... ~ Iv,ITel Stray for APPUC~T CE~RCA~ON i ~ that I am Ina appli~n[ 1Dr me pr~u~ de~ in t~ In~al StuOy. I &~awl~ ~t I the ~Is Or mit~a~ the ~11ec~_tQ RESOLUTION NO. 01-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16147, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 70 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ON 47.9 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ETIWANDA AND SUMMIT AVENUES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 225-171-05, 12, 13, 20, 22 AND 25. A. .Recitals. 1. Lennar Homes filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 16147 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 10th day of January, 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said headng on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: -1'. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, 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 January 10, 2001, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the southwest comer of Etiwanda and Summit Avenues with a street frontage of approximately 2,800 feet on Etiwanda Avenue and a lot depth of 1,360 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 is vacant, the property to the east is developed with single-family homes, and the property to the west is currently under construction for single-family homes; and c. The project is designed in conformance with the Very Low Residential standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and d. The site contains several large Eucalyptus trees, which will be removed and replaced with new Eucalyptus windrows in conformance with the Etiwanda Specific Plan windrow preservation requirements; and e. The design of the project, including roadway alignment, trails, and grading will provide efficient use of land to accommodate single-family homes. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 01-03 TT16147 - LENNAR HOMES January 10,2001 Page 2 3. Based upon the substanti'al evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the Tentative Tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and b. The design or improvements of the Tentative Tract are 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; furthermore, 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 adveme impact upon wildlife resources, or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. ~ ~ / PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 01-03 TT 16147 - LENNAR HOMES January 10, 2001 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 ) Show slope percentages to access corrals. 2) Reduce 2:1 slope for Lots 46-50. 3) Reduce 2:1 to 4:1 slope along Etiwanda Avenue. 4) Lots 32-38 (rear property); drain every other lot towards street. 5) Provide cross-section of 30-foot storm drain between lots 26 and 27. 6) All horees shall be kept a minimum distance of 70 feet from any adjacent dwelling located on any adjoining site. The location of corrals, fenced enclosures, barns, stables or other enclosures used to confine horees, shall conform to this requirement. 7) Relocate corrals closer to rear property lines by placing corral access ramps at an angle rather than perpendicular to slope, and pulling back toe of slope with retaining walls. 8) Provide a local feeder trail in the "A" Street parkway of Lot 12 to align with trail on Lot 45. Shift local feeder trail from south side of Lot 54 to south side of Lot 55 to align with trail on Lot 15. 9) Extend local feeder trail to the full length of the south property line of Lot 58 to align with trail on Lot 17. 10) Provide a concrete textured finish at all mid-block trail crossings. 11) Provide gates per City Standard Drawing No. 1008, and trail connections from the rear yard of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 50 to the public Community Trail along Summit Avenue. 12) This approval is contingent upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit, as required by the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District, prior to final map recordation or issuance of permits. Enqineerinq Division: 1) Reimburse the developer that installed Summit Avenue across Tentative Tract 16147. 2) The Master Plan Storm Drain existing earth channel north of the Route 30 right-of-way, will need to be lined with concrete between Etiwanda PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 01-03 TT16147 - LENNAR HOMES January 10,2001 Page 4 and East Avenues, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit. Standard drainage fees for the site shall be credited to the cost of the facility, with the estimated balance due to be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. If costs for permanent master plan facilities exceed the fee amount, the developer shall be eligible for reimbursement in accordance with City policy. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 3) Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Summit Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue. The developer shall receive credit against, and reimbursement costs in excess of, the Transportation Development Fee in conformance with City policy. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 4) Install a right turn lane on eastbound Summit Avenue at Etiwanda Avenue. 5) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunication and electrical, except for the 66kV electrical) on the opposite side of Etiwanda Avenue and Summit Avenue shall be paid to the City prior to the approval of the Final Map. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length from the center of Etiwanda Avenue and Summit Avenue to the westerly and southerly tract boundary. 6) A drainage facility shall be properly sized, extended, and plugged to the southeast corner of the undeveloped property to the north and west of subject site (Lots 44, 45, and 46), and provided with a public drainage easement for future use. 7) The proposed Storm Drain Facility through the rear yards of Lots 24, 25, and 26, shall be re-designed such that no manholes occur within the easement. Consideration should be given to utilize an extension of "E" Street to Etiwanda Avenue for drainage purposes, or acquire an easement to the south within the proposed future Vintage Drive. Environmental Mitiqation Biological Resources 1) Existing Eucalyptus windrows shall be preserved or replaced per the Etiwanda Specific Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 01-03 TT16147 - LENNAR HOMES January 10,2001 Page 5 Noise 1 ) Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 2) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed 65 dBA, plus the limits specified in the Development Code Section 17.02.120-D, as measured at the property line. Developer shall monitor weekly noise levels as specified in the Development Code Section 17.02.120. The Planning Division may require monitoring at other times. Developer shall report their findings to the Planning Division within 24 hours. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. Air Quality 1) The site shall be treated with water or other soil stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM~0 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 2) Etiwanda and Summit Avenues shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM~0 emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon time of year of construction. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM~0 emissions from the site during such episodes. 4) Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM~0 emissions. 5) The 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. 6) The contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. 7) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut of equipment when not in use. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 01-03 TT16147- LENNAR HOMES January 10,2001 Page 6 8) 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 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2001. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA arty T.~cNiel, Chairman I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 10th day of January 2001, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MACIAS, MANNERINO City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: Tentative Tract 16147 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 - The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project plannerr 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 Monitodng Pmgram 3"1'16147 - LENNAR HOMES Janua~ 10,2001 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 proiect 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 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 CHECK'LIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III) Project File No.: Tentative Tract 16147 Applicant: Lennar Homes Initial Study Prepared by: Kirt A. Coury Date: December 11,2000 The site shall be treated with water or other soil CP C Review of Plans A/C 2 stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and and routine site RWQCB) daily to reduce PM~0 emissions, in inspections accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. Etiwanda and Summit Avenues shall be swept CP C Review of plans A/C 2 according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PMm emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon time of year of construction. _,~ ~)Grading operations shall be when wind CP C Review AJC suspended of plans 2 speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PMm emissions from the site during such episodes. Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and CP C Review of plans A/C 2 RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PU~o emissions. The construction contractor shall select the CP B/C Review of plans A/C 2 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. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or CP B/C Review of plans A/C 2 clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. The construction contractor shall ensure that CP/CE B Review of plans C 2 construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. and fugitive dust emissions. Existing Eucalyptus windrows shall be preserved CP B/C Review of plans A/C 2/4 except those trees indicated to be diseased or and routine site damaged by the Arborist Report dated October 5, inspections 2000, prepared by James Barry M.S., Environmental Consulting so long as they are replaced per Etiwanda Specific Plan. olse'~, ;i , . ,'....: Construction or grading shall not take place between CP C Routine site A 4 the hours of 8:00p.m. and 6:30a.m. on weekdays, inspections. including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. jConstruction or grading noise levels shall not exceed CP C Routine site A 4 65 dBA, plus the limits specified in Development Code 'Section 17.02.120-D, as measured at the ro ert inspections. .,J). P P Y hne. Weekly, the developer shall monitor noise levels as specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120. The Planning Division may require monitoring at other times. Developer shall report their findings to the Planning Division within 24 hours. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance wilh above noise standards or halted. Key to Checklist Abbreviations esponsible Person . ~ r ~ ? r' ~ '1~ Mon.,,.,,.,.i, Fre~iuencv '..-, !~ ~--- ~ .... '~' ~ ......... ~ ......... ~ BO - Building Official or designee D - On Compfelion D - Separate Submittal (Reports / Studies ! Plans) 4 - Stop Work Order FC - Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: Tentative Tract 16147 SUBJECT: 70 Lot Subdivision APPLICANT: Lennar Homes LOCATION: Southwest corner of Etiwanda and Summit Avenues ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: tGeneral Requirements Completion Date 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter of approval, and all Standard Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and construction plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check. B. Time Limits 1. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the City Engineer within 3 years from the date of the approval. C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include / site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Etiwanda Specific Plan, and the Community Plan. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions /.__/ of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. sc-8-o0 ,.DS Project No. TT 16147 Completion Date 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and __/ / State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be __/__/__ submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for / / consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, /.__/__ all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with / / all receptacles shielded from public view. 8. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be __ located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 9. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the __ __/ adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. 10. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner including proper illumination. 11. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and weed .~/ / control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and construct all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements. a. Local Feeder Trails (i.e., private equestrian easements) shall, at a minimum, be fenced with / / two-rail, 4-inch Iodgepole "peeler" logs to define both sides of the easement; however developer may upgrade to an alternate fence material. b. Local Feeder Trail entrances shall also provide access for service vehicles, such as __/__/__ veterinarians or hay deliveries, including a 12-foot minimum drive approach. Entrance may be gated provided that equestrian access is maintained through step-throughs. c. Local Feeder Trail grades shall attempt to not exceed 0.5%, and in no case exceed 2%, at / / the downstream end of a trail for a distance of 25 feet behind the public right-of-way line to prohibit trail debris from reaching the street. Drainage devices may be required by the Building Official d. Provide a 24-foot by 24-foot corral area in the rear yard. Grade access from corral to trail /___/__ with a maximum slope of 5:1 and a minimum width of 10 feet. e. For single family residential development within the Equestrian/Rural Overlay District, at least / / one model home shall be provided with a constructed 24-foot by 24-foot corral with appropriate fencing. 12. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. SC-~ 0-00 ~ DS') Project No, ~r 16147 Completion Date 13. The developer' shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all /_ / lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. 14. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along Summit Avenue and the southern tract / / boundary. 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. 15. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each /.__/ support post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two Y2-inch lag bolts, to withstand high winds. Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall extend at least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade. 16. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. / / 17. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron or black plastic coated chain link to / / maintain an open feeling and enhance views. 18. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. /. / 19. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. / / D, Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in .~/ / the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in / / accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The Iocation'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 corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development /.__/__ Code and/or Etiwanda Specific Plan. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. SC-lO-O0 3 Project No. TT 16147 Completion Date 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. Special landscape features such as preservation of existing healthy windrows is required along / / Etiwanda and Summit Avenues. 9. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the /.__/__ perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer, 10. All wails shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the /.__/__ design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 11. New windrow planting of Eucalyptus Maculata (Spotted Gum) is required at a ratio of 50 linear /.__/ feet per acre. The size, spacing, staking, and irrigation of these trees shall comply with the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance (RCMC 19.08.100), and the Etiwanda Specific Plan. E, Environmental 1. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the __/ / issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report. 2. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of / / implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $ 719.00 prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. 3. In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final certificate of occupancy), the /.~_/ applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. F, Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location ' ~__/__ of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: G. General Requirements 1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: / / a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; SC-10-00 4 Project No. TT 16147 Completion Date 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 stare ...... p and wet s gnature are required pnor 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. -- 5. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the / / Building and Safety Division. H. Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be / / marked with the project file number (i.e., CUP 98-01). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to-issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to /.__/__ existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, affer 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. I. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for required occupancy separation(s). ~__/ 2. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. / / J. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City / / Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. SC-lO-00 5 Project NO. 'ct 16147 Completion Date 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to / / perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the /__/ time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. / / APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: K, Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, / / community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 2. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests / / necessary to construct the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do so, the developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. This condition applies in particular, but not limited to: easement for storm drain purposes w th n future Vintaqe Drive alonq south property line. L. Street Improvements 1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped / / areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: ___/ / Street Name Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike nth X X X X X X X Etiwanda Avenue X X X X X Summit Avenue 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. 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. sc- o-oo Project No, ~-r 16147 Completion Date b. Prior to any work being periormed 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 witi' /___/ adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be / / installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. / / 4. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in / / accorda.nce with the City's street tree program. 5. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with / / adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. M. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall ! /__ be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: Lots 11 2, and 3 alonq Summit Avenue between Street "A" and Etiwanda Avenun 2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting / / Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 3. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the /.__/ developer until accepted by the City. SC-10-00 7 Proiect No. '~' 16147 Completion Date N. Drainage and Flood Control 1. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map __/ / approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 2. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured / / from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. 3. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in a / / sump catch basin on the public street. O. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, ./ /__ electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. / / 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the / / Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bemardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. P. General Requirements and Approvals 1. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan Drainage ~ / Fees shall be paid prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involve~d. 2. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all /.~_/ new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. 3. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed __/ / beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Q. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. 7 SC-10-00 8 Project No. ~ 16147 Completion Date 2. Fire flow requirement shall be: /.__/ 2000 gallons per minute. -' OR X A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. X 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. Prior to the issuance Df building permits for coml~ustible construction, evidence shall be / / submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of the required fire protection system. 6. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final / / inspection. -- 7. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: __/ / _X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 32. Emergency access, a minimum of 26 feet wide, shall be provided, and maintained free and clear / / of obstructions at all times during construction, in accordance with Fire District requirements. 9. Fire District fee(s), plus a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho Cucamonga /. / Fire Protection District as follows: -- -- X $132 for CCWD Water Plan review/underground water supply. X $132 for Single Family Residential Tract (per phase). **Note: Separate plan check fees for Tenant Improvement work, fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 10. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1997 UBC, UFC, ~ / UPC, UMC, and RCFD Standards 32 and 15 and 1996 NEC. SC-10-00 9 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-49, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 70 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ON 47.9 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ETIWANDA AND SUMMIT AVENUES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 225-171-05, 12, 13, 20, 22, AND 25. A. Recitals. 1. Lennar Homes filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit 00-49 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 24th day of January 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said headng on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved bythe 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 dudng the above- referenced public headng on January 24, 2001, including wdtten and oral staff reports, togetherwith public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the southwest comer of Etiwanda and Summit Avenues with a street frontage of approximately 2,800 feet on Etiwanda Avenue and a lot depth of 1,360 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 is vacant, the property to the east is developed with single-family homes, and the property to the west is currently under construction for single-family homes; and c. The subdivision design, lot size, and dimensions are compatible with the Very Low Distdct and Etiwanda Avenue Overlay Distdct of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and d. The lots along Etiwanda Avenue will accommodate the design for front-on homes; and e. The streetscape including front yard landscaping, walls, and fencing are consistent with the intent of the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION CUP 00-49 - LENNAR HOMES January 24,2001 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public heating 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 accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the Etiwanda Specific Plan in which the site is located; and 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; and c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and d. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions o the Development Code and the Etiwanda Specific Plan. 4. 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) All Conditions of Approval from Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-03 for Tentative Tract 16147 shall apply. 2) A Development Review application shall be required for any house products prior to issuance of building permits. 3) Streetscape along Etiwanda Avenue shall comply with the Etiwanda Avenue Oveday District. 4) Future house products shall have architectural styles that enhance and reinforce the visual and histodc character and quality of Etiwanda Avenue. 5) Rock cobble curbing consistent with existing shall be required along Etiwanda Avenue. 6)Fences, walls, etc. shall be of decorative material that reinforce the histodc character of Etiwanda Avenue. 7) Special Neighborhood Entry design shall be provided at the southwest comer of Etiwanda and Summit Avenues. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2001. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION CUP 00-49 - LENNAR HOMES January 24,2001 Page 3 BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby 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 24th day of January 2001, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: D Concordia's Alta Vista Tr 10035, DR 00-47 Prepared by John Snell with assistance from Joe Long of Boyle Engineers Rancho Cucamonga and Kent Wu, Architect 1/16/01 Maximum House Height Maximum Roof Line Finish Floor measured Over/Under Curb at Approximate Elevation Per Elevation at from Garage Roof Line Maximum Numbe Plan Type Centerline of Lot CCR's Garage Entrance Finished Floor Elevation Height 1 2R DN 1371.00 1395.00 1368.75 26.08 1394.83 (0.17) BELOW 2 3R DN 1361.20 1385.20 1358.25 25.25 1383.50 (1.70) BELOW 3 3R DN 1351.50 1375.50 1348.70 25.25 1373.95 (1.55) BELOW 4 2R DN 1343.40 1367.40 1340.10 26.08 1366.16 (1.22) BELOW 5 3R DN 1338.75 1362.75 1336.00 25.25 1361.25 (1.50) BELOW 6 3R UP 1335.90 1359.90 1293.50 25.25 1318.75 (41.15) BELOW 7 1 UP 1332.50 1356.50 1294.53 28.50 1323.03 BELOW (33.47) 8 2R UP 1331.50 1355.50 1296.50 29.33 1325.83 (29.67) BELOW 9 1 UP 1329.50 1353.50 1295.00 28.50 1323.50 (30.00) BELOW 10 2R UP 1327.60 1351.60 1291.40 29.33 1320.73 (30.87) BELOW 11 1 UP 1325.40 1349.40 1285.38 28.50 1313.88 (35.52) BELOW 12 2R UP 1322.90 1346.90 1283.50 29.33 1312.83 (34.07) BELOW 13 3 UP 1320.90 1344.90 1284.50 28.50 1313.00 (31.90) BELOW 14 2R UP 1318.70 1342.70 1286.00 29.33 1315.33 (27.37) BELOW 15 1R UP 1315.90 1339.90 1292.33 28.50 1320.83 (19.07) BELOW 16 3 UP 1312.80 1336.80 1296.61 28.50 1325.11 (11.69) BELOW 17 2 UP 1306.50 1330.50 1292.66 29.33 1321.99 (8.51) BELOW 18 1 DN 1298.90 1322.90 1296.00 25.58 1321.58 (1.32) BELOW 19' 1 DN 1295.20 1319.20 1293.50 25.58 1319.08 (0.12) BELOW 20** 3R DN 1293.00 1317.00 1291.50 25.25 1316.75 (0.25) BELOW Curb elevation calculated by Boyle Engineers based on existing topographic map. Maximum roof line per CC&R's based on Section 2.04, last sentence which states maximum height of 24 feet above top of curb House height based on current design and architect accurately calculating elements. These differ from initial submittal due to a more accurate calculation at this time. *Lot 19 was lowered 0.50 feet by moving back 5 feet. **Lot 20 was lowered 0.50 feet by increasing the drive slope by 1.67%. 1430 -- 1 ~J -- -TOP OF CURB )3~.~.50 139¢+83 0.17' eD_ow ROOF ~ LOT LINE O 24' ABOVE ~_ LOT EL~/A'qON (MAX. ALLOWABLE ELEVATION HT. PER CC&R'S) [,01'~ 1.7o' BELOW 1390 -- 1366,18 ~_ LOT 1.55' ~£LOW ROOF UNE 1361.25 ELEVATION ~ LOT UN£ "OO LO]' 1.22' 8ELOW 370 -- ELEVATION 1.50' BELOW 24' LiNE 1 GARAGE 1350 -- E.~NCE LOT 1 345.70 OF' CURB ENTRANCE CAM~NO PREOERA 1330 -- .~e.oo ,~-0.10 0POSED ENTRANCE ENTRANCE GROUND 1310 -- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CC AND R'S COMPLIANCE 390 -- TOP OF CURB LOT ~ LOT ~ LOT ~--(~ 2~' ABO~ ~ LOT /(MAX. ALLOWABLE 370 -- ~~~T.__ PER -TOP OF CURB 350 -- LOT 9 LOT 8 LOT 7 LOT 6 ~,.o CC AND R'S COMPLIANCE EXHIBIT, TRACT 10055 1 400 -- 380 -- ~ LOT rc LOT -TOP OF CURB ~ LOT cc LOT ~ LOT O 24' ABOVE 360 -- ~ LOT (~,~AX. ALLOWABLE HT. PER CCiR'S) 12 LOT 11 10 3~o -- LOT 15 14 LOT 13 o[ cu~ ,~.~ 1300 -- 28.50' 1280 -- ENTRANCE FF 0 GARAGE 28¢.50 OPOSEB 1283.50 FF ~* C, AR~GE i~ ['~.'~;,.. i = .... ~.=.,=~_ ........... .. ___~:~ ~ ~ EXHIBIT, TRACT 10035 1400 -- 1380 -- .~60 -- TOP OF CURB LOT 20 LOT 19 LOT 18 LOT 17 LOT 16 ~ ~ LOT ~ 24' UNE 520 -- 300 -- ~ .... 280 -- ~.~cE [.~,.cE GROUND '--TOP OF CURB CAMINO PREDERA ~,,.,I~ ~ ~- ............... -'"= ~ CC AND R'S COMPLIANCE ~ ~ ..... ,.., ........ EXHIBIT, TRACT 10055 Good Evening, My name is Renee Massey and my husband Lynn and I reside at 8088 Camino Predera in Rancho Cucamonga. Our property is located directly across from lots 1-5. I must tell you, I work in the field of compulsory education and attendance and am not versed in variances, Initial Studies, ordinances and the M word...mitigate. However, this has been an educational experience. The last time I stood before you I stated that the CC&R's were the critical factor determining our decision to live in this particular Red Hill Community. Although the commission has stated they have no legal obligation to the CC&R's, they were approved by the planning commission in 1988 and recorded with the County of San Bernardino in August of 1988 as a condition of the subdivision for this tract. I am reasonably sure that the CC&R's were the reason for this commission's initial request that these lots be developed with single story homes and homes in keeping with the character of the community. I believe that question and concern was raised by Commissioner Tolstoy at the meeting of January 10th, and Commissioner Stewart acknowledged that it was discussed initially by the Design Review Committee (DRC), but that it was found to be not feasible. I do hope that the non-feasibility was not cost or profit driven on the part of Concordia Homes. As the commission stated at the last meeting, cost is not the commissions concern. The builder does build single story homes and with some modification could satisfy the commissions request. I'm also certain a two-story product would pencil more favorably for the builder but then again, cost is not the commissions concern. With that in mind, the concern then must be the adherence to the rules and regulations and ordinances outlined by the city. Granting of the two variances requested tonight would be a first. According to staff "neveP has a variance for a 10ft retaining wall been granted.., and that unless there were unusual circumstances or the lots unusually small, could a "certain finding" (as he stated) be considered. These lots are not unusually small, and unless the unusual circumstance was cost or profit based, I don't see the relevance. I also hope that in order to build the project as presented, a "certain finding" has not be declared. Staff said the city has a Hillside Ordinance that requires houses to be sensitive to hillside topography and has the same philosophical view regarding slope gradients as it does regarding retaining walls. The criteria states that slopes will be as gentle as possible and not man made. Staff said the Commission is always concerned with projects that are at odds with the Ordinance. I imagine that is why Commissioner Tolstoy has already declared his negative support of this project. A slope gradient of 2:1,currently allowed is already a substantial grade, and to approve a gradient of 1.5:1 would increase the grade even more. As far as staff could recall, this request has also never been granted. At our last meeting my husband and I, in the spirit of cooperation, went on record to request the 3r~ option offered by Concordia Homes. At that time we were not aware of the ordinances and regulations and assumed the commission would be acting on behalf of the city and its citizens particularly the immediate community. We were never consulted about a 4th option, but it would not have mattered as John Snell stated that evening that none of the options were "feasible" and he was ready to go ahead with the project as presented. That unfortunately communicated to us that the exercise in cooperation on their part was not genuine. Even though Mr. Snell has always "respectfully disagreed", it is true that our view will be significantly impaired as a direct result of this project and with little effort on his part to come to a reasonable agreement. We acknowledge that the builder and city staff has spent many months on this project, but that in itself is not a reason to approve the project as it is presented. Therefore, because the project does not reflect the type of homes in character with the community and in consideration of the CC&R's originally approved by the commission.., and because the project is requesting variances never before granted by this commission.., and because we believe that the project is at odds with the Hillside Ordinance we do not support staffs recommendation for this project. We withdraw our previous support of this project as it is presented and will exercise our right to seek civil action against all parties involved if it is approved. Corrections: Pg. 3...of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Technical Review Comments dated 9/30/00, #20... states that the "Emject is.located in a high fire hazard area" And On Pg. 9 of the City of R. C. Environmental Checklist Form Initial Study Part II completed on Dec. 13, 2000, under Hazards, Comments (bottom of the page), under (e) it states, "The site is not indicated to be in a high fire hazard area". There is an apparent conflict or perhaps a typo. Also: On pg. 4 of the Initial Study under COMMENTS (middle of the page), (a-e) there is a reference to a report and let me read... "The report includes review of previous studies conducted by the RMA Group (prepared in 1998), and Gary Rasmussen & Assoc. (prepared in 1997). The Geo Soils Inc. study (pg. 6 last paragraph, third line) states that Rasmussen report was actually prepared in 1987; Good evening. My name is Lynn Massey and I live at 8088 Camino Predera in track 10035. I would like to thank the commission for giving me this opportunity to express my concerns about the development with Concordia Homes. Ladies and gentlemen I want to address three main areas tonight. 1. Facts 2. Line of sight and views 3. Being congruent. 1. As we all know a decision is only as good as the facts that it is based upon. If the facts point to a good decision we would want to make it. But if the facts are wrong or miss leading then we would want to avoid making that decision as well. I feel the facts that have been stated are wrong and miss leading. I'd like you to look at a picture of my house. I want you to focus on two areas in this photo; the front door and the balcony. The difference between the levels of sight from these two locations is equal or less than 6 inches. Now lets look at the drawings. Sheet 7A clearly shows that our home is at the 1350-foot elevation. It shows a person standing on the balcony and the line of sight looking at the roofline of the proposed Concordia homes. This is misleading; this leads someone to suspect that the balcony view could be 10 to 12 feet higher than true elevation. And it shows that the pad of the proposed home to be at a1345 foot elevation. But that's not factual. The contour line of 1350-foot elevation from the street is the same level as the front door as per the photograph I've shown before. Lets look at the drawing sheet 7B. Here it shows our home to be at 1358- foot elevation. It shows our line of sight is now 1362-foot elevation and we see a 100% of the second story and the upper 33% of the 1st story. The pad of the proposed home is still at the 1345-foot elevation like the previous sheet. The facts are clear the drawings are not factual and could be misleading to the community, staff and commission. If the facts of these drawings are this inaccurate, could other facts be inaccurate as well? A decision base on these facts can clearly be considered a bad decision. 2. In the January 10th meeting Mr. Snell stated he had to respectfully disagree with the loss of views statements and that a large portion of our views will be unaffected. This is not correct. Our line of sight and the potential obstruction of view are extremely significant. As sheet 7B shows our line of sight starts with lot #2 and continues through lot #5 which is not shown on this drawing. With the curve of the street the views obstructed by the proposed homes will remove 75% or more of our spectacular valley views and city lights. And don't you think the new homeowners are going to plant trees on their property between the homes and when those trees grow to obscure the remaining 25% nothing is left! 100% of the view is gone. I realize that views may not be as important to the commission as they are to the people in our community. But views are very important to Concordia Homes. Lets look at some of Concordia Home's advertisements on the Internet. (Read Highlights) I guess views are important on the front end the sale end of homes. But they must not be important on the backend, after the sale of a home. Valley Views, Ocean Views, Lake Views, and Mountain Views are all important to the property owner; and as we have seen they are also important to Concordia Homes for the purpose of selling a new property. 3. Lastly, this community is Simi-custom homes and the majority are split level or single story homes. If I'm not mistaken the original proposal requested from the commission was for single story homes form Concordia. Staff reviewed the new plans and felt that two-story homes were feasible. These lots are perfect for split-level homes but don't fit the standard two- story tract homes that are proposed before the commission tonight. This development is not congruent with the community. Property values are based upon other comparables within the community. Most of the property values might not increase because the proposed homes are not comparable to existing homes or not congruent! The decision from the commission to grant this plan might not be serving the community. ^ mutually beneficial plan; a win / win plan, where all parties could get a portion of what they desire. This could be the most congruent purpose to action decision the commission could make. As you might have guessed I cannot support the plan as presented tonight. And with the commission granting the proposed plans they are in effect encouraging a civil matter between a voter, taxpayer and citizen of this community myself; toward an entity that can't vote, pay taxes and is not a resident in this community. TH E C I T Y OF l~ANCflO CU CAMONGA Staff Report DATE: danuary 24, 2001 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buffer, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: VARIANCE 00-09 - CONCORDIA HOME,~ - A request to allow retaining walls approximately 10 feet in height where a maximum height of 4 feet is allowed, and slope gradients of approximately 1.5:1 where a maximum gradient of 2:1 is allowed for 20 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Predera, south of Red Hill Country Club Drive- APN: 207-641-01 through 10 and 207-631-01 through 11. Related Files: Development Review 00-47 and Tree Removal Permit 00-41. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-47 (TRACT NO. 10035) - CONCORDIA HOMES - The Design Review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 20 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Predera, south of Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-641-01 through 10 and 207-631-01 through 11. Related Files: Variance 00-09 and Tree Removal Permit 00-41. A. BACKG ROUND: These items were continued from the January 10, 2001, meeting to provide staff the time to obtain and review Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for Tract 10035. This was as a result of testimony from proper[7 owners that the CC&Rs include view preservation provisions that they believe are contrary to the development proposal. A copy of the CC&Rs is attached. B. ANALYSIS: The CC&Rs contain view obstruction provisions (see Article II, Section 2.04). This section states, "the maximum roof height of Lots 1 to 21, inclusive, shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet above top of curb at the center of the lot." The proposed grading and home design have been analyzed in light of this restriction. All homes except for those on Lots 19 and20 are in conformance with the 24-foot height limit. The homes on Lots 19 and 20 were found to be a mere 3 to 4 inches above the maximum height limit. The applicant has revised the grading and plotting of homes on Lots 19 and 20 to lower the homes 6 inches to comply with the 24-foot height limit.' Note that twelve of the twenty homes are designed to be 8 feet to 41 feet BELOW the. 24-foot maximum height limit. ITEMS E & F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VA 00-09, DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes January 24, 2001 Page 2 The issue of view preservation was a major item of discussion during the Planning Commission Workshop and the Design Review meetings ¢,n the project. The project design and grading has undergone numerous significant changes in response to staff comments and neighborhood concerns regarding sight lines. Upon completion of the Design Review process, it was determined that the applicant had done an exemplary job of preserving views wherever possible. This is exemplified in light of the 24-foo! maximum height limit established by the CC&Rs, as a majority of the lots are so far below this limit. Although the City has no authority to enforce private CC&Rs, staff believes that the project, as redesigned, fully complies with the CC&Rs. CORRESPONDENCE: The Vadance was advertised as a public headng for the January 10, 2001, Planning Commission meeting 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. At the January 10, 2001, meeting, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing for two weeks. Staff received a follow-up letter from a resident in oF,position to the project and also attached is a letter provided to the Commission at the last meeting because it was received too late to be included with the January 10, 2001, staff report (Exhibit "C"). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Development Review 00-47, Vadance 00-09, and Tree Removal Permit 00-41 through adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with Conditions and with issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. City Planner BB:BLC~na Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Tract 10035 Exhibit "Bu - Compliance Matrix Exhibit "C" - Letter of Opposition received January 16, 2001 Exhibit "D" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 10, 2001 Resolution of Approval for Variance 00-09 Resolution of Approval for Design Review 00-47 W~EN RECORDED ~XL TO: P.o. Box ~ooo-3~x Rmncho ~camon~a, CA 91701 CO,, TABLE OF CONTENTS OF DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND ~ REST~TCTIONS AND RESERVATION OF EASEMENTS FOR TRACT NO. 10035 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA _PAG~ ~. ARTICLE I 1.01 Committee 1 1.02 Close of Escrow 1 1.03 Declarant 2 1.O4 Declaration 2 1.05 Dwelling Unit 2 1.06 Family 2 1.07 I~provement 2 1.08 Lot 2 1.09 Mortgage 2 · 1.10 Mortgagee 2 1.11 Owner 2 1.12 Person 3 1.13 Projects 3 1.14 Record or Filed 3 1.15 Street 3 ARTICLE II ~L~,=_I~L?J~Q~ 2.01 Single Family Residence 3 2.02 Buildings 3 2.03 Signs 4 ...04 View Obstructions 4 2.05 Temporary Buildings 5 2.06 Nuisance 5 2.07 Antennae 5 2.08 Animal and Insect Restriction 5 2.09 Vehicles 6 ,,- 2.10 Business or Commercial Activity 6 88-2 1661 2.11 Trash 2.iz No ilszardous Activities 7 2.14 Further Subdivision 7 7 2 1,5 water and Sewer 2.16 Drainage 2.17 8o1~r F:,ergy ]net, allat, ion~ 3.01 Utility Easemsntml 3.02 Roches to Slopes and Drainage Ways 3.03 Slope Haintenance 8 3.04 Sight ~lnss 9 ARTICLE IV ~LANDSCAPE. ~RRIGATION AND MAINTENANCE 4.01 Installation of ]~ndecaptng g 4.02 Exterior Naintensncs and Repair; Owner's Obliqations In ARTIC]:E V FRCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING 5.01 Hembers of Commi:tee 10 5.02 Meetings of the Committee 11 5.03 No Waiver of Future Approvals 5.04 Compessatio~ of ~embers 5.05 C~. vection of Defects 5.06 Non-Liability of Commf. ttee Members 12 5.07 Variance 12 ARTICLE VI TERMINATION. ~J~END~ENT A~D~V_~_~T~ 6.01 Ter~inaticn and Amendment 13 6.02 Severability 13 ARTICLE vii Fu~TION AND RIGHTS OF DEC~ 13 ARTICLE VII 8.01 E~forcemellg 8.02 Costs and Attorneys Fee~ 14 8.03 No Representations or Warranties 15 8.04 Constructiv~ Notice and Acceptance 8.05 Insurance Obliger(ohS of Owners 15 8.06 Notice~ -ii- DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, COND£TIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AND ~ESERVATION OF EASEMENTS FOR TRACT NO. 1003~ CITY OF RANCHO C~CA~ONGA, ~L~T~_Q_F__~__~EI~%RDINO- STATE THIS DECLARATION ia made by Bancho Associatss, Ltd., C~llfornia genera), partnersh]~ hereina~tsr rsferrsd to a~ "Declarant." A. Declarant ~s the Owner o~ certain real prnperty ("ProJeot"} located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of Sa~ Bernardino, State of Cali~ornia, moFe particularly described as ~ollows: Lots 1 thru ~8, inclusive, of Tract No. located in ~hs City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bsrnardino, Stats of California, as per map recorded in Book 179 o~ maps, pages ]3, ]4 and records of Sai~ Count~. S. Declarant will convey the Project, subject to certain protective covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements as hereinafter set £orth. C. Declarant hereby declares that all of the Pro~ect shall be held, sol~ and conveyed subject to the following covenants, conditions, '~nstrictiona and easements, all and each of which ~re for the p~..-no%e of enhancing and perfecting the value, . '- desirability, and attractiveness of the Project, in furtherance  for the protection of the Pro,eot, ¢~r of a general plan · portiu~ thereof. A~/, and each of, these covenants, conditions, ~.~ restrictions and easements of this Declaration are hereby imposed as equitable servitudes upon the Project, shall run with the Project, and shall be binding on all parties having or acquiring any rights, title or interest in the Project or any part thereof, and their successors and assigns. ARTICLE I  Section 1.0l "C_o~nmittee" shall mean the single architectural and landscaping committee formed pursuant to Artiole V hereof. ~{.~ shall th, date on ~_~t ~on_~. which a .~eed conveying any Lot is recorded in the Office of the San Bernardino County Recorder. 88-291661 ~e_CJL~gJ~__ld-O-~. "~I~DJ~# shall ~ean Rancho Associates, Ltd., a Callfornie gen~zel ~artnerehlp, its successors, and an7 Person to which it shall hard assigned any rights hereund~c by an expressed written assignment. ~£9J1_1~. "p~Gk~r.~.tl~l" shall mean this ln~.rum~nt It may be amond~d from t~ie to building locate4 on ~ ~t a~d d~siqned and Intended for u~e ~nd occupancy a~ a r~sldonce by a ningl~ f~mlly. ~~. "~" shall mean (1) ~ group of natural Persons rela~ed to each o~her by blood or' legally related each other by ~arria~e or adoption, or (2) a qreup of no~ more than s~x (6) Persons not all so rela~ed, ~nclus~ve of their domestic se~ants, who maintain a common household in a Dwelling Unit. ~~. .~en~" sh=ll m~an all s~ruc~ures and appurtenances thereto of every typs and kind, iDclud~nq but not limited to buildings, outbuildings, walkwaye, bicycle sprinkler p~pt~ garages, carports, road~, drivswa~s~ parking areas, landscaping items, fences, screening walls, walls, s~airs, decks, landscaping, hedges, windbreaks, plantings, planted trees and shrub=, poles, signs, exterior air conditioning and wader-so,tenor f~x~uree o= e~lpmen~. ~. -~t~ shall mean any res~den=lal plot of land shown upon anl' recorded subd~visioD map or recorded parcel map o~ the Project which is ~ubJec~ to ~h~s Declara~cn. ~0~. -~o~aa~" ~hall mean any mortgage or deed t=ust or other conveyance of a ~t to secure the p~rformance an obliqation, which w~ll b~ raconve~ed upo~ ~ ~.~let!o~ suc~ perfo~ance. The te~ "Deed of-T~st" or UTrust D~dt~ ~hen used here~n shall be sYn0n~ous with the te~ S~. "~Ortaaaee" shall mean a Peri, on to whom a Hortgage ~s made and snell include the beneficiary of a Deed of Trust~ "Mortqagor" shal% mean a Person who mortgages his or proper~y to another (~.e., the ~aker of a ~ortgage), and shall ~clude the Trustur of a Deed of T~St. The te~ "Trustor" be ~ynon~ous with the term "Ho~.gagor", and the term "~enefic~ary" shall be syncnymou~ with the te~m "~ortgagee". ~~. "O~e~" shall mean the Person or Persons, including Declarant, holding fee simple ~nterest of record any ~t whic~ is a par~ of the Project, including sellers under exacu=ory contracts of ~ale, but e~cludinq thosa having such interest merely as security for the performance of an obl~gation. For purposes of Article II only, unless the context otherwise requires, "Owner" shall also ~nc: ,e the family, gu~t~, invite=s, ~icensees and lessees of a~ty -2- S -291661 ~e~tio~ ~. "~_~J~D" shall mean & natural lndlvidu~l, a corporation or any other entity with the legal right to hold title to real property. Seg_~kP]l_~. #Protect" shall mean that certain real property described in Paragraph A of the Preamble to this' Declaration. ~[9R_1~. "Record" or "~4" shall mean. with re~pect to any document, the recordation or filing of suc~l documel~t in the Office of the County Recorder of San Bernardtno County, State of California. ~/L3~1~. "Street" shall mean any street or other thoroughfare, shown on any recorded subdivision map or parcel map of the Project. The foregoing definitions shall be applicable to this Declaration and also to any Declaration of Amendment, unless otherwise expressly provided, recorded pursuant to the provisions of this Declaration. ARTICLE II S 0 All real property within the Project shall be held, used and enjoyed subject to the following limitations and ~estrzctions, subject to the exemptions of Declarant set forth herein: Sect~pD 2~0.!. Stnole F~mil¥ Residence. Each Lot shall have m Dwelling Unit constructed thezeon which shall bc u~c~ as a residence for a single Family and for no other purpose. Section 2.02. ~1~. No Dwelling Unit shall be erected, altered, placed, or permitted to remain in any Lot other than one detached Dwelling Unit designed to accommodate no more than a single fancily and its servants and occasional guests, plus a garage and fencing and such other Improvements as are necessary or customarily incident to a single Family Dwelling Unit. Notwithsta.~dlng the foregoing, an accessory structure (i.e., gazebo, cabana, etc.) may be erected with the express written consent of the Committee formed pursuant to Article V of this Declaration. Anythin~ contained in this section to the contrary notwithstanding, no accessory structure may he placed on the Lot until Owner obtain~ all permits and complies with all gnvernmental laws, including, but not limited to, the setback requirements x'equlred by zoning ordinance(s). In addition to the forepoing, the precise design and placement of all ~tructures on all Lots w~th the Project shall be subject to approval by the Design Service -3- Committee of the City of Rancho Cucamomga prior to the lssuanao of building permits. ~. ~. No eign, poeter, billboard, adve~tieing device or other display of ~ny kind shall be displayed to the public view on any portion of the Project or ~x~ept one sign for each ~ellln9 Un{~, of not more than sJ~ (6) ~quare fe~t, advertising the property for gal~ or =ant, or successors or assigns, for d~rectiona~ or ~nfo~ation purposes or to advertise the Project during thu const~ction and sale period. All signs or billboards and the con~itions promulgated for the regulation thereof shall confo~ to the requirements of all applicable governmental ordinances. ~~. ~~. Subgect to the exemption of Declarant as set forth in this Declaration, mo vegetation, Improvement, or other obst~ctions shall be planted, const~cted, or maintained on any ~t In such location or o~ such height as to unreasonably obstruct the v~ew from any other ~t in the Project. Each Owner of a ~t shall be responsible for the periodic trimming and pruning of all hedges shrubs and trees located on his ~t, so as to not unreasonably obstruct the view from adjacent ~ts. In the event of a dispute b,t~een Owners as to the obst~ction of w~ew from a ~t, such dispute shall be ~ubmitted to the Committee, whose decisions on such matter shall be binding. Any such obstruction shall, upon requast of th~ Committee, be removed or othe~ise altered to thc satisfaction .~f the Co~itte~, by the Owner of the ~t upom which said ob~truction Is located. In the event that any Owner shall fail to remove or othe~ise alter any such obstruct{om ~ acco~du~ce with the re~ests of th, C~m~i~t=e, the Committee or its dul~ authorized appointees or agents, upon fifteen (15) days prior written notice to the Owner of the affected ~,t, shall have the right to correct such condition, ,ad enter upon such Owner's ~t for the purpose of doing ~o, and such Owner shal~ promptly reimburse the Committ~e of the cost thereof, such cost shall be recoverable Dy the Committee In the same manner as set forth in Art~clo IV of this Declaration. For purposes of this Section 2.04, a~ Owner's "view" shall be deem=d to exclude any line of sight from such ~ner's ~t which intersect~ or traverses any neighboring ~t which is of e~al or greater eleNation at the time the grading and initial const~ction of lmprovements on the Project Is completed by Declarant. Each Owner, b~ accopting a deed to a I~t, hereb~ acknowledges that the line of sight from ~ts in the Project at the time such ~ts were originally offered for sale to the public by Declarant may be subject to subse~ent cbstruction as a result of ~uture construction or plantlng~ by Deolarant or by other Owners pursuant ~o plans and specifications approved by the Committee im accordance wieh this Section 2.04 and Article V of this Declaration. The maximum roof height of Lots ! to 2! lnclusiv- shall not exceed twehty-four (24) feet =Dove top of curb at the cantor of tho lot. provisions of Arblcle VIZ of this Declaration, itc outbulldinq, 'basement, tent, privy, shack, shed or o~hor temporary buildJnq or Improvement. of any kind shall bo placed upon any portion of 2he Project either temporarily or per~nently. Ho ~raller, ca.per, motor home, boa2 or recreation vehicle uhall used as a residence in the Project, either t~mpor~rlly or permanently. ~otwl2hstandinq the fore~oinq, an acceasory structure (i.e., ~azobo, cubana, etc.) hay be erected with tho express written consent of the Co~mitt~e formed pursuant to Article V of the Declaration. Anythlnq contained In this ~ectlon to the contrary notwithstandin~, no accessory structure may be placed on the ~t until Owner obtains all permits and complies with all governmental laws, l~cluding, but not limited to, the setback requiroment~ required by zo~iag ordi~al~ce(s). ~ 2.06. ~. No ~t shall be used in such ma2ner ~ to obstruct cr i~=effere u~reasonably with the r~sidential use; of other ~ts, nor l. such ~anner as to unreaeonably a~oy the occupants of ~elling Unit~ located on o~er ~ts by unreasonabl, noises, offensive odors, noxious or offensive ~rade or activ~ty, o~ antenna, ~elev~sLon ant=nna, satellite d~sh, poAe or antenna o~ any ~ype u~a~ be erected or ma~nta~ne~ on any ~. A mas~er antenna or cablev~sion antenna may be prov{ded for use oE all Owners, and Declaran~ may gran~ eauument= ~or Section 2.08. Animal an~ Insect Re=traction. No livestock, reptiles. ~nsects, poultry o= o~he= an~=als of any k~nd sha~l raised, bred or kept on any ~t, ~xcept domestic dogs, cat=, f~=h, b~=ds and oth=r h~usehold pet~ may be ku~,t on ~rovide~ ~hat =hey are no~ kep~ ~red or mainta~ned for commercial purposes or In unreasonable quantit~es. As used in ~ De=~aration, "unreasonable quantities" ~hall mean more than t~r=e (3) pets per Dwellin~ ~nit, how~vs=~ tha~ ~he Com=~t~ee may determ~n~ ~hat a reasonabAe number ~n any ~nstanc~ may be more or ~uss. Th. Comm~tte. have the right to pro~i~ ==~n=enance of any an~=al which ~n ~t~ open,on cons~ltutus a nuisance to any o~her Ownu=. belonging to Owners, occupants or their ~censees, tenants or ~nviteus within the Project must be e~ther kept w~th~n an .nc~osure, or enclosed patio or on a leash being bold by a ~erson capable of controlling the animal. Furth=r~ore, any Owner sha~l be absolutuly l~able to each and a~l remaining Owners, their ~am~l~es. ~uests. ten~nt~ ~nd Jn~,*tee~, for an~=a~s b=ough~ or kept upon the ~ro~c~ by an Owner or by members of his family, his tenants or his que=ts. -5- ~_e_q_~. y_~hi~Le~. Re trail r, trailer coach, camp trailer, motor home, recreational vehlcle, trucR, camper, or boat sh&ll be k~pt or malntafn~ anthers o. the Project, i~cluding without limita=~on, any S~reet (puk,lic or private), screened in a designated sideyard behind fencing approved by the Architectural Committee. lie ~hicle or boat shall be constructed or repaired upon any ~t or Street (public or private) In such a manner as to be visible from any ~t. inoperable vehicle shall be ~tored or allowed to remain on any ~t or Street (public or private) in such a manner a~ to b~ visible from any other ~t. Vehicles owsed, operated or within the control of any Owner shall be parked In the garage of such Owner, t- the extent of the space available therein, and each Owner shall ensure that his garage is maintained so as to be capable of accommodating aL least two (2) full-sized automobiles. Notwithstanding the foregoing, these restrictions shall not be interfered in such manner so as to pe~it any activity which would be contrary to any ordinance of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. ~~. ~i~;ess or Comme~~. No part of the Project shall ever be used or caused to be us~,l or allowed or authorized in any way, directly or indirectly, ~or any business, commercial, m~nufacturing, mercantile, storing, vendi,g or other such non-residential purposes; except Declarant, its successors or assigns, may use any portion of the Project owned by Declarant for model home sites, display and sales office during the construction and sales period in accordance with this Declaration, and except professional and ad~lnistrative occupations without external evidence thereof, for so long as such occupations are in conformance with local governmental ordinances and are merely incidental to the use of the ~elling Unit as a single Family residential home. Each Owner may rent or lease the ~elling Unit or~ his Lot by means of of this Declaration. The terns of any such lease or rental agreeme~t shall be subject ~n all respect~ to the pr~vi~ions of this Declaration, and any failure by the lessee of such Dwelling Unit to comply with th~ te~s of this ~clar'ation shall constitute a default under the lease or rental agreement. ~ection 2.1~. Trash. No ~bblsh, trash or garbage or other waste material shall be kept or permitted upo, any ~t, except in sanitary containers located In appropriate areas screened and concealed from view, and no odor shall b~ pe~ltted to arise th~re~z~, so as to render the Project, or any portion thereof, unsanitary, un~f. ghtly, offensive or detrimental to any other ~roperty in the vicinity thereof or to its occupants. Trash containers shall be exposed to the vie~ of neighboring ~ts only when set out for a -easonable period of time ~not to exceed twelve (12) hours before and after scheduled tramh collection hou~. There shall be no exterioz fires whatsoever except barbeoue fires ccntaine~ within receptacles therefor and fire pits £n the enclose~ yards designed In such a manner that they do not create a fire hazard. Ho clothing or household fabrics ~hall be hung, dried or aired in such a way in the Project as to be ¥1sible to other propert~ in t~e Project, end no lumber, grass, shruu, or tree cllppinq~ or plent waste, metals, bulk materials, scrap, refur~ or trash shall be kept stored or allowed to accumulate on any portion of thc Project except within an enclosed structure or appropriately screened from view. be conducted on any Lot, and no Improvements shall be c~nstmucted on any ~t which are or might be unsafe or hazardous to any Person or ~roperty. ~. ~9 Mini,~ and Drilling. No portion of the Project shall be used ~or the purpose of mining, quarrying, drilling, boring, or exploring for or removing water, oil, gas, or other hydrocarbons, minerals, rock~, stones, gravel o~ earth. ~o gravel or earth shall be exported from any lot in the Project so long as any other ~t in the Project has a need for gravel or earth. ~. ~rther su~. No Owner shall further subdivide or Dartition his ~t= 9rovided~ however, that th~s provision ~hall not be const~ed to limit the right of sn Owner (1) to rent or lease all of his ~t by means of a written lease or rental agreement subject to the restrictions of this Declaration, so long as the ~t is not lea~ed for transient or hotel purposes~ (2) to sell his Lot~ or (3) trans'er or sell hi~ ~t to more than one Person to be held by them a~ tenants in common, Joint tenants, tenants by the entirety or as community -property. Te~s of any such rental or lease agreement shall be ?~J~ct i, all respects to the provisions of this Declaration, and any failure by t~e lessee ~f such L'~t to e~p!y with the te~s of this Declaration shall constitute a default under the ~~. Wa~r and Sewer Systems. No individual water supply system, water softener ~ystem or sewage disposal system shall be pe~itted ~n any ~t unless such system is designed, located, constructed and equipped in accordance with the refinement, standards and recommendations of any applicable water district and any applicable governmental health authority having Jurisdiction. ~lon 2.16. Drainage. There shall be no Interference with or obstruction of the establl~he~ surface drainage pattern ov~r any Lot within the Project, unless an adequate alternative provision is mado ~or proper drainage and is first approved in writing by the Committee. Any alteration of the established drainage pattern must at all times comply with all applicable local governmental ordinances. For the purpose hereof, "established" drainage is defined as the drainage which exists at the time the overall grading of any Lot is complsted by Deolsrant, or that which Is shown mn any plan~l approved by the Committee. Each Owner shall maintain, repair and replac, and k-~ fre~ from debzi~ or &L~Luctions :he dra:Lna~e system and devices, if any, located on hl~ ~~. ~~~%~on~., The Committee o2 residential (includl,q swlmmlnq pools) solsr provided that the Committee specifications demonstrate the exercise of reasonable measurus installation on other portions of ~he Project., The Committee shall promulgate reasonable standards and guidelines ~gainst which to examine any such plans and spec~fications, accordance with Article V of the ~claration. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any such Committee approval shall have no effect upon. the enforceability of any other use restriction in the Declaration. ~TIC~ III EASEMENTS AND ENCROACHMENt[ Section 3.~. U~l%ltv Easements. Each Owner agrees, by the acceptanc~ of his d~ed, that his ~t Is gra~ted subject to ~asements for utility installations and maintenance. Easements for installatios and maintenance of utilities and drainage facilities are rese~ed as shown on any recorded Subdivision Map of the Project. Within these easements, no structure, planting or other material shall be placed or pe~itted to remain which may damage or interfere with the ln~tallatio~ and maintenance of .~=ilities sad drainage facilities. The utility easement areas of each ~t and all ImDrovements continuously Dy t~e Owner of such ~t, except for those Improvements for which a public authority or utility company is responsible. ~ection 3.02. AC-e~s_to SloPes and D~aina~e Ways. Each Owner agrees for himself and his successors l~ interest, b~ the acceptance of his deed, to pe~it free access by Owners of other ~ts to slopes or drainage ways, if any, located on his ~t, which slopes or drainage way~ affect said other ~.~ts, when such access i~ essential for the maintenance of permanan~ stabilization on ~uch slopes or for the maintenance of said drainage ways for the protection or use of sa~d other Lots. ~~. ~loDe Mainte~anCO. The slope areas, if any, of each Lot and all Improvements ~n them shall be maintained continuou~l~ by the Owner of the ~t, except for those Improvements for which a public authority or utility company is responsible. 88-291661 ~<t~ion 3.0~. figh~._Ll~l. No fence, wall, hedge, or shrub planting which obstructs sight Ii.am at elevations between two a.d six feet above the Street shall be placed or permitted to remain on any corner Lot within the triangular area formed by the Street property lilies and a line connecting them at twenty-fi'la (25) feet from the intersection of the Straut or in the case of a rounded property car.er from the intersection of the Street property lines extended aa if the Streets intersected. The same sight-line limitations shall apply to any I~t within ten (10) feet from the intersection of Street property line with the edge of driveway or alley pavement. No trees shall be permitted to remain within such distance of such intersections unless the foliage line is maintained at sufficient height to prevent obstruction of the sight lines. ARTICLE IV ~_~APE. IRRIGATION AND MAINTENANC~ S__e~tio~D_~. Installation of Land$~aein~. Within ninety (90) days after the close of escrow for the sale of a Lot ~ith a Dwelling Unit thereon in the Project from Declarant to a purchaser, the Owner shall plant lawns or otherwise landscape the frent yard and side yard in a neat and attractive condition, in accordance with a lsndscape plan approved in writing by the Committee pursuant to Article V of this Declaration. Within twelve (l~) months after close of escrow for the sale of a Lot with a Dwelling Unit thereon in the Project from Peclarant to a ~urc~aser, the Owner shall plant lawns or other-wise landscape his rear yard, and thereafter maintain the landscaping of his · -rear yard in a neat and attractive condition, in accordance with a landscape plan apFroved in writing by the Committee pursuant ,.. ~-~m~ V Cf thi~ Dec!~r~tion, !~ th- ev~ne ~.~h is not completed within thc time-frame above mentioned, Declarant or the Committee may enter on to such Lot and carry out landscaping plans approved by the Committee at the expense of the Owner of such Lot. Said plan shall provide for landscaping sufficient to prevent drainage or flow of water from said Ownar'~ Lot onto any adjacent Lot. All vegetation on thc Lots shall be irrigate,' and fertilized regularly. Each Owner a Lot shall cut, prune, irrigate and maintain regularly the landscaping thereon, including a permanent irrl~ation system. In the event of a failure of an Owner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements (which failure shall be regarded as a nuisance), the Committee or its duly authorized appointees or agents shall so notify the Owner and direct such Owner to do whatever work is necessary to secure compliance wit this Section. If within thirty (30) days after such Owner's rczeipt of said written notice, the Owner's Lot still does not conform to the requirements of this Section, the Committee or its duly authorized appointees or a~ent~ ~ha!l h~ve the right either to seek any remedies at law or in equity which it may have or to enter upon the ~ffending Lot and remove weeds, rubbish or other materials and do all things nec.~gary to place such Lot in compliance with thio Section, including the Installation, irrigation and fertilization of vegetation and other landscaping. The Committee shall h.vs th,n right to order work to be ~ccomplished by any third partr at any time sending notice to euch owner. The Committe- shall hays tho right to commence an action at law aqainst any ouch Ownsr to delinquent amounts et the rate'of ten per.mel~t (10%) p,r annum fr'.~m and after expiration of such thirty (30) day period, and any Judgment in favor of the Committee eh.all include all cost of Sec~Jl_.4.~. ~N.~._~a~ten~lCe ~:nd Repair= ~~. No !mgrovemente an~here within the Project shall be pe~itted to fall into diurepair, an~ .=ach Improvement shall at all times be k~t in good oondition and repair. In the ev~.~t that any Owner shall ps,it any Improvement, which is the responsibility of such Owner to maintain, to fall into disrepair so as to create a dangerous, unsafe, unsightly or unattractive condition, the Committee upon fifteen (15) days prior written notice to the Owner of such property, sh~'l have the right to correct such condition, and to enter upon such Owner's ~t for the purpose of doing ~o, and such Owner s]~all promptly reimburse the Committee for the cost thereof. Such cost shall be recoverable by the Committee in the same man~er as set forth Section 4.01 of this Article. The Owner of th~ offending Lot shall be personally liable, and his ~t may be ~ubJect to a mechanic;s lien, tot all costs ard expenses incurred by the Co~ittee In taking such corrective acts, plus all costs incurred in collecting the amounts due. Each Owner shall pay all ,mounts due for such work with ten (10) days after receipt of written deman~ therefor. ~.RTIC~ V ~RC"ITE~ ~N~ ~NDSCAPING CO~I~ Secti.~p 5.01. ~embers of Committee. The Architectural and ~ndscape Committee, sometimes referred to in this Declaration as the "Committ~e", ~all consist of representatives of Declarant whose business address Is P.O. Box 7000-311, Rancho Cucamonga, california 91701. Declarant shall have the unrestricted right to appoint and remove a majority o~ the members of the Committee and to fill any vacancy of such majority of the members of the Committee and to fl~l any vacancy of such majority until the "turnover date"' which ~hall be the date on which -ither (1) ninety percent (90%) of the Lots subject t~ thl~ Declaration have been sold and the deeds recorded ("Close of Escrow"), or (2) five years following the date of issuance of the Final Subdivision Public Report for the Project, whichever occur~ earlier. DeuiaIunt may at any time assign in writing such powers of removal and appointment to any developer of I~t~ in the Project, 9~bJect to s~h te~ conditions a~ Declarant may ispose. Commencing see (1} year from the date of Close of Escrow for the sale ef t~e first ~t in the -10- 88-291661 Project to a purchaeer (other than e dsv~lopnr) from Declarant, the Owners of a majority of the Lot~ (excluding Lot owned by Declarant) eh~ll have the power to appoint in writing on~ (1) member to the Committee, until the turnover date. Thereafter, the Owners of a majority cf the Lots (including Lots o~n~d by Declarant) shall have th~ power to appoint and remove all of thn members Of the Committee. Members of the Committee appointed to the Committee by Declarant need not be residents of the Project hut ell other members of the Committee must be full time residents of the Project. Sectipn 5.02. M_-.-etinas of tbs Committee. The Committee shall meet from time to time as necessary to perZorm its duties hereunder. Tbs Committee may from time to time, by resolution unanimously adopted in writing, designate a Com~ittee Representative (who may, but need not, be one of its memb-rs) to take any action or perform any duties for and on b~half of the Committee, except the granting of variances pursuant to Section 5.08 hereof. In the absence of such designation, the vote or the written consent of a majority of the Committee taken without a meeting shall constitute an act of th~ Committee. '",~d~_~_0~.. ~o Waiver of : ~Rer~.~pDrowals. The approval of the Committee to any proposals or plans and specifications or drawings for an~ work done or proposed or in connection with any other -~tter requiring the approval and consent o£ the Committee shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any right to withhold approval or consent as to any similar proposals, plans and specifications, drawings or matter whatever subsequently or additionally submitted for approval or consent. ~e_~_r~_~9~. ComPensation of Member~. The members of the other than reimbursement for expenses actually incurred by them in the performance of their duties hereunder. Section 5.05. ~orrec~ion of Defects. Inspection of work and correction of defects therein shall Droceed as follows: (a) The Committee or its duly authorized representatAve may at any time inspect any Improvement for which approval of plans is required under this Article V; provided, however, that the Committee's right of inspection of Improvements for which plans have b~en submitted and approved shall terminate sixty (60) days after such work of Improvement shall have b~en completed and the respective Owner shall have given written antics to the Committee of such completion. The Committee's rights of inspection shall not terminate pursuant to this paragraph in the event thmt plans for the work of Improvement have not previou£1y been submitted to and approved by the Committee. If, as a result of such inspection, the ~o,,,m~ttea finds that such improvement was done without obtaining approval Of the plans therefor or was n~ done in substantial compliance with the plans approved by the Committee, it shall -ll- 88--2 1661 notify the Owner In writing of failure to comply with this Article V within sixty (60) days from the inspection, specl:[yit~g the particulars of noncompliance. The Committee shall have the authority to require the Owner to take such action aq may necessary to remedy the noncompliance. (b) If upon th~ expiration of sixty ~60) days from the date of such notification, the Owner shall have failed to remedy such noncompliance, the Committee shall dmterwine the e~timated cost of correcting or removing the same, and the Committee, at its option, may record a notice of noncompliance in the Office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino and may peacefully remedy the noncompliance, and the Owner shall reimburse the Committee, upon demand, for all expenses incurred in connection therewith. If such ~xmenses are not promptly repaid by ~ne Owner to the Committee, the~ the Committee shall have all rights at law or in equity to collecL much.expenses, In accordance with the provisions of Section 4.Ol of th~s Declaration. (c) If for any reason the Committee fatlc to notify the Owner of any noncomDlisnce with previously submitted end approved plans wltAln sixty (60) days after receipt of said written notice of completion from the Owner, the Improvement shall be deemed to be in accordance with said approved plans. ~g_t~on. ~06. Non-Liability of Commttte~ ~ember~. Neither Declarant, the Committee nor any member thereof,, nor their duly authoriz~d representative shall be liable to an}, Owner for any loss, damage or injury arising out of or in any way connected with the performance of the Committee's duties hereunder, unless ........ = o~ bad faith of the Committee The Committee shall review snd approve or disapprove ali submitted to it for any proposed Improvement, alteration or addition, on the basis of satisfaction of the Committee with the grading plan, location of the Improvements on the Lot, the finished ground elevation the color scheme, finish, design, proportions, architecture, shape, b~lqht, style and ap~ropriateness of proposed Improvements to views from adjoining Lots, the materials used therein, the kinds, pitch or type of roof proposed to be placed thereon, the planting landscaping, size, height or locatlo,~ of vegetation on a ~ot, or on the basis which would resul~ to the immediate vicinity and the Project generally. The Committee shall take l~to consideration the ~:i a~sth~tlc aspects of the architectural designs, placement of buildings, landscaping, color schemes, exterior :finishes materials and similar features, but shall not be responsible for ~!:'~ reviewing, not shall its approval of any plans or design be ~, deemed appreval of, any plan or design from the standpoint of shructura~ ~afety or ¢=nfo-'-~anco with building or other codes. ~.ec.t-~sn---~z~-0. Variance. The Committee may alutborize -12- -. 88- 1 1 provietone of this Declar~:lon, including without llmttation restrictions upon height, R~ze, fluor area or placement of structures, or similar restrictions when circumstances such topography, natural obstructions, hardship, aesthetic or environmental con=ideration may require. Such variances must be evidenced In writing, must be signed by et least a ma3ority of the Committem and shall become effective upon recordation in the Office cf the County Recorder o~ San Bernardino. If such variances are granted, no violation of the covenants, conditions and restrictions contained in this Declaration shall b- d~emed to have'occurred with respect to the matter for which the vaziance was granted. The granting of such a variance shall not operate ~o waive any of the terms and provisions of this Declaration for any purpose except as to the particular property and particular provision hereof covered by the variance, not shall it affect in any way the Owner's obligation to comply with all governmental laws and regulations affecting the use of his Lot, including but not limited to zoning ordinances and Lot setback lines or requirements imposed by any governmental authority. ARTICLE VI TERMINA~]~ENT AND SEVERA~ILIT~ ~. Ter~_l/~_tl~n and Amendment. All the covenants, conditions, and restrictions contained in this Declaration nhall run with the Project and shall be binding on, sod enforceable by, all Owners for a period of time extending until December 31, 2023, and thereafter said covenants, :onditione and restrictions shall automatically be extended for sucoeosive periods of ten (lO) years, unless, by a written lnmtrument signed by the Owners of seventy-five percent (75%) of the l~te et any ~ime and recorded in the O£Zice o£ the Bernardino County Recorder, the Owners determine to revoke or change in whole or in part this Declaration, subject to the provisions of Article VII of this Declaration. ~ection f~_Q~. ~93_9~l~J~Y. Invalidation of any one of the easements, co-enants, conditions or restrictions of this Declaration by Jud~ent or court order shall not affect any other p=ov~lon~ shell rom&In ~n full force and effect. ARTICLE VII EXEMPTION AND RIGHTS OF DECI~UANT Nothing In this Declaration shall limit the right of Declarant to complete construction of Improvements the Project or to alter the foregoing, or to construct such additional Improvements as Declarant deems advisable Frier to th, completion and the sale by Declarant, of all of the Lots the Project. Such rights shall include, but shall not be limited to, erecting, constructing, and maintaining on any portion of the Project owned by Declarant such structures and -13- 88-- 1f 1 displays as may bs reasonably necessary lot: the conduct of its business of completing the work and disposing of the same by Pale, lease, or ~therwiee. Declarant spe~:~L£~cally rpserves tho right to use any umsold Lots on the Project: for models and salon Offices, and further reserves the right to rent any unsold Lots. This Declaration shall not limit the right of Declarant at any time prior to acquisition of title to a Lot by a purchaser from Declarant to establish on the Lot additional easements, reservations and rights-of-way i~or itself, utllit¥ companies, or other as may from time to tim.a be reasonably necessary for the property development and disposal o~' tho Pro,oct. Declarant reserves the right to alter its construction plans and designs as it deems appropriate. Declarant ~u~ther reserves the right to alter floor plans, styles, quality, size and cost of Dwellin~ Units owned by Declare!nC in the Project without first ~eekl~g the approval o~ the Committee. Declarant may further eubdJ.vlde any l~t owned by Decla%ant. The rl~hts of Declarant hereunder may be assiqnod by Declarant to any successor to all or part ol Declarant'a xnterest in the Project. The provisions cE this Article shall not be altered or terminate~ without the prior written consent of Declarant fo so long as a,~y Lots in the Project remain unsold. ~RTICLE ViII ~.p_~. ~. Breach of an~ of the easemonts, coveannts, conditions, or restrictions containe~ in this Declaration and th~ continuation of any such bredch may be enJ~ined, abated, or remedied by appropriate legal or equitable proceedings by an Owner, by the Committee (or member thereo~), by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or by Declarant' provided, provided herein shall be deemed not to be in violation of any provision of this Declaration. It is hereby agrced that rsoover¥ o£ damages at law for any breach of the provisions of this Declaration would DOt be an adequate remedy. Breach of any easements, ¢ovencn~s, conditions, or restrictions contained in this Declaration shall not defeat or render invalid the lien of any recorded ~ortgage, or any part thereof, made in ~ood faith and for value as to any Lot of the ProJect~ but such easements, covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be binding and effective against any Owner of a Lot or Lots whose title thercto is acquired by foreclosure, trustoe's sale oc otherwise. ~ection 8.0~. Costs and Attorneys Fete. If an action is instituted in a court of competent Jurisdxction to enforce any of the covenants, conditions, restrictions~ or easements contained in this D~claration, the party against whom the Judqment decree, order, or declaration is entered shall, and a~rees to, pay all costs of suit and a reasonable attorney's ~es~ such as may be established by said court. -14- 88- 1 1 representations or warranties of any kind, ~xpress or lmpXied, have been given or made by Declarant, or its agenas or in Connection with the .reject or any portion of tho Project dealing with its physical condition, zoning, compliance with appllcebl- laws, purpose for intended use, nor in connect[on with the subdivision, sales operation, or use of the ProJuut except sa specifically and expressly eot forth in this Decla~ation and excu~t as may be filed by Declarant from time to time with the California Department nf ~.a] RNtate or w{th any other governmental authority. Sec~/kS.04. %pnstructive Notice and Acce~:tD~9. Ever~ person who owns, o~cupies or acquires any right, title, estate or ~ntere~t ~n or to any ~t or other port,on of the Project does and shall be conclusively deemed to have consented and a~reed to the reasonableness and b~nd~ng effect of every limitation, restriction, easement,rese~ation, condition and covenant contained hero,n, whether cr not any reference to Declaration is contained ~n the instrument by which such perso~ ac~lred an interest in the Project, or any portion thereof. ~~. Insurance Obl~aa~ions of Owner~. Each Owner shall be solely responsible for insuring all of his ~elllng Un,ts, ~ncluding without limitation the structural portions of such ~ell~ng Units, against loss or damage by fire or other casualty. Each Owner shall alpo be solely responsible for obtaining ads.ate comprehensive public liability insurance, including medical parents and malicious mischief, insuring against liabili~y for bodily inJu~, death and property damage arising from his activities on his ~t. - % ....... ~. A.~ notice Debitted or required to be delivered as provided herein shall be in writing aaa may delivered either personally or by mall. If delivery Is made b~ mall, It shall be deemed to have been delivered forty-eight (48) hours after a copy of the same has been de~oslted in the United address given by such person to the Committee for the purpose se~i~e cz such notice, or to the residence of such person if no addres~ has been given to the Committee, Such address may be changed from t~me to time by notice ~n writing to the Committee. ~clara~ has executed this Declaration as of this of ~, ~CHO ASSOCIATg~, Ltd., a ~ fore,a_ General ~ar~ners~tp 88-2$1 , 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COU~ITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) On this 29thday of A~t , 19~, before ;:~e the und~r~tgn~,d a notary p~W[ic Jn and for ~State, per~o~aZly appeared Kenneth F. LeBay, Attorney=in-Fact of Rancho Aasoclate~, Ltd., a California general p-rtnerah/p~ known to me to bo t.h~ per~on ~ho executed the within Instrument on behalf of the therein ~amed, and ho acknowledged to me that sur:h Partnership executed the same, and also known to bo tho perocn ~]IG~ name Is subscribed ~o the wi[hin ~n~trum~nt a~ .~ttorl~ey-ln-Fact Of Rancho Associates Ltd.~ and acknowledged to me that he subscribed the name of Rancho Aaaoc/ates~ btd.~ thereto a~ a Partnership and h~s o~n name as Attorney-in-Fact. ~ITNESS my hand an~ffi~[./ Concordia's Alta Vista Tr 10035, DR 00-47 Prepared by John Snell with assistance from Joe Long of Boyle Engineers Rancho Cucamonga and Kent Wu, Architect 1/16/01 Maximum House Height Maximum Roof Lin~ Finish Floor measured Over/Under Curb at Approximate Elevation Per Elevation at from Garage Roof Line Maximum Numbe Plan Type Centerline of Lot CCR's Garage Entrance Finished Floor Elevation Height 1 2RDN 1371.00 1395.00 1368.75 26.08 1394.83 (0.17) BELOW 2 3R DN 1361.20 1385.20 1358.25 25.25 1383.50 (1.70) BELOW 3 3R DN 1351.50 1375.50 1348.70 25.25 1373.95 (1.55) BELOW 4 2R DN 1343.40 1367.40 1340.10 26.08 1366.18 (1.22) BELOW 5 3R DN 1338.75 1362.75 1336.00 25.25 1361.25 (1.50) BELOW 6 3R UP 1335.90 1359.90 1293.50 25.25 1318.75 (41.15) BELOW 7 1 UP 1332.50 1356.50 1294.53 28.50 1323.03 (33.47) BELOW 8 2R UP 1331.50 1355.50 1296.50 29.33 1325.83 (29.67) BELOW 9 1 UP 1329.50 1353.50 1295.00 28.50 1323.50 (30.00) BELOW 10 2R UP 1327.60 1351.60 1291.40 29.33 1320.73 (30.87) BELOW 11 1 UP 1325.40 1349.40 1285.38 28.50 1313.88 (35.52) BELOW 12 2R UP 1322.90 1346.90 1283.50 29.33 1312.83 (34.07) BELOW 13 3 UP 1320.90 1344.90 1284.50 28.50 1313.00 (31.90) BELOW 14 2R UP 1318.70 1342.70 1286.00 29.33 1315.33 (27.37) BELOW 15 1R UP 1315.90 1339.90 1292.33 28.50 1320.83 (19.07) BELOW 16 3 UP 1312.80 1336.80 1296.61 28.50 1325.11 (11.69) BELOW 17 2 UP 1306.50 1330.50 1292.66 29.33 1321.99 (8.51) BELOW 18 1 DN 1298.90 1322.90 1296.00 25.58 1321.58 (1.32) BELOW 19' 1 DN 1295.20 1319.20 1293.50 25.58 1319.08 (0.12) BELOW 20** 3R DN 1293.00 1317.00 1291.50 25.25 1316.75 (0.251 BELOW Curb elevation calculated by Boyle Engineers based on existing topographic map. Maximum roof line per CC&R's based on Section 2.04, last sentence which states maximum height of 24 feet above top of curb House height based on current design and architect accurately calculating elements. These differ from initial submittal due to a more accurate calculation at this time. *Lot 19 was lowered 0.50 feet by moving back 5 feet. **Lot 20 was lowered 0.50 feet by increasing the drive slope by 1.67%. Th~trsday, January 11, 2001 Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center D~ive Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Re: Variance 00-09 (Tract No. 10035 - Concordia Homes) Dear Comm~sionezs: Following the continued hearing last eve-;-g on tt~ matter, I'm compelled to ~ge you again to consider not allowing the placement of two-story, high-roofl~,,e homes on lots 1-5 of th;~ 'tract. S~rely a better result for all adjacent property owners would be to build a style of home on these lots more in keeping with the terrain---single main story, with a ~lower floor down the slope. Th~ was done for many homes on Red H~ll Country Club Drive, as well as for the Red Hill Condos which adjoin the development to the West to not intrude into neighbors' sight lines. If yo,~ do not move to require Iow-profile homes on these lots, it appea~s we have little defense available to us except p~xrchase of Lot 1 ~rom Concordla-as Comm;~sioner Ma~nerino suggested at the hearing. For us, it would be a real financial challenge, having to spend $175,000 for a lot we'd need to develop ourselves in order to recover. Thank you for your consideration. January 8,2001 Brent Le Count, AICP City of Rancho Cucamonga P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0807 Re: Variance 00-09 (Tract 10035); Environmental Assessment and Development Review 00-47 - Concordia Homes Dear Brent: This is as a follow-up to previous discussions with you, John Snell of Concordia Homes and a neighborhood meeting with adjacent property owners the end of last week at our home. It is our understanding the project submittal is seeking approval of 20 production homes and a variance from the City's Hillside Grading Ordinance requirements to facilitate the proposed development. As a result of this activity, we are requesting Planning Commission consideration and favorable determination of the following at the January 10, 2001, Public Hearing for the referenced project: · Street Tree Deletion: We are requesting that the street trees (Albizia J. 'Rosea'/Silk Tree) shown on the project Conceptual Landscape Plan for Camino Predera be deleted from the plan. We are asking that this area be '- planted with Iow growing Xeriscape materials more in keeping with the existing hillside contour of this street. · Slope and Yard Tree Replacement: We are requesting that the Platanus Acerifolia 'Bloodhound'/London Plane and Schinus Molle/California Pepper trees shown on the Conceptual Landscape Plan be replaced with Iow growing trees or shrubs that will reduce canopy impact for existing views enjoyed by adjacent property owners in the area. · Gradin.q Study Options Review: We are requesting that the developer modi~ the project to incorporate Grading Study Phase 1 - Lots 1 Through 5 Option 3 that they prepared and provided to adjacent property owners before our recent neighborhood meeting. This Option 3 will provide for the following pad grade changes: Lot 3 reduced to 39.2' below top of curb; Lot 4 reduced to 35' below top of curb; and Lot 5 reduced to 44' below top of curb. The homeowner living in the existing residence located at the Southwest corner of Red Hill Country Club and Camino Predera continues to express his concerns about the impact of development of Lot 1 on his property. He has requested that careful consideration be given to reducing the profile of the home contemplated for construction on Lot 1. We are sensitive to his continuing concern, as he has lived in his home before the original custom lot subdivision was approved by the City. · Pad Grade and Buildin.q Height Certification: The project developer has prepared and provided various exhibits that depict conceptual grade and related line-of-sight illustrations for residents impacted by the proposed project development. We are requesting that the developer provide adjacent property owners with section exhibits that clearly depict the project pad grade and top of residential structures in relationship to Camino Predera top of curb. As we discussed at our neighborhood meeting, we are looking forward to development of quality homes for what we believe is the last good opportunity to develop on Red Hill. As you will recall, the tract in question is part of what was originally a custom lot subdivision that was adversely affected by an economic downturn some years back. A component of this subdivision is Conditions Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) that were recorded with the odginal tract. These CC&R's provide for architectural and landscape design review by the property owners and provide for consideration of view preservation and protection for the property owners in the original tract. While we are supportive of a quality development endeavor, we want to ensure that the CC&R provisions pertinent to the referenced project review are respected as part of consideration and deliberation for any approval action contemplated by the City. Thank you for your continuing courteous and professional assistance with this matter of considerable importance to the adjacent property owners. We also want to acknowledge the courtesy and cooperation also extended by John Snell on behalf of Concordia Homes with this process. We believe that this cooperative spidt will result in a project approval that all adjacent residents can a'~d will support. Please feel free to contact me at your earliest opportunity should you have any questions or need of additional information concerning this matter. Sincerely, Charles J. Buquet Cc: John Snell, Concordia Homes T H E C I T Y OF I~ANCHO CU CAMONGA Staff Report DATE: January 10, 2001 ' TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: VARIANCE 00-09 - CONCORDIA HOMES - A request to allow retaining walls approximately ten feet in height where a maximum height of 4 feet is allowed, and slope gradients of approximately 1.5:1 where a maximum gradient of 2:1 is allowed for 20 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential Distdct (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Predera south of Red Hill Country Club Ddve - APN: 207-641-01 through 10 and 207-631-01 through 11. Related Files: Development Review 00-47 and Tree Removal Permit 00-41. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-47 (TRACT NO. 10035) - CONCORDIA HOMES - The Design Review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 20 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Predera south of Red Hill Country Club Ddve - APN: 207-641-01 through 10 and 207-631-01 through 11. Related Files: Vadanca 00-09 and Tree Removal Permit 00-41. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundin,q Land Use and Zoninq: North - Vacant land and single-family homes; Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) South- Abandoned Pacific Electdc Railway right-of-way, vacant land, and Foothill Boulevard; Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) and Office and Public land use districts of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan East Single-family homes; Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) West - Single-family homes; Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) B. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) North Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) South - Community Trail within former Pacific Electric Railway corddor East Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) West Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) '%" E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VA 00-09, DR 00-47-Conco~ia Homes January 10,2001 Page 2 C. Site Characteristics: The project site has steep grades ranging from approximately 8 pement to 32 percent; hence, is subject to the Hillside Developmen't regulations. The current Hillside Development regulations prohibit development of land in excess of 30 percent gradient but the site was subdivided prior to adoption of these regulations..All of the lots within the tract have frontage on Camino Predera to the north and all but five back onto the Pacific Electdc Railway railroad right-of-way that will eventually accommodate a regional multi-purpose trail. BACKGROUND: Final Tract Map 10035 was recorded in 1985. 'That portion of the subdivision on the south side of Camino Predera contained 21 lots. The applicant proposes to reduce the number of lots to 20. A condition of approval requires a lot line adjustment process to accomplish the reduction in lots. This site has been the subject of several Planning Commission workshops with different developers. The proposed project was presented in a Planning Commission Workshop on February 23, 2000 (Exhibit "M"). At the most recent workshop, the Commission provided the following direction: A. It is recognized that steep slopes and high retaining walls -'~re necessary to accommodate the development given the steep terrain on the site; however, reduce retaining wall height as much as possible. The developer showed the Commission retaining walls as high as 15 feet at the workshop. The current plans include 10-foot high retaining walls. B. Mitigate the appearance of high retaining walls by use of creative landscaping. C. Include a one-story home plan. D. Preserve views for existing homeowners to the degree possible. It is acceptable to have 'ho street trees along Camino Predera if that would help preserve views for existing homes. E. The Commission is willing to accept a minimal (3 foot) step in the home foundations so long as the overall quality of the project is commensurate with the eventual home values given the prime view location. ANALYSIS: A. General: The homes are tastefully designed and include 3 feet of elevation difference in the foundations to accommodate the terrain. Three home plan,,~ are proposed, each with 3 to 4 elevation types. The homes range in size from 2,759 square feet to 3,359 square feet. The homes are all two story with hip style roofs to preserve views. The homes have been designed to appear as though they are custom homes as opposed to typical tract homes. The homes exhibit true 360-degree architectural quality so much so that it is difficult to tell the difference between front and rear elevations except for gars.ge doors. The project will have a minor impact on views of the valley for existing homeowners on Camino Pradera. The applicant has provided view-shed cross sections to show these view impacts. The project will also impact views of the site from the south because of the substantial number of trees that are to be removed and bece~use of the visual prominence of the site. The homes on Lots 1 through 5, 16, and 17 will have 6- to 7-foot high sound walls along the top of the slope in their rear yard areas. The bottom 3 feet of these walls is proposed to be decorative masonry with the remainder constructed of glass panels to preserve PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VA 00-09, DR 00-47-Concordia Homes January 10,2001 Page 3 views. These sound walls will provide a barrier between the future homeowner's useable rear yard area and the remaining slope area beyond which may result in property maintenance issues. Staff supports the developer's proposal that a homeowner's association be established to maintain these slope areas. B. Desiqn Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on October 3, 2000 (McNiel, Stewart, Coleman). The Committee requested that the project be revised to reduce retaining wall height, lower pad grades as much as possible, and provide a custom home appearance with high quality 360 degree architecture. The revised plans were reviewed again bythe Committee on November 14, 2000, (McNiel, Stewart, Coleman) and the Committee requested further architectural refinement of the homes. The project was reviewed again on December 5, 2000, (McNiel, Stewart, Coleman) and the Committee recommended approval. The Committee believes that the developer has exceeded all of the Planning Commission's design expectations. Refer to the attached Design Review Action Agendas for further details (Exhibit "L"). C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical and Grading Review Committees reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to the conditions outlined in the attached Resolution of Approval. D. Variance: A Vadance is necessary to allow development of the site as proposed with retaining walls as high as 10 to 11 feet and slopes as steep as 1.5:1 (1 foot of vertical rise per 1.5 feet of horizontal run or 66 pement slope). The Variance is necessary due to the steepness of the site and the shape of the existing lots. The Variance is also necessary to lower house pad grades to preserve views for existing homeowners to the degree possible along Camino Predera. In many areas, the site is in excess of 30 percent natural slope failing directly away f~om the street. This means that for a given area of 30 percent slope, the terrain must be more than doubled in steepness to accommodate a reasonably flat area for placement of a home, yard, and driveway. The alternative would be to either use drastically raised foundations on top of a pier system or stepped foundations. In either case, the amount of vertical foundation change in a typical 80 foot deep home built on a 30 percent slope would be approximately 24 feet. This would still not include any flat area for driveways or yard areas. It would be an unnecessary physical hardship if a developer were required to provide this degree of vertical step in home foundations due to the extreme cost involved. Furthermore, the resulting homes would be difficult to market with such extreme changes in foundation elevation. The steepness and overall topography of the site are also exceptional circumstances not applicable to a majority of other properties in the Low Residential District. Strict or literal interpretation of the requirement for 2:1 slopes and 4-foot high retaining walls would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in this district who are able to develop their properties with reasonable and normal grading and home construction techniques. This would not constitute a granting of special privilege because the site is not proposed to be developed with overly large homes or excessive density but instead with reasonably sized single-family homes. Specialized slope stabilization methods, specialized wall construction with walls that can accommodate landscaping on their surfaces, decorative block, and intensified landscaping offset any potential detriment to public health, safety, or welfare. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VA 00-09, DR 00-47-Concordia Homes January 10,2001 Page 4 E. Tree Removal Permit: The site contains 32 mature Eucalyptus trees, a row of Silk Oak trees along the railroad right-of-way, 1 Coast Live Oak, 1 California Pepper, and 1 Brazilian Pepper, which will be removed to accommodate the proposed project. An Arborist Report was prepared by Jim Borer (dated June 29, 2000) for the project to assess the number, condition, and value of the existing trees. The report found that while the trees offer an appealing common canopy, none of the specimens are individually outstanding or unique. Many of the trees are extremely mature and represent a clear risk of shedding large limbs during heavy winds. The Silk Oak trees are planted too close to one another and are stunted in size and form from their natural disposition to grow. The trees do provide an aesthetic resource, as they are visible from Foothill Boulevard. Tree replacement with project landscaping will in time provide a similarly aesthetic resource and if anything, will enhance natural aesthetics because of the large number of trees and HOA maintenance and upkeep of the trees. F. Environmental Assessment: There are potential impacts related to noise, geological hazards, tree removal, and air quality. The site is subject to noise from Foothill Boulevard traffic. A noise study was conducted which establishes minimum solid wall heights for certain lots and upgrading window installation to mitigate traffic noise. The site falls within the City's Red Hill Fault Zone so a Geotechnical and Fault investigation was required for the project. The study found that development of the site as proposed is feasible if certain construction and grading design techniques are used. The City required independent third party review of the Geotechnical Study and this review confirmed the findings and recommended mitigation as being accurate and adequate. There are several trees on the site, which will be removed to accommodate the project. While the trees do offer some aesthetic value, none of them are of exceptional quality and project landscaping will mitigate their removal. Finally, there may be air quality impacts during grading of the site. There is a series of mitigation measures derived from Air Quality Management District requirements, which ,will reduce air quality impacts to IDss than significant. With the recommended mitigation measures, all potential environmental impacts are reduced to a level of less than significant. If the, Planning Commission concurs, issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is in order. G. Neighborhood Meeting: The applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting on December 18, 2000, and 12 surrounding homeowners were in attendance. The primary concerns were as follows: 1. None of the homes should take access off of Camino Predera. This will increase traffic in the neighborhood. Why are there any driveways on Camino Predera and why are they so steep? Camino Predera provides the only public street access to the site. These are existing lots of record; no subdivision request is before the Planning Commission. The homes will generate some increase in local traffic but this will not be in excess of the per home traffic generated by the existing homes. Only 9 out of 20 lots are proposed with driveways on Camino Predera. A majority of the lots will take access off of one common drive. This is a unique design solution, which allows the majority of homes to be located well below the level of Camino Predera, thus preserving views for the existing homeowners. The five lots at the western end of the site as well as the three lots at the eastern end cannot be reasonably accessed from ~his common driveway without provision of substantial grading and retaining walls (as high as 21 feet). This would be inconsistent with the intent of the Hillside Ordinance to reduce grading as much as PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VA 00-09, DR 00-47-Conco~ia Homes Janua~ 10,2001 Page 5 possible. The driveways off of Camino Predera are as steep as 15 percent to allow the pads to be as Iow as possible to preserve views to the degree possible. 2. Why can't the site take access off of another street? The only available public street access for the site is off of Camino Predera. This is consistent with the intent of the original subdivision. It would be unreasonable to require the developer to extend San Bemardino Road westedy due to grade differential, separate property ownerships, and bridges that would be required over the flood control channel and rail corridor. Again, this is moot because the tract was already recorded and the application only deals with the design review of the homes. 3. Are the existing trees going to be removed? Yes, there is no reasonable way to develop the lots without removing the existing trees. While the trees offer some aesthetic value, this will be more than offset by project landscaping. 4. Is the building height in conformance with the Hillside Standards? Yes, the homes are well within the 30-foot building envelope established by the Hillside Development Standards. The project is also in conformance with side yard setbacks. 5. Can the street trees along Camino Predera be relocated further down slope to preserve existing views? Yes, in fact, this issue was discussed at the Planning Commission Workshop and it was decided that this would make sense for preserving views. A condition of approval will require that there be no street trees along Camino Predera. 6. Where will all the coyotes and rabbits go when the project is developed? Will someone trap the animals for relocation? The project will displace the wildlife that may currently inhabit the site just as the existing homes displaced wildlife when they were built. There is undeveloped land to the west and south where animals may move to. The site is not indicated as supporting habitat for any sensitive or endangered species. The developer is encouraged to provide the concerned homeowners with a schedule for when the site will be cleared and grubbed so that the homeowners may initiate any trapping and relocation efforts they feel is necessary. The applicant has verbally agreed to permit entrance to the site for such trapping efforts. 7. What's the price range for these homes? According to Concordia, the homes will start at approximately $350,000. 8. When will construction start? According to Concordia, grading will begin towards the first part of summer 2001 with home construction in fall of 2001. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VA 00-09, DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes January 10, 2001 Page 6 9. Will there be a homeowners' association? Yes, a homeowners' association wi// be necessaq/ to ensure maintenance of the common d#veway as well as maintenance of the larg,e slope areas. 10. Is the grading "balanced" for the site? No, the site will require 15,000 to 30,000 cubic yards of fill material to be imported. CORRESPONDENCE: The Variance was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. On January 2, 2001, staff received one letter from a resident in opposition to the project (Exhibit "O"). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Development Review 00-47, Vadance 00-09, and Tree Removal Permit 00-41 through adoption of the attach.ad Resolutions of Approval with Conditions and with issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. City Planner BB:BL~C~Is' Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit"B" - Grading Plan Exhibit "C" - Grading Cross Section Exhibit "D" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "E" - Elevations Exhibit "F" - Profile Looking South Exhibit "G" - Profile Looking North Exhibit "H" - Viewshed Analysis Exhibit "1" - Lot Cross Sections Exhibit "J" - Building Envelopes Exhibit "K" - Variance Justification Letter Exhibit "L" -Design Review Committee Action Agendas dated October 3, November 14, and December 5, 2000 Exhibit "M" - Pre-Application Review Minutes dated February 23, 2000 Exhibit"N" - Initial Study Exhibit "O" - Opposition letter from resident received on January 2, 2001 Resolution of Approval for Variance 00-09 Resolution of Approval for Design Review 00-47 Cil'F OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TRACT NO. 10035 Pf~F=ClSE PLOT AND GRADING PLAN TRACT NO. 10035 I~ PLOT AND C~%~NQ PLAN CONCOI~DIA'8 ALTA VI~q'A ~+-~. ~- ~ =~ ..... =.-. ~=~- I n - .~ -- ~ ...... F---- ~--- Station Station Station ~7 .... ~t~ OONO0~'~ ALTA ,~ .0_ 1310 ~ ........ LOT6 Station L~ 1~00 --" ='--_,==~,~ E = LOT 9 ,~o , ...... i T F:--. I .... L ~-7 -~7~- .-' .__.I ~'~'~ ~o ' . e r'-~--- ; ...... F ~ ~ Station .~ LOT ~ -~ Station ~~~ c~ or ~CHO CUC~ONOA ] ~AOT ~, 1~ ~ LO~ 6, 9 =~ .... ;._...UT"4 LOT ~ Station Station ~~ ~ I CONCORDIA'S ALTA ~A I , ......... T~ NOTES: ALTERNATE JUNCTION ~OoO0~OoOi ' s u A A C C Cl~ OF ~NCHO CUCAMON~A :~. ' ....... ~ J CONCO~'~ ALTA ~A ~ ? ? ? ? ~ ~ CONCOR~IA'~ ALTA VISTA ~5. ~ ~_~ '! ,,~., : - ~ ~ ~ ~$m ~~-~'"'"' .... '-- ELEVATIO~q$ ALTA VISTA BUILDING ELEVATIONS .~:.~.. CONCO~{WA'S ELEVA'fI~NS A2UL3D CONCOROIA'S ALTA VISTA _~ ~ ~ ~ ~.. ..~**~.~.~ ~ ~'~ : CONCORDIA'S KENT C.IC WU .. ,~ ::.- ~- ..-. ~ _'<..~.~.~ ,~-~.~ , ~ , 21o3 BUILDING ELEVATIONS- FRONT ELEVATION ,,,,~ ~ ' ~ONCORDIA*S ~ t~LTA VISTA ~ ~. ,,~ ~) ~.~ i LOT 4 ..~50 -- LOT 5 ~330 -- ~ LOT 9 LOT 8 LOT 7 LOT 6 ~3,o_ ~ LOT 2 ~37o - LOT 3 1330 -- tt It ' c~ ~ ' LOT 6 LOT 7 ~o - ~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: m ~ ~.,/ '"""'"'"" .... m O+O0 ~ +00~ ~ J 2+00 3+00 4+00 f~ ~ ~T 11 ~T 12 t~ ~ cu~ ~T 13 ~ ~ m ~Y LO~ 4-~ ~-- CONCORD~'8 ALTA ~A 1370 -- 1330 - LOT 19 LOT 20 LOT~ M ~ ~0 1290 -- TRACT NO. 10035 u. cmT~m,o~ce ~*~,~..,..... ~ NORR"IEF~y LO~ 4-~ ~-~ ~=" ~CORD~'8 ALTA ~A SITE UNE STUDY r,o~co~_~_~ ALTA LO~A '~'^~S  ALTA T L~k~A ?~'ATES 1~6A-- ALTA LOMA ESTA~-S SF~ UN£ S~JDY $ i i i I KI~¥ MAP 8~-CTION ..... 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 ~ ~ ~ [~.,~ ~ LOT2 8EC~ ~ ~ , LOT 9 1320 -- ~ LOT 10 ~*~ ~TA LOMA E~A~8 1260 -- 0+00 1 +00 2+00 5+00 4+00 0+00 1 +00 ~+00 3+00 October 24, 2000 OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Brent LeCount, Associate Planner Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91729 RE: DR 00-47, Lots 1 through 21 of Tract 10036, Variance request for wall height and slope gradient in Hillside Development Area Dear Brent, Please find with this letter our completed applications, a check for $871.00, and reduced copies of our grading plan with retaining walls in excess of 4 feet high called out and slopes that are over a 2:1 ratio labeled as such. This project is the remainder ora subdivision of 38 lots that was recorded in May of 1981. This site, like most of the Redhill area, is subject to development under the Hillside Development Regulations. Because of the shape of our lots, the topography of the site and our surroundings the strict application of the Hillside Development Regulations would deprive our property the privileges enjoyed by other properties in the area which are also under the Hillside Development Regulations. The granting of this variance will enable this site to develop to the same extent as others have enjoyed in this same vicinity. The granting of this variance witl enable the development of this property for single family development for which the current zoning is intended. We have incorporated some desigu features to offset or mitigate the potential negative impact the granting of this variance might allow. The proposal for development that we have submitted reflects a reduction ofune lot, resulting in 20 single family homes. This reduction was made to minimize the slopes and walls that will be required for this development, despite the fact that the final map has been recorded and a right for the development of 21 lots exists. The shape of our project along with the topography create a hardship unique to this project in the immediate area. The area, depth and width of the lots exceed the minimum standards of the zoning ordinance. The elevation differential of the site is over 90 feet from our highest point to the lowest. We have followed the recommendations in the Hillside Development Regulations in the design of our proposal. We have sloped the yards to follow the existing topography. We have introduced steps in our buildings that also follow the existing terrain. We are also proposing to give up one of our lots to minimize the grading and walls. To the extent possible we have aligned our roof lines to follow the slope of the ground. We have also attempted to break up our roof lines. Despite all of these efforts, we still have areas where we are proposing slopes as steep as 1.5:1 and walls in excess of 3 feet up to 11 feet in two locations. It is our goal to build homes that are comparable to 1151 West Sixth Street · Suite 110 · Ontario, CA 91762 · Tel (909) 988-9000 · Fax (909) ~88-5122 WWW.CONCORDIAHOMES.COM those in the area and to have building pads of similar shape and size. The granting of this variance will allow us to meet this goal and allow us to build our lots and homes to the same character that are typical of those in the area. All of our walls over 4 feet in height will be made of attractive block systems that use earth tone colors and a rough surface, "splitface". We will also be incorporating irrigation and planting at intervals of 4 feet vertically on the wall. When mature, the majority of the wall will be covered with plants. Our slopes will also be planted with a combination of ground cover, bushes and trees. This will not only provide for an attractive slope, but will also provide the surface stability necessary for the long term maintenance of the slopes. All slopes over 2:1 will be maintained by the Home Owners Association that we will be establishing for this project. It should be noted that the granting of this variance will allow this property, that has remained undeveloped for so many years, to be completed in character with the rest of the area. This variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges with the limitations upon other properties in this vicinity and zone.  Clef' OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TRACT NO. 100.35 ? ~ P~-OT AND (:~:~,D'ffqG PLAN ! ~-- .~,..~.,~-~-~'~-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,'~-~" ~,~,~,~,--.,~ ~A'S ALTA ~A 'TRACT NO. 10035 Ff-IASE 1 - LO'~ 7 '~K;X.IOH 12 ~A'G ALTA ~A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TRACT NO. 1~ ~1- LO~~ ~DIA'8 ALTA DESIGN REVIEW COMMENT~C~ 7:45 p.m. Brent Le Count October 3, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-47 (TRACT NO. 10035)- CONCORDIA HOMES - The Design Review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 21 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Pradera south of Red Hill Country Club Drive- APN: 07-641-01 through 10, 207-631-01 through 11. Desiqn Parameters: The project site has steep grades ranging from approximately 8% to 32%; hence, is subject to the Hillside Development regulations. The current Hillside Development regulations prohibit development of land in excess of 30% gradient but the site was subdivided prior to adoption of these regulations. All of the lots within the tract have frontage on Camino Predera to the north and all but five back onto an old railroad right of way th,at will eventually accommodate a trail. The project will impact views of the valley for existing homeownem on Camino Predera. The applicant has provided view-shed cross sections to show these view impacts. The project will also impact views of the site from the south because of the substantial number of trees that are to be removed and because of the visual prominence of the site. The homes on lots I through 5, 15 and 17 will have 6 to 7-foot high sound walls along the top of the slope in their rear yard areas. The bottom three feet of these walls is proposed to be decorative masonry with the remainder constructed of glass panels to preserve views. These sound walls will provide a barrier between the future homeowner's useable rear yard area and the remaining slope area beyond which may result in property maintenance issues. Staff supports the developer's proposal that a homeowner's association be established to maintain these slope areas. The homes are tastefully designed and include 3 feet of elevation difference in the foundations to accommodate the terrain. While this is not nearly enough to truly 'fit" the terrain, it is the most foundation stepping the applicant is willing to provide. Three home plans are proposed, each with three to four elevation types. The homes range in size from 2,759 square feet to 3,359 square feet. The homes are all two story with hip style roofs to preserve views, There is less than dramatic differentiation from home to home, especially for side and rear elevations. Pre-Application Review: The project was subject to two workshops with the Planning Commission -(~ -~tta~l'i~d h~ih u t-~) ~At -tl~-rfi-~§t-r~-e~t ~1~ 015;-- t h~-C~/fi~-s] ~ ~-p-ro~i~ ~d'-t h~ f ~ll~wi~g ........ direction: 1. It is recognized that steep slopes and high retaining walls are necessary to accommodate the development given the steep terrain on the site. However, reduce retaining wall height as much as possible. The developer showed the Commission retaining walls as high as 15 feet at the workshop. The current plans include retaining wall,,~ as high as 22 feet. 2. Mitigate the appearance of high retaining walls by use of creative landscaping. 3. Include a one-story home plan. 4. Preserve views for existing homeowners to the degree possible. It is acceptable to have no street trees along Camino Predera if that would help preserve views for existing homes. 5. The Commission is willing to accept a minimal (three foot) step in the home foundations so long as the overall quality of the project is coromensurate with the eventual home values given the prime view location. DRC COMMENTS DR 00-47 - CONCORDIA HOMES October 3, 2000 Page 2 Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. 1. Grading: The grading design for the project includes two alternatives: 1) off-site grading within the Pacific Electric Trail railroad corridor along the south of the site, and 2) on-site grading. The proposed off-site grading within the rail corridor appears to respect the minimum of 70 feet needed to accommodate the trail design and future rail of the Pacific Electric Trail corridor (see Sections on Sheet 6). Under the off-site grading altemative, the retaining wall will be 6 feet high. Under the on-site grading alternative, the retaining wall will have to be up to 17 feet high. Both alternatives include substantially high retaining walls on- site uP to 22 feet high. It is staff's opinion that the alternative with no off-site grading will have substantial visual impacts as it results in two very high retaining walls in close proximity to one another, visible from Foothill Boulevard. On the other hand, the developer will have to provide a viable means for long term maintenance of the off-site slope/wall area within the rail right-of-way for the other altemative. The high retaining walls are proposed to be of a "Loefelstien" type crib wall. This is a type of wall that has a slight slope to it and has pockets that can be planted with vines or other plants. The developer used this type of wall for Tract 14207 on Beryl Avenue, south of Heritage Park. The wall is now built and landscaped and looks better than a traditional retaining wall. A Variance will be necessary to allow the high walls as the maximum 4-foot height allowed retaining wall height per the Hillside Development regulations is 4 feet. The developer had shown conceptual plans to the Planning Commission at workshops that included a slope stabilization technology referred to as "geo-grid.' This has been dropped from the project as the slopes have been reduced ' from a 1:1 to 1.5:1 slope gradient. However, the Hillside Development regulations allow a maximum slope grade of 2:1; therefore, a Variance is required for the steeper 1.5:1 slope. Further, under the off-site grading altemative, slopes must be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. No Variance application has been filed as of this date; hence, staff has not fully analyzed the proposal. 2. View Impacts: Lower the pad elevations for lots 16 through 21 to preserve views from existing uphill neighbors, as much as possible, or use 1-story homes. The developer claims that there is insufficient room to accommodate single story home plans given the size of the lots and the amount of grading required. 3. Architecture: Provide stronger 360 degree architecture because the homes will be visually prominent from all angles. Upgrade the side and rear elevations of the homes to have the similar level of architectural detail and quality as the fronts including; increased use of corbels, window treatments (shutters, pot shelves, keystones, and divided light), trim, stone or brick wainscoting, and column treatments. DRC COMMENTS DR 00-47 - CONCORDIA HOMES October 3, 2000 Page 3 Secondary Issues:. Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. The mloefelstien' walls should be planted with a hardy vine or shrub that will eventually completely cover the walls and irrigated accordingly. The down slope side of the high retaining walls should also be well landscaped to soften the walls. Provide Iow maintenance landscape plant materials for the slope areas. Provide raih'oad tie steps or similar means to facilitate maintenance. Home sites with rear yard sound walls such as lots I through 5, 16, and 17 will have to have some form of gate or wall opening to permit slope maintenance. 2. Provide cascading vines or similar plant types along the top of retaining walls and train them to cascade down over walls. 3. All manufactured slopes shall have a natural or "contoured' look as opposed to a harsh, angular look. 4. Slope drainage features shall have a naturalized, dry strsambed appearance through the use of river rock application. 5. Provide landscape planters around the base of the homes where possible to soften their appearance and reduce visible bulk. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. '- All walls shall be decorative masonry (split faced block- both sides) with decorative masonry caps. No wood fencing shall be permitted (even between homes) given the visual prominence of the development. All pilasters shall have fiver rock or similar treatment on all sides. ....... 2~ ...... All rivermck-treat ment-shall~e~atura~river~ockas-opposed-tomanufactured_veneer~.Other ............ reck treatment, such as slate, may be of a manufactured product. 3. Provide a minimum of 15 feet of usable rear yard depth at the rear of all homes. 4. Provide additional landscaping (additional trees, large sized trees and shrubs) along the south down slope side of the homes to screen down slopE; elevations. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and brought back for further review. Desi,qn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner:. Brant Le Count DRC COMMENTS DR 00-47 - CONCORDIA HOMES October 3, 2000 Page 4 The Committee requested that the project be redesigned and brought back for further review subject to staff's comments and the following additional comments: 1. The Committee is in favor of using variation in slope gradient in order to reduce the height of the 22-foot high retaining wall. 2. Lower the pad elevations on Lots 16 and 17 by utilizing the sewer access easement as access similar to lots to the west. 3. Lower the pad elevation/home elevation of Lot 18 by providing longer, steeper driveway. 4. Significantly upgrade the architectural design of the homes to provide 360-degree architecture and greater differentiation from home-to-home. Homes should have a custom look as opposed to tract home appearance. Provide a mix of architectural styles. Provide divided light windows throughout. Provide second story balconies on rear elevations. Use upgraded building materials (stone, brick, etc.) on all elevations. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:30 p.m. Brent Le Count November 14, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-47 (TRACT NO. 10035) - CONCORDIA HOMES - The Design Review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 21 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Pradera south of Red Hill Country Club Drive- APN: 207-641-01 through 10, 207-631-01 through 11. Backqround: The Committee reviewed the project on October 3, 2000 and requested that the project be revised and brought back for further review. The; Committee had the following comments: 1. The Committee is in favor of using variation in slope gradient in order to reduce the height of the 22-foot high retaining wall. The applicant was able to reduce the height of the 22-foot high retaining wall down to 10.5 feet by utilizing a variable slope gradient and by introducing retaining wall terraces on the slopes. The current wall configuration is a lO-foot wall along the south edge of the site (within the rail road right-of-way), a lO.5-foot high wall along the mid portion of the site (previously 22 feet high), and scattered segments of 2- to 6-foot high retaining walls throughout the slopes. The grading has also been contoured to have a more natural, rounded appearance. 2. Lower the pad elevations on Lots 16 and 17 by utilizing the sewer access easement as access similar to lots to the west. The project has been revised to lower the pad elevations for Lots 16 and 17 ~ substantially. The homes on these lots will now utilize the sewer easement as suggested by the Committee. 3. Lower the pad elevation/home elevation of Lot .18 by providing longer, steeper driveway. The driveway has been steepenned to approximately 9 percent grade and the garage sits about a foot below the level of Camino Predera. The Hillside Development Ordinance allows a maximum driveway grade of 20 percent, which would allow the garage to be lowered an additional 3 feet. 4. Significantly upgrade the architectural design of the homes to provide 360-degree architecture and greater differentiation from home-to-home. Homes should have a custom look as opposed to tract home appearance. Provide a mix of architectural styles. Provide divided light windows throughout. Provide second-story balconies on rear elevations. Use upgraded building materials (stone, brick, etc.) on all elevations. The revised architecture has been minimally upgraded with some window treatment (shutters and pot shelves on some windows), some rear wall change of plane, and the use of an occasional second story balcony. Staff is of the opinion that substantially more enhancement is necessary to provide true 360-degree architectural quality, as there are still substantial areas of blank stucco walls. The homes still have a very tract-like appearance. There is substantial room to provide greater differentiation from home-to-home (custom appearance) by changing architectural styles, use of divided light windows, an~f material upgrades. Upgrade DRC COMMENTS DR 00-47 - CONCORDIA HOMES November 14, 2000 Page 2 the side and rear elevations of the homes to have the similar level of architectural detail and quality as the fronts. The rear elevation of the Plan 3 homes comes closest to the desired level of detailing. With the addition of upgraded building materials and divided light windows the rear elevation of Plan 3 serves as a good example for the remaining plan side and rear elevation treatment. Outstandin.q Secondary Issues: The following issues have not been addressed in the revised plans but staff is of the opinion that they can be conditions of approval once an acceptable level of architectural design is achieved: 1. Reduce the elevation of the pad for Lot 18 by increasing the driveway grade to the maximum grade allowed, 20 percent if possible. The 'loefelstien' Walls should be planted with a hardy vine or sh~b that will eventually completely cover the walls and irrigated accordingly. The down slope side of the high retaining walls should also be well landscaped to soften the walls. Provide Iow maintenance landscape plant materials for the slope areas. Provide railroad tie steps or similar means to facilitate maintenance. Home sites with rear yard sound walls such as Lots I through 5, 16, and 17 will have to have some form of gate or wall opening to permit slope maintenance. 3. Provide cascading vines or similar plant types along the top of retaining walls and train them to cascade down over wails. 4. The manufactured slopes on Lots 1, 2, and 3 shall have a natural or =contoured= look as opposed to a harsh, angular look. 5. Slope drainage features shall have a naturalized, dry streambed appearance through the use of river rock application. 6. Provide landscape planters around the base of the homes where possible to soften their appearance and reduce visible bulk. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. All walls shall be decorative masonry (split faced block - both sides) with decorative masonry caps. No wood fencing shall be permitted (even between homes) given the visual prominence of the development. All pilasters shall have river rock or similar treatment on all sides. 2. All dyer rock treatment shall be natural river rock as opposed to manufactured veneer. Other rock treatment, such as slate, may be of a manufactured product. 3. Provide a minimum of 15 feet of usable rear yard depth at the rear of all homes. 4. Provide additional landscaping (additional trees, large sized trees, and shrubs) along the south/down slope side of the homes to screen downslope elevations. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised in light of the above comments, especially related to home design, and brought back for further review. DRC COMMENTS DR 00-47 - CONCORDIA HOMES November 14, 2000 Page 3 Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee was in favor of the revised grading concept but directed the applicant to revise the architectural design of the homes to provide better 360 degree architecture, more variation from home to home (a custom appearance). The rear elevation of Plan 3C-U is a good example of how rear elevations should be designed. Avoid several homes of the same plan type adjacent to one another. The applicant agreed to restudy the design. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:30 p.m. Brent Le Count December 5, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-47 (TRACT NO. 10035)- CONCORDIA HOMES - The Design Review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 21 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Pradera south of Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-641-01 through 10, 207-631-01 through 11. Note: No comments provided for this project. Plans to be provided at meeting. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee reviewed the revised plans and recommended approval subject to the following: 1. The brick veneer on the left elevation of the Plan 3 home shall terminate near the support column by providing a furred out feature for the veneer to die into. 2. The wood siding may be removed from the Plan 2 home at the discretion of the applicant. 3. Avoid use of wood siding on chimneys. Chimneys shall either be stuccoed or covered with stone veneer. 4. Any slope drain devices that are visible from surrounding streets or property shall have a naturalized appearance which may include use of river rock to evoke a dry stream bed appearance and colored concrete to visually blend with surrounding landscaping. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting February 23, 2000 Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City o[ Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:35 p.m. The meeting was held in the Reins Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: John Mannerino, Larry McNiel, Para Stewart ABSENT: Rich Macias, Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Brent Le Count, Associate Planner NEW BUSINESS A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 00-02 - CONCORDIA HOMES - Review of grading concepts for 21 lots within approved Tentative Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on Camino Predera south of Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-641-01 through 10 and 207-631-01 through 11. Related File: Pre-Application Review 99-04. Brad Buller, City Planner, reviewed the purpose and basic procedures of the pre-application review. John Snell, Vice President, Concordia Homes, introduced himself to the Commission and reviewed the prOject. He stated that Concordia is now in escrow on the property and needs to decide whether or not to purchase the property. He indicated the purpose of this second meeting was to ascertain whether the Commission would be willing to acoept the grading and home design concepts. He explained the grading will include up to a 15 foot high retaining wall along the south property line, 15 foot high Loffelstein walls (which are similar to crib walls and allow some amount of landscaping on the wall surface), and one-to-one slopes in the southwest corner area. He said the one-to-one slopes will be stabilized with a synthetic material called geo-grid and they will work with the City's engineering staff to demonstrate structural viability of the slope stabilization method. He reported it will be used to remedy the slope failures at the Pacific golf course and said that is an example of how capable the method is. Mr. Snell recognized the City's concam for ensuring a high level of aesthetic appeal with substantial landscaping and high quality home design. He also recognized neighborhood issues, primarily view preservation and he thought the proposed design minimizes view blockage to the degree possible. He felt the homes will have tasteful design and reported they will step with the pads 2 to 5 feet. Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, reviewed staff's concerns. He indicated that he and Mr. Snell had visited a Concordia project now under construction in Monterey Park that utilizes the geo-grid slope stabilization method. He said that the one-to-one slopes appeared sparsely landscaped with few trees, and that this style of slope landscaping would not be consistent with the City's Hillside Ordinance. He also said that Mr. Snell has assured staff that so long as trees no larger than 15 gallon are used, Concerdia can plant as many trees as are required (minimum 1 tree per 150 square feet of slope area). Mr. Le Count reviewed the other issues associated with the prOject: design; view blockage, high retaining walls, visual impacts to Foothill Boulevard traffic, and steep driveway slopes. E+E" qo Commissioner Stewart said that the developer still needs to satisfy staff and the CommissiOn that the geo-grid system is viable. She expressed concerns about preserving views as much as possible and recognized that neighbors may have concerns. She preferred the 15 foot high retaining wall be lowered as much as possible and said it should be designed to be as visually pleasing as possible. She felt the 20% driveway grade is acceptable because it allows several of the lots to have homes set far below street level which will preserve views. Commissioner Stewart liked the architectural design of the homes but felt a one story home plan should be included. Commissioner Mannerino stated he is open to the use of the geo-gdd but that the developer would have to resolve viability issues. He acknowledged that the City does not have a view preservation ordinance but he felt the developer should preserve existing views as much as possible. He thought not having street trees would be acceptable to that end. He indicated he would like to see some sort of Route 66 mural or other historic feature included on the high retaining wall along the south property line. Commissioner Mannerino liked the home design and recognized that an avant-garde engineering solution is necessary for grading of the site (geo-grid). Chairman McNiel said that the high Loffelstein walls can be obscured with vine planting. He indicated he is in favor of the project. He agreed with Commissioner Mannerino that the developer should give due consideration to view preservation even though the City does not have a view preservation ordinance. He suggested clustering of street trees. He was not in favor of using the high retaining wall along the south property line for Route 66 features. He thought the project appears workable and he supported going forward with it. He concluded by stating that the overall quality of the project should reflect the eventual home prices the developer will be able to charge. Brad Buller, City Planner, summarized the Commission's concerns and comments that the project appears to be viable and the site constraints necessitate a unique style of grading and landscaping to make the lots developable.. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chuck Buquet, neighbor on the north side of Camino Predera was present. He indicated that he looks forward to implementation of the project, and thought it will rid the neighborhood of an attractive nuisance. He felt the project is an opportunity for a high quality development. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes -2- February 23, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL iNFORMATION FORM . (Part I -Initial Study) (909) 477-2750 The purpose' of this f0rr~'is'to inf6?'m'the':'city:?f the"ba'sic Coml~0'nents Of the"~:i;oposed project so th;at the' CitY-~a~/'fe~iew'th'~¥i;~j~C~'[J~S~J'~i"~it' {d=~City P~lic'ie~';"bi;di~:~ii'~§,' guidelines; the California Env·ir0nmental Quality Acti aiid the City's Rules and PrbC~dures to Implement cEQA..It is ~mportant that the i6'formationlre.quested in this aPpliCation be provided in full. '. .' ::- '~'".i... ':';:~'.:'. :.:-'..::: :. -.:': '. . :'/. ~ ' . .'-.' ~' · · :'. :~. '~.. ', - .:.; .;.. ;-' .' · '-, . . -' · .~: . ' -'.: '-;'."i .' ..7 ' . INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS VvTLL NOT BE PROCESSED. P/ease note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the app/icatJon is complete at the b'rne of submittal; City staff wfll not be available to perform work requimd to provide missing informalion. Application Number for the project to which this form pedains: Project~: CONCORDIA'S ALTA VISTA, Lots I - 21, Tract #10035 Name&Add~s$ofprojectowne~s): CONCORDTA HOME 1131W. 6th Street, Rancho Cucamonga CA91729 Nam.e & Address of developer or project sponsor. D i t t o Contact Per~on & Address: John Snell, PE Executive V.P. Planning and Engineering 1131 W. 6th Str. Rancho Cucamonga CA 91729 Telephone Number: (90~) ~8-9000 ~w~. ~q Name & Address of pereon prepadng this form (if different from above): Sophie Chen Telephone Number. (909) 988-9000 ext. 303 ~ by astedsk (') is not required of non-construction CUP's unless othenvise requested by staff. '1) Provide a full scale (8-1/'2 x 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project site, and indicate the site boundades. 2) Provide a sel of color photographs which show representative views inl.__~o the site from the no~h, south, east and west; vtews into and from the site from the pdmary access points which serve the site; and representative views c/significant features from the site. Include a map showing location c/each photograph. 3) Project Location (descdbe): 4) Assessor's Parcel Number= (attach additional sheet if necessao~): '5) Gross Site Area (ac/sq. ft.):, Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets & proposed dedications): , 7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessaq/: 8) Include a description of all permits which will be necessaq/ from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in order to fully implement the project: INITSTI~I,WPD - 4/96 .......... ' Page 2, 9) Des~e the physica~ setting ~f the site as it exists be£~ro the project induding inf~rmatioo ~n t~p~g~phy~ s~i~ $tabi~ity~ p~ant$ and animals, mature trees, t~ails and madso drainage courses, and scenic aspe=ts. Descdbe any e~isting structures on site (including age and condition) and the use of the structures. Attach photographs ,=f $igniflcant features described. In addition. site all sources of information (i.e., geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeological stJrveys, traffic studies): The project slopes-.steeply to the south and is covered with grasses & weeds. Trees exist on the south and west edges of the properties, we have submitted an arborist report on'these. There are slopes existing at the south property line along the railroad right of way, we are working with metrolink to regrade this slope. 10) Descdbe the known cultur'al and/or histodcal aspects of the site. Site ail source$ of fnforma§oo (books, published reports and oral histcry): = N/A 11) Desc~fbe any n~ise ~urce~ and their ~eve~s that n~w a~ect the site (aircraft~ r~adway ooise~ etc*) and h~w they wi~ a~ect proposed uses: Desc~be ~e proposed proje~ ~ ~tail. ~ mould prn~de an a~quate ~sc~p~n ~ ~e site ~ ~rrn$ of ultimate use wh~h ~ll m$u~ ~m the prosed projecL ~dicate ~ them am prnposed phases ~r devel~men~ the extent of developrnent to occur w~ each phase, and the animated compleEon of each ~c~ment. AEach additional sheet~ ~necessa~: Grade 20 lots and build 20 homes on 21 exis~in~ lots. 10 lots will have direct access to Camino ?redera and 10 lots will have access off of a common drive. All lots are set below the street and the homes step down from Camino Predera. Care has been give to the preservation of reviews of existing owners by grouping street trees along vacant areas, walls and oversteepened slopes have been reduced from previous submittals. 13) Descdbethesurroundingpropert~es~inc~udingin~rma~n~np~an~$andanirna~sandanycu~tura~his~dca~rscenicaspect$~ Indicate the-type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops. department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height. frontage, setback, rear yanY. elc.): Vacant and underused commercial property to the south and single family residential to the east, north and south. 14) H411 the proposed project change the pattern, scale or character o! the surrounding general area of the project? No INITSTD1.WPD -'4/96 ............ · .... Page 4, ~dicate~etypeof~o~te~ and~ng-~ noise~begene~c~ding$ou~eandamounL Howwill~eseno~e~ve~ a~ctadjacentpropediesandon-s~euses. Whatme~o~ofsoundp~o~garepmposed? Only noise will be during site grading. Ail equipment to*have mufflers that function and all work to be done during allowable hours as approved by the city. '1~ ~dicate proposed remova~ an~or ~placements of matu~ or scenic kees: see attached arborist report. 17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains: N/A 18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For furlher cladfication, please contact the Cucamonga County Water Dist/fct at 987-2591. a. Residential(gal~day). 12~,000 gal/daYPeakuse(gaYDay) ,24,000 gal/clay b. Commeroial/Ind. (gal~day/ac) Peak use (gal~rain/ac) 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. __ Septic Tank X S6wer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. I,' discharge to a sanitary sewage system is p~bposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (See = Attachment A for usage esb'mates). For futfher cladfication, please contact the Cucamonga County Water Distdct at 987-2591. 5,400 gal/day a. Residential (gal~day) b. Commercial/Tnd. (gal~day~ac) RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Number of residential unit$: Detached (indicate range of paroel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: 21 existing lots to be adjusted to 20 lots and one common lot for drive way. Lot sizes from 12,878 sf. (0.30 acres) to 28,048 sf. (0.64 acres). A#a¢hed (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): 21) ,4nticipated range of sale pdces anoYor mnts: SalePdce(s) $ 320~000 to $ 380~000 Rent (per month) 22) Specity number of bedrooms by unit type: plan 1 - 2,759 sf. 3 bed rm, 1 loft/option bed rm. plan 2 - 3,030 sf. 4 bed rmI 1 den/option bed rm. plan 3 - 3,359 sf. 5 bed rmv1 den/option bed rm. 23) Indicate anticipaled household size by unit type: 2 to 6 members not by house type. 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: I 5 b. Junior High: 1 5 c. Senior High 3 0 COMMERCIAL. INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Descdbe type of use(s) and major function(s) of commercial, industrial or institutional uses: 26) Total floor area of commeroia/, indus#fal, or ins#tutional uses by type: INITSTDI.WPO- 4/96 5~-~ q I~ .. Page 6 27) Indicate hours of opere#on: 28) Number of employees: Total: Maximum Shift: TTme of Maxlmum Shift: 29) Pr~vide breakd~wn ~f anticipated j~b c~assi~cati~ns~ inc~uding wage and sa~ary ranges~ as we~~ as an indicati~n ~f the rate of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessaq/): 30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the City: '31) For commercial and indusldal uses only, indicate the source, {ype and amount of airpofiution emissions. (Data should be vedfied through the South Coast Air Quali~y Management District, at (818) 572-6283): ALL PROJECTS 32) Have ~he water~ sewer~ ~re~ and ~d c~n~r~ agencies sen~ing the pmject been c~ntacted t~ determine their abi~ity t~ prcvide adequate service lo the proposed project? If so. please indicate their response. · 33) In the known history of this propen'y, has there been any use. storage, or discharge of hazanYous and/or toxic materials? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include, but are not limited to PCB's; radioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides; fuels, oils, so/vents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the rnatedals and descdbe 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 matedals Io be used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. No qreby cedify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present Ihe data and information required for uale evaluation of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information presented are tn~e 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. iA.. Date: Aug.4, 2000 Signature: ~.~~John Snell, PE. 7~tle: . ~ecutive V.P. Planning & Enginnering INITSTD1.WPD - 4/96 Page 8 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Development Review 00-47 2. Related Files: Variance 00-09, Tree Removal Permit 00-41 3. Description of Project: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-47 (TRACT NO. 10035) - CONCORDIA HOMES - The Design Review of building elevations and detailed Site Plan for 20 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Pradera south of Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-641-01 through 10, 207-631-01 through 11. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Concordia Homes of Southern California 1131 North Sixth Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 5. General Plan Designation: Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) 6. Zoning: Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre). The site is subject to the Hillside Development Standards because the existing grade exceeds 8 pement slope. 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: North - Vacant land and single-family homes; Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre). South- Abandoned railroad right-of-way, vacant land, and Foothill Boulevard; Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) and Office and Public land use districts of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. East Single-family homes; Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre). West - Single-family homes; Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre). 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Brent Le Count, Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. (,,') Transportation/Circulation -- ( ) Land Use and Planning · II < i )i ai-Resources () Public Services ( ) Population and Housing · II (~'E~;(~';~'d M,neral Resources (v') Utilities and Service Systems II [¢~oolems i~ H~'~rH~ ('/) Aesthetics ii (~r _ ;~.~ i~'n'~-2~'''~ () Cultural Resources II ;~'~ ~,~-A:,~,,~, (~) Noise II{~ ~,r ~ua,,~ i>i~l~a';;at°ry Findings of Significance () Recreation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (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. Signed: Br~ent~Le Co~unt, AiC~P Associate Planner December 13, 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. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposah a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (./) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or () () () (~) policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes Page 3 c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the () () () (¢') vicinity? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) established community? Comments: a-d) The project site is located along the south and east sides of Camino Predera on the landform known as Red Hill. The lots are recorded lots of record. The homes are designed in conformance with the Hillside Development Standards. A Variance has been requested to allow slopes as steep as 1.5:1 where a maximum steepness of 2:1 is allowed and retaining walls approximately 10 feet in height where a maximum of 4 feet in height is allowed. No increase in density or plan amendment is proposed; therefore, no impacts will result from the project. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: 2. POPULA'riON I~J~ID HOI. E~NG. Would the proposah a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local () () () (v') population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either () () () (v') directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable () () () (¢') housing? Comments: a-b) The project consists of building single-family homes on existing lots of record. No increase in density or plan amendment is proposed; therefore, the project will not result in a change in population projections. c) The site is currently vacant so no existing housing will be displaced by the project. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: 3, GEOLOGIC PROBLE3tlS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) (v') ( ) (v') b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) (,/) ( ) ( ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes Page 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Untes$ Than d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ('/) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) (¢') 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: a-e,g~) The site is located within a City adopted Special Studies Zone for fault rupture hazard. A Geotechnical Investigation was performed for the project site by GeoSoils, Inc. (dated July 26, 2000). The report includes review of previous studies conducted by the RMA Group (prepared in 1998), and Gary Rasmusen and Associates (prepared in 1997). The report concludes that the site is suitable for the proposed development from a geotechnical and geologic viewpoint provided that the recommendations presented in the report are incorporated into the design and construction phases of site development. The GeoSoils, Inc. study was reviewed by an independent registered geologist, RGS Geosciences, that validates the findings of the study. f) The topography will be altered to accommodate the project as the site is currently -. vacant. Grading will be done in accordance with a Grading Plan approved by the City Engineer and in compliance with the recommendations of the GeoSoils, Inc Geotechnical Investigation dated July 26, 2000 (which indicates that slope stability is adequate). With mitigation, the impact is not considered significant. i) The site has slopes up to 30 percent in steepness and is located on the southeast side of the landform known locally as Red Hill. The site topography will be modified to accommodate construction of the homes but the basic sloping trend of the site from north to south will be maintained. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: P~,y Unless 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? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes Page 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ,o,..,.,y un,... ~.. C) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of ( ) (v') surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any ( ) (v') water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of ( ) (v') 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? ( ) ( ) (v') h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) (v') i) Substantial reduction in the amount of () () () (./) groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: a) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff due to the amount of new hardscape proposed on a site which is currently devoid of structures. A Hydrology Report was prepared for the project by Boyle Engineering Corporation, which indicates that the general drainage patterns for the project will emulate the existing drainage patterns and points of discharge. The flows will be conveyed to existing facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows and must be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. The impact is not considered significant. b-e) The project site is not located near a body of water. The applicant has provided a drainage study showing how stormwater runoff will be conveyed. f-i) The project will not interfere with groundwater management practices in the area because the site is not used for groundwater recharge. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Impact Impact 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? ( ) (,/) ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes Page 6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Po~en~..y Unless T~an C) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or ( ) ( ) ( ) (,") cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,') Comments: a-b) Potential impacts to air quality are consistent with the Public Health and Safety Super-Element within the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. While the homes anticipated by the project are not expected to have air quality impacts; during construction, there is the possibility that fugitive dust will be generated from grading the 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. NOx and PM~0 levels may be exceeded during this phase; however, with implementation of the following mitigation measures, impacts will be reduced to less-than-significant levels. 1. The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM~0 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 2. Camino Predera shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM~0 emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon time of year of construction. 3. Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM~0 emissions from the site during such episodes. 4. Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PMlo emissions. 5. 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. 6. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel-powered equipment where feasible. 7. The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes Page 7 8. 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 the construction of 20 single-family homes on existing lots of record. The homes anticipated by the project will not generate emissions that could cause climatic changes or objectionable odors. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ~,~,~a,y u,~ T~,, 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 (v') () () 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)? g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,') Comments: a) The project will increase the number of vehicle trips with development of single- family homes since the site is currently vacant; however, the project does not propose development of the site with a density in excess of that provided for by the Development Code and the General Plan. There is no impact. b-d) Access to the site is provided by Camino Predera. This street allows full access without impeding the through traffic. There is a common driveway proposed to take access to the homes off of Camino Predera. The driveway terminus will be finished with a hammerhead to allow access for emergency vehicles; however, the driveway is very steep at certain points, which will prevent emergency vehicles from entering the site. As mitigation, each of the homes shall be installed with fire sprinklers. e-f) The proposed development will not cause a hazard or barrier to pedestrians or cyclists because adequate points of ingress/egress have been provided. d) Located approximately 3 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport, the site is offset north of the flight path and will not be dangerous to users or aircraft. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes Page 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: .o~.,,~y Un~ Than 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their ( ) ( ) (v') habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, ( ) (,/) ( ) eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., ( ) ( ) (,/) eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal ( ) ( ) (v') pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) (.,') Comments: a, d-e) The project proposes development of 20 single-family homes on approximately 16 acres of land. The surrounding area is vacant home sites and developed with single-family homes to the north, east, and west, and abandoned railroad right-of-way to the south. The site is located on the southeastern slope of Red Hill, which is essentially built out with single-family homes. There is no wetland habitat on or in the vicinity of the site; and because of the development in the area, no wildlife corridors exist. The site is not identified on maps as potential habitat for any ram or endangered species of plant or animal. b & c) The site contains 32 mature Eucalyptus trees, a row of Silk Oak trees along the railroad right-of-way, one each Coast Live Oak, California Pepper, and Brazilian Pepper, which will be removed to accommodate the proposed project. An Arborist Report was prepared by Jim Borer (dated June 29, 2000) for the project to assess the number, condition, and value of the existing trees. The report found that while the trees offer an appealing common canopy, none of the specimens are individually outstanding or unique. Many of the trees are extremely mature and represent a clear risk of shedding large limbs during heavy winds. The Silk Oak trees are planted too close to one another and are stunted in size and form from their natural disposition to grow. The trees do provide an aesthetic resource as they are visible from Foothill Boulevard. Tree replacement with project landscaping will in time provide a similarly aesthetic resource. Those trees removed to accommodate the project, which meet the criteria for Heritage Trees, shall be replaced at a ratio of one to one with the largest nursery grown trees available and incorporated into the project landscaping. It is not necessary to match the species of the existing trees. With mitigation, the impact is not considered significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes Page 9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Fotentially Unie~s Tt~an ~ igrlificant Mitigation Significant NO 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) (v') b) Use non-renewable resoumes in a wasteful and ( ) (,,') inefficient manner? 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? Comments: a-b) The project will be required to conform to applicable City standards for energy conservation. c) The site is not designated by State Aggregate Resources Area according to the City General Plan, Figure IV-2 AND Table IV-1 .nt of Mines and Geology; therefore, there is no impact. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Po,..,.,y unless Than 9. -HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of () ( (v') hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency ( ) ( (v') response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential () ( (v') health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of () () ( (v') potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable () (v') ( () brush, grass, or trees? Comments: a-d) There is no evidence of previous commercial or industrial uses. No evidence of discarded drums, containers, or hazardous wastes was observed. There was no indication of underground storage tanks or illegal dumping of refuse on-site. e) The site is not indicated to be in a high fire hazard area, but because of the upslope orientation of the homes, specialized construction methods will be required during Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes Page 10 plan check to reduce fire potential The homes shall be installed with fire sprinklers to mitigate lack of emergency vehicle access due to the steep common driveway. The impact is not considered significant. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: P~.,~a,,y u.,.s ~,,, 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') Comments: a) The proposed project may produce noticeable project-related noise during grading and construction. The following measures are provided to mitigate the short-term noise impacts: Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed 65 dBA, plus the limits specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D, as measured at the property line. Weekly, the developer shall monitor noise levels, monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120. Monitoring at other times may be required by the Planning Division. Developer shall report their findings to the Planning Division within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the above standards, then the Developer shall immediately notify the Planning Division. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. b) The site is subject to traffic noise from Foothill Boulevard. A noise study was prepared for the project by Gordon-Bricken and Associates (dated August 23, 2000), which indicates that 6 to 8-foot high noise barriers will be necessary for Lots 1 through 5 and 16 and 17. The report also suggests barriers for Lots 18 through 20 to avoid future occupant complaints (though not technically necessary). The report also recommends window upgrades for certain homes to mitigate interior noise levels. The project is designed with clear acrylic sound barriers in conformance with the recommendations of the Gordon Bricken study. The project shall comply with all recommendations of the noise study prepared by Gordon Bricken, dated August 23, 2000, including noise barriers and window upgrades. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes Page 11 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially UnleSS Than 11. PUBLICSERVlCES. 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v~) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) Comments: a-e) Fire Pmtectioq - The project site, located on the south and east sides of Camino Predera, would be served by a fire station located on the north side of San Bernardino Road, west of Archibald Avenue. The homes are required to be installed with fire sprinklers. Standard Conditions of Approval from the Uniform Building and Fire Codes will be placed on the project so no impacts to fire services will occur. Police protection - Police protection for the area is provided under a contract with the County Sheriff's Department. Additional police protection is not required, as no residential homes are proposed for development at this time. Schools - The Central School District serves the subject site. The homes are proposed to be built on existing lots of record and school impact fees will be paid at the time of building permit issuance. Parks - The proposed project will result in the construction of 20 new single-family homes on existing lots of record, and will not generate a substantial number of new people to the area; therefore, the project will not adversely impact local parks or recraational opportunities. Public Facilities - The proposed project will not significantly increase traffic on adjacent streets and it is consistent with the Development Code, which designates the area as Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) with suspected future traffic after development. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes Page 12 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ,~e,,~,y u.,e.. T,~, b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution ( ) ( ) ( ) (./) facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (.,') e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) (,,') ( ) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: a-g) The project will use existing gas, electrical, and communication systems. Solid waste disposal will be provided by the current City contracted hauler who disposes the refuse at a permitted landfill. The project will increase demand upon storm drain systems due to the increased runoff from new hardscape proposed on the currently vacant site. Storm drain improvements will be constructed to direct drainage to existing facilities located south of the site, and will not result in substantial alterations to the master plan of storm drainage. The impact is not considered significant since it can be mitigated by providing proper stormwater drainage per the City Engineer. .-Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Po~.,~,y u.,., ~ 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) (,/) ( ) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (.'~) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) (v~) ( ) Comments: a-b) The project will be visually prominent relative to Foothill Boulevard. The design of the grading, landscaping, and home amhitecture are subject to review by the City's Design and Grading Review Committees to ensure compliance with community design policies. The homes have been designed to appear as large custom houses consistent with the character of the Red Hill area. The proposed project will blend with current and proposed surrounding development. c) The project will create new light and glare with future development of single-family homes; however, the site has been identified as a residential site so future light will not significantly affect sensitive receptors such as other residential development in the area. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes Page 13 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ~,~n~,,.,~u,~,~ ~ 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah a) Disturb Paleontological resources? ( ) (,/) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) (v') c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) (,/) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change. () (v') which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within (v') () the potential impact area? Comments: a-e) The site is approximately 15.7 acres. There are no known cultural or historic resources on the property. The Red Hill area, in general, was inhabited by native Indians; however, due to the severe topography of the site, it is highly unlikely that any habitation actually occurred here. The site is currently vacant and undeveloped with eucalyptus and silk oak trees on-site. In the event that cultural resources are discovered during grading and site construction, the contractor shall contact the property owner and the San Bernardino County Museum for proper recovery or documentation. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: eo,e.~a,,~ Un,... T~.. 15. RECREATION. Would the proposah a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or () () () (,/) regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: a) The developer of the project will be required to pay park development fees as a condition of approval. The impact is not considered significant. b) The proposed project will be constructed on vacant land, which is designated Iow residential. Surrounding and adjacent land are also designated residential and are either currently developed or vacant to be developed. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes Page 14 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Po~.~y Unless Than 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.) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that ( ) ( ) (-,/) ( ) are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have () () () (,/) environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: a) The Initial Study did not identify any significant adverse impacts to biological resources. b) The construction activities on the 15.7-acre site could generate fugitive dust during site grading. The contractor will be required to minimize dust generation through water applications per the City's Standard Conditions of Approval. Additional mitigation measures presented in Section 5 of this Initial Study will reduce impacts to less than significant. Noise associated with site construction will not result in a significant impact given the small size of the site and the short-term nature of the construction activity. Roadway noise will be mitigated by providing noise barriers and specialized sound attenuating windows. DEC-19-O0 O§:OI~PM FROM-CONCORDIA HOi~ES OF SOIffHERN CALIFO~IA 9099885122 T~370 P.O01/O01 F-32D Initial Study for ~ of Rancho Cucarnonga DR 00-47 - Conco~ia Homes Page 15 c) Cumula~ve efface of a residential subdivision in the Low Residerd~l Dist~.i~t were ide~l;;~ad in a pr~,ious env~ronmenteJ documem. Appropriate analysl~ e~d mitigalion measures were developed wi~ adoptioa of lhe General Plan. No additional mitigat, ion measures beyond t~ese and those proposed in ~lhis Initial study · are required. d) ~onsfl~en of 20 alngle-fam~y homes-wa[ no{ cause subs~,~;al adverse elt~te on hmTmn$, either direc~y or indire~--Uy. The Initf, al Study did not ident~ any Impacts that would have a potentially significant effect to ~ environment ~at cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Earlier analyses may be used where, pumuant to the tiering, i~gram EIR, or other CEQA process, o~e or more ~ have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Nega~ DeclamUon per Section 1506~(o){3)(D). The effects idm,Gr',ed atx:~ve for this project were within th~ ~ of and adequately anaJyzed in the followfng earlier document(e) pursuant to applicable legal standmds, and such effecls were addressed by miUgatio~ measures based on ~e earlier analysis.. The following earl'mr analyaes were utilized In cempleting this Inltla] study and are avalMble for review In the City of Rancho Cucamonga, P~nlng Division offices, ~ Cent~ Drive (check all ~hat apply): (,~) General Plan afl (Cenmad Apm e, lm l) . . (,~) Master Envlronmenl~ Assessment for the 1988 Genend Plan Update (SoH me0.2m is, certmad danu=7 4, APPMCANT CERTIFICATION I eartUy tt~t I am the appr~ant for the projeo~ described in thi~ initial b-'tuo~. 1 a~owledge that I have read this Ini~al Sa,dy and the proposed miUgaUen mea.eures. Funt~e~, I have re~r~ed the projeot plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the pmposnd mitigation measure~ to avoid would occur. City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Development Review 00-47 (Tract No. 10035) Public Review Period Closes: January 24, 2001 Project Name: Project Applicant: Concordia Homes of Southern California Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the south side of Camino Predera south of Red Hill Country Club Drive- APN: 207-641-01 through 10, 207-631-01 through 11. Project Description: The Design Review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 21 e)dstJng lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre). Related files: Variance 00-09 and Tree Removal Permit 00-41. 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 substanfial 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 mi~gate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. if adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. January 24. 2001 Date of Determina~on Adopted By Dear Mr. Le Count ~ ~ C~ ~' Our names are H. Lynn and Renee Massey. We live at 8088 CaminoJ'~'~j 0 Predera in Rancho Cucamonga. We're writing to you to expressClJ~laF ~ANC~0 concerns with the property development of Concordia Homes on the 15.7 acres in that area. Our desire is not to stop this development but to protect our rights with the preperty we own. Please review our concerns and respond to us in a timely fashion. We are working on a tight time schedule and need to have your written response before the January 10 th meeting. The issues are as follows: 1. The fair market value of our home will drop. We paid a premium for the city views our property provides. With the building of these 5 new homes our view will be reduced by more than 80%. Our home was $32,000 more than similar homes because of the view. We believe the elevation of the new homes should be lowered to maintain the views and added preperbj value. 2. There could be a "breach of privacy" issue with 5 additional homes being built across the street. Our front door will be in direct view of 5 homes all within 100 yards, compared to none now. 3. The additional treffic of 5 new homes across from us as well as the building of 15 other new homes using the street to access the new properties is a concern. The street has a very pronounced turn with a steep slope, 10° or more, and people misjudge the speed. It's logical that with more traffic, there's a greater chance of an accident. With 20 more new families using this street, the increase of accidents are bound to happen. There is no other access to this new area provided but there are three other possible entries to the new area. 4. There are fire safety issues to be considered. The environmental checklist form initial study part II, completed by you states that the entrance to the site is a concern. The study states that the driveway is very steep at certain points and the emergency access might be inadequate. It also states that if the builder puts sprinklers into the homes the lack of access will not be an issue. If the sprinkler system fails (which could happen) our home could be put in jeopardy if firefighting equipment can't get to a burning structure. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely H. Lynn Massey RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 00-09 TO ALLOW RETAINING WALLS APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET IN HEIGHT WHERE A MAXIMUM OF 4 FEET IS ALLOWED, AND SLOPE GRADIENTS OF APPROXIMATELY 1.5:1 WHERE A MAXIMUM GRADIENT OF 2:1 IS ALLOWED FOR 20 LOTS WITHIN APPROVED TRACT 10035 ON 15~7 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CAMINO PREDERA, SOUTH OF RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-641-01 THROUGH 10 AND 207-631-01 THROUGH 11 A. Recitals. 1. Concordia Homes filed an application for the issuance of Variance No. 00-09 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." 2. On January 10, and continued to January 24, 2001, 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 bythe 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 dudng the above- referenced public headng on January 10, and January 24, 2001, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located along the south side of Camino Predera with a street frontage of 3,300 feet and lot depth of 260 feet and is presently vacant; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant and developed with single family homes, the property to the south consists of vacant land and abandoned rail corridor (future regional multi-purpose trail), the property to the east is developed with single family homes, and the property to the west is vacant and developed with condominiums; and c. Absolute compliance with the maximum slope gradients and retaining wall heights per the Hillside Development Regulations would cause a physical hardship for the property owner due to the steepness and topography of the site as well as the size and shape of the existing lots of record; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VA 00-09 CONCORDIA HOMES JANUARY 24, 2001 Page 2 d. There are exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject property that do not apply to a majority of other properties in the Low Residential Distdct which have much lesser slopes and less drastic topography; and e. Strict interpretation of the maximum slope gradient and retaining wall height would depdve the property owner of development privileges enjoyed by other properties in the Low Residential District which are able to take full development potential with normal and reasonable grading and construction practices; and f. The Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege as it accommodates reasonable and provident use of the land with homes of reasonable size in conformance with the density provisions of the district; and g. Specialized and sophisticated grading and construction methods as well as intensified landscaping will prevent any detrimental affects to the public health, safety, or welfare. h. Retaining walls are necessary to lower house pad grades to minimize impact upon viewshed of existing homes to the north. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement 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 enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. d. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. e. That the granting of the Vadance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or matedaliy 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. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY oF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VA 00-09 CONCORDIA HOMES JANUARY 24, 2001 Page 3 BY: Lam/T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of Janua~j 2001, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 00-47, THE DESIGN REVIEW OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND DETAILED SITE PLAN FOR 20 LOTS WITHIN APPROVED TRACT 10035 ON 15.7 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CAMINO PREDERA, SOUTH OF RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-641-01 THROUGH 10 AND 207-631-01 THROUGH 11 A. Recitals. 1. Concordia Homes filed an application for the approval of Development Review 00-47, 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 January 10, and continued to January 24, 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved bythe 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 January 10, and January 24, 2001, including wdtten and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to properly located along the south side of Camino Predera with a street frontage of 3,300 feet and lot depth of 260 feet and is presently vacant; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant and developed with single family homes, the property to the south consists of vacant land and abandoned rail corridor (future regional multi-purpose trail), the property to the east is developed with single family homes, and the property to the west is vacant and developed with condominiums; and c. The potential environmental impacts related to air quality, tree removal, noise, and geological hazards can be mitigated to a level of less than significant through compliance with the recommended environmental mitigation measures; and d. The proposed homes are of very high architectural design quality with 360-degree enhancement; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-47 - CONCORDIA HOMES Janua~ 24,2001 Page 2 e. The project is designed with a majodty of the homes set well below the level of the street thereby preserving existing views far beyond what is typically achieved else~Cnere in the City; and f. The design includes a sophisticated retaining wall system that allows landscaping to be planted on the surface of walls, intensified slope landscaping, and decorative blockwalls that will enhance the visual quality of the project; and g. The project is designed to be consistent with all requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations with the exception of slope gradient and retaining wall height for which a Variance application has been requested; and h. The project will enhance the surrounding area by virtue of high quality home and landscaping design that exceeds that of the area; and i. The project fosters provident use and development of existing lots of record; and j. The grading design includes rounded slopes to provide a softer, more natural appearance. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the distdct in which the site is located; and c. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: ~ a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has beer~ 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-47 - CONCORDIA HOMES January 24,2001 Page 3 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 orthe habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the Califomia Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Plannin.q Division 1) Approval is hereby granted for Tree Removal Permit 00-41 subject to replacement of the trees with the largest available nursery grown trees at a ratio of one to one to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 2) All walls shall be decorative masonry (split faced block - both sides) with decorative masonry caps. No wood fencing shall be permitted (even between homes) given the visual prominence of the '- development. All pilasters shall have dver rock or similar treatment on all sides. 3) All dver rock treatment shall be natural dver rock as opposed to manufactured veneer. Other rock treatment, such as slate, may be of a manufactured product. 4) Provide a minimum of 15 feet of usable rear yard depth at the rear of all homes. 5) Provide additional landscaping (additional trees, large sized trees and shrubs) along the south/downslope side of the homes to screen downslope elevations. 6) The street trees and trees planted near the Camino Predera frontage shall be relocated down slope to preserve valley views for the existing homes to the north. 7) The "loefelstien" walls shall be planted with a hardy vine or shrub that will eventually completely cover the walls and shall be irrigated accordingly. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-47 - CONCORDIA HOMES January 24,2001 Page 4 8) The down slope side of the high retaining 'walls shall be well landscaped to soften the appearance of the walls. 9) Provide Iow maintenance landscape plant materials for the slope areas. Provide railroad tie steps or similar means to facilitate maintenance. 10) Provide cascading vines or similar plant types along the top of retaining walls and train them to cascade down over walls. 11) All manufactured slopes shall have a natural or "contoured" look as opposed to a harsh, angular look. 12) Slope down drain features shall have a naturalized, dry streambed appearance through the use of dver rock application. The dver rock shall be applied to convey a meandering appearance. The area approximately 1 foot on either side of the center line of the down drains may be left as exposed concrete to facilitate water flow and maintenance. 13) Provide landscape planters around the base of the homes where possible to enhance their visual appearance. 14) The brick veneer on the left elevation of the Plan 3 home shall terminate near the support column by providing a furred out feature for the veneer to die into. 15) The wood siding may be removed from the Plan 2 home at the discretion of the applicant. 16) Avoid use of wood siding on chimneys. Chimneys shall either be covered with stucco or covered with stone veneer. 17) Naturalize the dprap outlet to have a dry dverbed like appearance. 18) The developer shall obtain permission from SANBAG for offsite grading along the south boundary. 19) The developer shall clearly demonstrate the grading technique for the site prior to issuance of a Grading Permit to the satisfaction of the City Planner and City Engineer. Of concern is how the site will be graded without disturbing the neighboring properties to the east and west. Engineedn,q Division 1) Existing improvement per Tract 10035 shall be protected in place, replaced, or upgraded to current City Standard. 2) The common drive aisle access shall have a reciprocal access easement granted to each lot. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-47 - CONCORDIA HOMES January 24,2001 Page 5 3) A Homeowner's Association shall be formed and Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be prepared to provide for assessments for maintenance of slopes and common areas. 4) Process a lot line adjustment for the new lot configurations. The lot line adjustments shall be recorded prior to issuance of building permits. Environmental Miti,qation 1) The project design and construction shall be in compliance with the recommendations of the GeoSoils, Inc Geotechnical Investigation dated July 26, 2000. 2) The site shall be treated with water or other soil stabilizing agent, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 3) Camino Predera shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM10 emissions associated with construction vehicles tracking of soil off-site. 4) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM~o emissions. 5) Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours. 6) 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. 7) The construction contractor shall utilize electdc or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. 8) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. 9) 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. 10) Heritage trees which are removed shall be replaced at a ratio of one to one with the largest nursery grown stock available. Location and species to be approved by the Planning Division. 11) The homes shall be installed with fire sprinklers to mitigate the length of the common driveway. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-47 - CONCORDIA HOMES January 24,2001 Page 6 12) Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 13) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed 65 dBA, plus the limits specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D, as measured at the property line. Weekly, the developer shall monitor noise levels, monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120. Monitoring at other times may be required bythe Planning Division. Developer shall report their findings to the Planning Division within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the above standards, then the Developer shall immediately notify the Planning Division. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. 14) The project shall comply with all recommendations of the noise study prepared by Gordon Bricken, dated August 23, 2000, including noise barriers and window upgrades. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2001. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of January 2001, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: Development Review 00-47 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 - 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 act!on, 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 Development Review 00-47 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 pemonnel. 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 'i'esponsibility 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 00-47 Applicant: Concordia Homes Initial Study Prepared by: Brent Le Count Date: December 14, 2000 The site shall be treated with water or other soil CP/BO B/C Ongoing A 4 stabilizing agent, in accordance with $CAQMD Rule 403. Camino Predera shall be swept according to a schedule CP/BO B/C Ongoing A 4 established by the City to reduce PM~0 emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Grading operations shall be suspended when wind CP/BO B/C During high A 4 speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PMlo emissions, winds Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and CP/BO B/C Ongoing A 4 RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours. The construction contractor shall select the construction CP/BO/CE B/C Ongoing A/C 2, 4 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. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean CP/BO B/C Ongoing A 4 alternative fueJ powered equipment where feasible. The construction contractor shall ensure that CP/BO/CE B Plan Check C 2 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 Ongoing A 4 ground sudaces will be sprayed with water or other acceptable dust palliatives to minimize wind erosion and fugitive dust emissions. Heritage trees shall be replaced at a ratio of one to one. CP B/C Ongoing A/C 2/4 Location and species to approved by the Planning Division. The homes shall be installed with fire sprinklers to BO/FC B/D Prior to A/C 2/3 mitigate lack of emergency vehicle access due to the occupancy steep common driveway Construction or grading shall not take place between the I BO/CP C Ongoing A 4 hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, oi' at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed BO/CP C Ongoing D 4 65 dBA, plus the limits specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D, as measured at the property line. Weekly, the developer shall monitor noise levels, monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.02.!20. Monitoring at other times may be required by the Planning Division. Developer shall report their findings to the Planning Division within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the above standards, then the Developer shall immediately notify the Planning Division. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. The project shall comply with all recommendations of the CP/BO/CE B/C/D Ongoing A/C/D 2, 3, 4 noise stbdy prepared by Gordon Bricken, dated August 23, 2000, including noise barriers and window upgrades. Key to Checklist Abbreviations · ~" M0Plt°rl~ngFreqt~encY ',~ i:' ~-" e ........ ~ ~ CDD - Communi~ Development Dire~or A - With Each New Development A - On-site Inspe~ion 1 - Withhold Recordation of Final Map CP * Ci~ Planner or designee B - Pdor To Construction B * ~her Agen~ Pe~it / Approval 2 - Withhold Grading or Building Permit CE - Ci~ Engineer or dbsignee C - ~mughout Construction C - Plan Check 3 - Withhold Ce~ificate of Occupancy BO - Building ~ic[al or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submi~al (Repo~ / Studies / Plans) 4 - Stop Wo~ Order PO - Po~i~ Cap.in or designee E - Operating 5 - Re~in Deposit or Bonds FC - Rm Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: Development Review 00-47 SUBJECT: Single Family Tract APPLICANT: Concordia Homes LOCATION: South side of Camino Predera, south of Red Hill Country Club Drive ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its / / agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such par'[icipation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. A copy of the signed Resolution 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. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions ___/ / of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Project No. DR00-47 Completion Date 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and / / State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for / / consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, /.~../ all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. 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. 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. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. /. / 10. All walls shall be decorative masonry. __/ / 11. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured __/ / products. D. Parking_and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles on ___/ / this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit parking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas. E. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in / / the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits er prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 / / slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 3. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 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. sc- 2-00 2 Project No. DR00-47 Comeletion Date 4. 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. 5. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development ____/__ Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 6. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included .~/ in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 7. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the / / design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 8. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and approval / / prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 9. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of /___/ Xeriscape as defined in Chapter t 9.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. F. Environmental 1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special __./ / Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 2. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the ___/ / issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report. 3. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of / / implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $719 prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. G. Other Agencies 1. The 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. Project No, DRO0-4? Completion Date {~PLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY R COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, H. General Requirements 1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: /-~/ a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size 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. / / Amhitect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. / / 4. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to / / the City prior to permit issuance. I. Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be / / marked with the project file number (i.e., CUP 98-01). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit{s) or major addition to / / existing unit{s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation, and / / prior to issuance of building permits. 4. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all / / supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits. 5. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday /.__/__ through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. Project No. DR00-47 Completion Date J. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering __/__/.__ use, area, and fire-resistiveness. 2. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for required occupancy separation(s). / / 3. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. / / K, Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City / / Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to / / pedorm 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. A maintenance agreement shall also be granted from each lot to the adjacent lot through the /.~/ CC&Rs. M. Street Improvements 1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped ___/ / areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC 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 St~et Corem Median Bike ~3ther Street Name Gutter . Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail - CaminoPredera [ I I X J x I I x I I r I I 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. s ,2-oo 5 E r [3S Project No. DRO0-47 Completion Date 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 __/__/ intemonnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City / / Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. e. 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. f. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. __/ / 4. intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with / / adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for ail project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. N. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A 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. 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 or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. P. General Requirements and Approvals 1. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right*of-way: SANBAG __/__/ for all Railroad corridor grading. 2. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all __/__/ new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. Project No. DRO0-47 Comeletion Date APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Q. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to t:his 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 tl'~e 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: .~/ / 1750 gallons per minute, Per '97 UFC Appendix Ill-A, 5, (b) (Table). -OR X A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. X 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. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: ~ / X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. X Other: To mitigate access. 7. Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, flammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if the sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. 8. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: / / 9. X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 32. 10. Fire department access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apparatus. / / 11. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14 feet, 6 __/__/ inches from the ground up, so as not to impede fire apparatus. 12. Fire District fee(s), plus a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho Cucamonga /_ / Fire Protection District as follows: X $132 for Single Family Residential Tract (per phase). **Note: Separate plan check fees for Tenant Improvement work, fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. Project No, DR00-47 Completion Cate 13. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1997 UBC, UFC, / / UPC, UMC, and RCFD Standards 32 and 15 and 1996 NEC. 14. Project is located in a high fire hazard area and is subject to special wildland/urban interface / / hazard mitigation requirements. Such requirements may include requirements related to vegetation management plans, special construction enhancements, emergency access, water supply, automatic fire extinguishing systems, and other special requirements. AN EXTRA SET OF PLANS IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PLAN SUBMITTAL THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT COORDINATES ALL PLAN SUBMITTALS AND WILL FORWARD THE EXTRA SET TO THE FIRE PREVENTION NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT FOR FIRE PLAN REVIEW. If you have any questions regarding your plan review in fire, please contact the Fire Prevention New Construction Unit located in the Building and Safety Department at (909) 477-2730. T H E C ITY OF I~ANCHO CUCAHONGA Staff Report DATE: January 24, 2001 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Debra Meier, AICP, Contract Planner SUBJECT: SIGN PERMIT REQUEST FOR TARGET (UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM 134) - An appeal of the City Planner denial of a sign permit request for additional signage for the Target store in Terra Vista Town Center - APN: 1077-421-068 and a portion of 087. Related File: Conditional Use Permit 99-40. BACKGROUND: The Commission approved an expansion to the existing Target store in Terra Vista Town Center on August 9, 2000. The expansion included additional sales area and storage at the rear'(north) of the store (50,597 square feet), along with the addition of 1,723 square feet at the front (south) of the store, which includes a second store entry on the west side of the elevation that essentially mirrors the existing entry. During the review of the expansion, additional signage on the front elevation was considered, and even discussed by both the Design Review Committee (minutes attached as Exhibit "E") and the Planning Commission during the public hearing (minutes attached as Exhibit "F"). Subsequent to the approval, the applicant submitted a request for three signs: 1 ) Reposition of the GARDEN CENTER signage on the new building face, located westerly of the actual Garden Center entrance (essentially replacing what is existing); 2) Replace the existing TARGET store signage with larger text size (meeting all requirements for height and area); and 3) Request signage for the PHARMACY, proposed to be located near the center of the front elevation. Of the three signs proposed, staff has approved the new GARDEN CENTER signage and the enlargement of the existing TARGET signage; however, staff denied the request for the PHARMACY signage in a letter dated December 6, 2000 (Exhibit "B"). ANALYSIS: General: Staff denied the request for the PHARMACY sign based on the following criteria: 1. Throughout Terra Vista Town Center and Town Center Square, secondary signage, such as the PHARMACY sign, has been permitted only when it identifies a secondary entry into a major tenant store space; and, ITEM G PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM 134 - TARGET STORE Januaw 24,2001 Page 2 2. Both the Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission specifically discussed this issue during the review of Conditional Use Permit 99-40, and both bodies recommended denial of the proposed sign in the given location. Staff has received a letter of appeal and a separate letter describing the applicant's perspective on the PHARMACY and GARDEN CENTER signage (Exhibits "C" and "D"); however, staff has encouraged the applicant to consider alternative locations for the PHARMACY sign - locations that would be in closer proximity to the second entrance, which would meet the necessary criteria for approving the secondary signage. B. Environmental Assessment: The Environmental Assessment was conducted with the project expansion considered by Conditional Use Permit 99-40. No additional environmental review is required for review of signage. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission consider the appeal and deny granting the sign permit as was proposed to staff on November 18, 2000, consider the alternative sign locations presented by the applicant, and if such alternatives rneet the necessary sign criteria, the Commission may recommend that staff approve an appropriate alternative. Respectfully submitted, rad Buller City Planner BB:DM\ma Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Sign Permit Application dated November 18, 2000 Exhibit "B" - Letter of Denial dated December 6, 2000 Exhibit "C"- Appeal Letter dated December 13, 2000 (Received December 21, 2000) Exhibit"D"- Letter pertaining to Target signage Dated December 13, 2000 (Received December 19, 2000) Exhibit "E" - Minutes of Design Review Committee of June 20, 2000 Exhibit "F" - Minutes of Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 2000 Exhibit "G"- Approved Building Elevations Exhibit "H"- Alternative Sign Locations provided by Applicant Application Name of establishment ~ ~_c~ ~,,"~'"" Date .~ Address IO~ ~ ~R:u~ ~U~,. Applicant's Name ~ ~,~ Phone ~~3~ Address ~0 ~ ~p~ ~ ~) 0~,~ ~ ~ Business Owner's Name ~ ~ ~' ~A ~ ~ Address / /~ ~ ~0~,~ ,~ ~ Legal Property Owner's Name Signature Property Manager's Name Signature Address Phone Number and type of sign(s): __ Temporary ',v/ __ Monument __ Canopy Subdivision __ Window __ Uniform Sign Program __ Directional __ Pedestrian Size: Length ~/ Depth Overall Height Sq. Ft. Bldg. Face Sq. Ft. Sign 1: ,=;~.~ ' ~ '~- ~-' c~' ~ '1 ¢ 5/¢ Sign 2: Sign 3: Sign 4: Sign 5: f temporary or subdivision, date of installation f temporary or subdivision, date of expiration 2,ash deposit amount ndicate sign copy, sign, color and materials on plans described on the attached sheets, Approved __ Denied By: Date: :omments ~ PRELIMINARY 19 SEPTEMBER 2000 ~o q~tq' SCALE: NONE I North ~r~ ~ Foothills Boulevard I[lIll: TARGET T-301 Arlllll: DAVID RANDOLPH 00-5785 [itAlia: 10576 FOOTHILL BLVD., RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA ~ PRELIMINARY 19 SEPTEMBER 20~ ~- ~ SCALE: 3/16'= 1'-O' 22'- 3 1/2" Fabricate and Install One (1) Set of P H A R M A C Y I~'E'r~A~u~lullmUR:21wiLe~er;~,, ®Silvatrim '~Farget Red" TrimCap. Paint Returns MAP Red with Gloss Finish to Match Benjamin Moore Carnival Red. .177' Red ®Acrylite 211-l SG Acrylic Faces. ILLUMINATION: 15MM Double Tube Clear Red Neon. DISPLAY AREA: 55.5 Square feet. ual PHARMACY iEqual ~ --mmmm-- Pardal Front Elevation Scale 1/16" = 1' - 0" [IEII:TARGETT-301 Rllnl: DAVID RANDOLPH O0-5785 [Itlllll: 10576FOOTHILLBLVD.,RANCHOCUCAMONGA.( Jif[: 19SEPT00. .$ACflAM~PII0. EABSglS.O11927,0517 FAXOII. D2I, HI4 T H E C I T Y 0 F A NC HO C UC AM 0 NC. A December 6, 2000 Laude's Permits 3320 East Chapman Avenue, # 281 Orange, CA 92869 SUBJECT: TARGET SIGNAGE/PHARMACY Dear Squeak Cossnar: You recently submitted three Sign Permit requests related to the existing Target (CUP 99-40), _ _the permits_for_the new TARGET.and GARDEN CENTER_signs have been. approved as submitted. However the request for the PHARMACY sign is being denied.' Throughout Terra. Vista Town Center and Town Center Square, secondary signage, such as this, has been permitted only when it identifies a secondary entry into a major tenant store space. In addition, the Planning Commission specifically addressed this sign at the meeting on August 9, 2000, when the project (Conditional Use Permit 99-40) was approved. Enclosed, you will find the minutes from that meeting. This decision shall be final following a ten-day appeal period beginning with the date of this letter. Appeals must be filed in writing with the Planning Commission Secretary, stating the reason for the appeal, and must also be accompanied by a $62 appeals fee. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Nancy Fang or Debra Meier at (909) 477-2750, Monday through Thursday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Planner BB:DM:jc Enclosure: Planning Commission Minutes for August 9, 2000 cc: Gary Bauer, Lewis Operating Corporation James Tucker, Target Corporation Mayor William J. Alexander ~,,,.;L:.~ 2,._'~.,~ Councilmember Paul Biane Mayor Pro-Tern Diane Williams ~ Councilmember Bob Dutton Jack Lam, AICR City Manager Councilmernber James V. Curatalo 10500 Civic Center Drive * RO. BaxS07 · Rancho Cucamanga, CA91729 * (909] 477-2700 * FAX(909) 477-2849 C_~. {,~ www, ci.rancho-cucamonga.ca.us Dec 20 O0 04:3Gp Jo~ce SenneFF 916-927-2~14 p.1 RECEIVED Dcccmbcr 13, 2000 D[C 2 1 2000 Dcbra Meier CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAUON~ City of ~R~ncho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Appeal of City Planner decision regarding the Target Pharmacy signage, _ _ referenced in lett~ dat;;d Depemb~6, 2000. (CUP 99400 Dear Debm; The City Plarmcr has dmied an application for a permit for one individual letter Pharmacy wall sign for the Target store at 10576 Foothill Boulevard. This letter is to request an appeal of that denial, and serves as justification for the request. The store currently has two signs on the front elevation. A Target store identification sign, and a Garden Center sign. While the Garden Center sign is on the main Target store fi'ont, the Garden Center itself, is a separate fascia and structure bom the main Target store, with its own entrance and exit. We feel that this places the Garden Center sign in a unique class of sign. The City of Rancho Cueamenga sign code allows for 1 sign per building face, with wall limi_ted to business identification only. Anchor tenants are also allowed 1 subtenant sign, with subtenants defined in " * ' · part as a business that m owned or operated by the major or anchor tenant, and / or fi'anchisee or subsidiary of the major or anchor tenant", and "a subtenant must occupy a minimum of 400 square feet of floor area". The Garden Center is unusual in that it is a separate, partially covered, partially open, structure that does not occupy floor area within the Target building. Therefore, we believe that with the Garden Center's separate fascia and cnUances, the CJarden Center sign serves as the business identification sign for a unique business, rather than a typical subtenant. This would then allow the Pharmacy sign, to be the subtenant sign for Target. Additionally, as part of this request, we would certainly consider alternate locations for the sign. Possibly, near the western most of the two store entrances. This would locate each of the store front signs, near an individual entrance. In closing, thank you for your attention to, and consideration of, this request for approval of the Pharmacy sign. Sincerely, David Randolph 7 8ox 15100, SacramenTo, CA 95851 / 1570 Silica Avenue, Sacrament[}. CA ~5815 316. 927. 0527 Fax 916. 9Z7. 2414 RECEIVED CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON~A December 13, 2000 To Whom It May Concern City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 R~: T~rget Pharm~-y ~i~h-r~luest .................. This letter is in support of, and serves as justification for, the request for one individual letter Pharmacy wall sign for the Target store at 10576 Foothill Boulevard. The application for a permit for this sign has been denied, and this letter is in support of the appeal of that denial. The store currently has two signs on the fi'ont elevation. A Target store identification sign, and a Garden Center sign. While the Garden Center sign is on the main Target store fi'ont, the Garden Center itself, is a separate fascia and structure from the main Target store, with its own entrance and exit. We feel that this places the Garden Center sign in a unique class of sign. The City of Rancho Cucamonga sign code allows for 1 sign per building face, with wall signs limited to business identification only. Anchor tenants are also allowed 1 subtenant sign, with subtenants defined in part as "a business that is owned or operated by the major or anchor tenant, and / or franchisee or subsidiaxy of the major or anchor tenant", and "a subtenant must occupy a minimum of 400 square feet of floor area". The Garden Center is unusual in that it is a separate, partially covered, partially open, structure that does not occupy floor area within the Target building. Therefore, we believe that with the Garden Center's separate fascia and entrances, the Garden Center sign serves as the business identification sign for a Unique business, rather than a typical subtenant. This would then allow the Pharmacy sign, to be the subtenant sign for Target. In closing, thank you for your attention to, and consideration of, this request for approval of the Pharmacy sign. Sincerely, David Box 15100, Sacramento, CA 95851 / 1576 Silica Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95515 916, 927. 0527 Fax 916. 927. 2414 ' ODESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Debra Meier June 20, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-40- TARGET CORPORATION - The proposed addition of 52,320 square feet to the existing 101,800 square foot Target store with an 11,738 square foot outdoor garden center; an increase in the existing parcel from 8.45 acres to 11.45 acres; and a modification to the Town Center Master Plan for the 61.9acre Terra Vista Town Center, located at the northeast comer of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard in the Community Commercial (CC) land use district of the Terra Vista Community Plan. APN: 107'~ 421-068, and a portion of 087. Design Parameters: The Target store is located in the westerly portion of Terra Vista Town Center. The ~xisting Target store, along with much of Town Center was built approximately ten years ago. The store has been very successful and the owners now desire additional square footage to accommodate an increased display area in the store, a second-story stock storage area, and the construction of a second building entry on the westerly portion of the south elevation. Tb-'accommodate the additional parking demand as required to meet-Development Code requirements, the parcel associated with the Target store will increase from 8.45 acres to 11.45 acres. Adequate parking is available on-site to allow the increased square footage. In addition, the Town Center Master Plan, for that area northerly of Target, is being modified to accommodate the anticipated future users of this portion of Town Center. The modificati~ includes relocation of driveways from Town Center Ddve onto the site, and reconfigudng of the existing parking area in this location to accommodate anticipated uses in this portion of the project, as well as the Target store and the theater. All streets surrounding Town Center have been improved with curb, gutter and pavement. Complete street improvements, including sidewalks, ddveways,streetlights, etc., will be completed along with the various phases of the amended Master Plan. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. TARGET Expansion Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. 1. The second-story addition at the rear of the building may have a negative effect to the architectural integrity of the building as viewed from Haven Avenue, or parking and circulation in the rear of the store. The front of Target is approximately 600 feet north of Foothill Boulevard, and the second-story addition is another 300 feet north of the front of the store, therefore, the line-of-site from Foothill Boulevard will be minimized. However, the west elevation, facing Haven Avenue, is approximately 240 feet east of the street right-of-way. At some time in the future, a building may be constructed on Pad H that may help to screen this elevation; however, there is no approved project for Pad H at this time. Therefore, the easterly and northerly comers of the store addition will have the most exposed view (see note 2). The Planning Commission worked hard to obtain a 360-degree architecture in Terra Vista Town Center. The proposed addition is a simple box, with no architectural interest other than a cornice, and is inconsistent with the very high quality of this shopping center. The applicant shall provide a true representation, by means of line-of-sight, of the degree of visibility that the second-story addition will have from the parking lot behind Target from Haven Avenue. Use an overlay to depictthe second-story addition on the color rendering for Committee review. DRC COMMENTS ' ~ CUP 99-40 - TARGET CORP. June 20, 2000 Page 2 2. Address the northwest comer of the building through a combination of architecture and landscaping. A tower element would work well at this comer as a focal point from both the west and north as project entry points are oriented in this direction. In addition, look at the option of closing the circulation on the south side of Pad H, to provide a landscape screen for the west elevation of Target. 3. Along the north edge of the loading dock (Rear Elevation), connect the walkway from the rear exit door to the sidewalk running along the front of the parking stalls, and add landscaping along the retaining wall separating the parking from the loading dock. 4.Add landscape planters at the front expansion at the new west entry (also around the comer on the west side of the entry) similar to those at the front of the ex st ng east entry. 5. The applicant is proposing additional building signage on the front elevation- PHARMACY. The sign program permits this type of secondary signage, with DRC approval. Examples of similar signage in Town Center and Town Center Square include: the existing GARDEN CENTER sign at Target; the Wards ELECTRIC AVENUE sign; and the COPYMAX and FURNITURE MAX signs at the Office Max. The Office Max is the only store with two .secondary signs. 6. Add landscaping along the most easterly projection of the east elevation (Right), this is an employee entrance. Master Plan Issues: 1. The southerly termination of the new entry off of Town Center Ddve (easterly of Polar Ice) lacks a focal point at the southerly terminus of the drive aisle. A proposed solution to the driv_eway alignment is attached for your consideration (see Exhibit "A"). 2. The drive aisle that runs between Sav-On and Polar Ice should be shifted eastedy (toward Polar Ice) in order to create a better intersection behind Target, (see Exhibit "B"). 3. The pedestrian promenade through the parking lot (between Polar ice and the Theater) shall include the promenade elements used in the front portion of Town Center (ioe. kiosks, benches, ~etc.). In addition, the large parking area shall include the concept of "Drifting" sycamore (London plane) through the parking areas as is done in front. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be redesigned and returned for further review. Attachments: Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Debra Meier The Committee recommended approval subject to the following changes being worked out with staff, pdor to Planning Commission: DRC COMMENTS CUP 99-40 - TARGET CORP. June 20, 2000 Page 3 TARGET Expansion Issues 1/2. The Committee concurred thatthe 40-foot high wall at the rear elevation, and the northwest comer of the building must be addressed with additional design detail. The applicant presented an altemate Plan with the second story addition pushed to the east side of the building. This Plan allows a stepping of the building height from the west elevation. They also presented a second Plan, which reflected tower feature at the northwest comer of the building (at the second story level). The Committee felt that the wall needed features to bring it down to a human scale, such as trellis.. The Committee also expressed concern about the length/height of the rear elevation and the desire for additional attention to details such as- enlarge the tile medallions, change the locations and proportions of the building bands along with the height of the building color change; use attached trellis elements with, or whiteout attached vines, etc. The Committee preferred the tower detail in combination with some of the ideas discussed with the architect. The architect can work with staff to adequately address the committees concerns, prior to proceeding to the Planning Commission. 3/4/6. Include these comments as conditions of approval, or identify on revised plans. 5. The Committee did not approve the use of the Pharmacy sign as proposed. Throughout Town Center, if a secondary sign was used, it was to identify a second entry into the store, as noted above. However, the Pharmacy sign may be considered if it were placed near the second entry. The Committee discouraged the use of two TARGET signs as suggested by the applicant. The Planning Commission will review the proposed sign placement and make the final determination. Master Plan Issues 1. The applicant presented a layout solution to this driveaisle that the Committee found acceptable. The solution offers a large landscape island at the southerly end of the driveway, similar to the example provided as Exhibit "A." 2. The applicant discussed with the Committee the various advantages and/or disadvantages of relocating the driveway as shown on Exhibit "B." The Committee agreed to maintain the ddveway in its present design configuration, with the elimination of 6 parking spaces near the northwest comer of TARGET so they would not be backing into the intersection. 3. Include as condition of approval. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting August 9, 2000 Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Rich Macias, John Mannedno, Larry McNiel, PaT Stewart ABSENT: Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner;, Jim Curatalo, Council Member, Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, Jim Frost, Treasurer;, Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, Brent Le count, Associate Planner, Gall Sanchez, Planning commission Secretary; Alan Warren, Associate Planner;, Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Macias, carded 4--0-1 (Tolstoy absent), to approve the minutes of July 12, 2000. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Macias, carded 3-0-1-1 (Tolstoy absent, Mannerino abstain), to approve the minutes of July 26, 2000. PUBLIC HEARINGS ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-40 - TARGET A. ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION - The proposed addition of 52,320 square feet to the existing 101,800 square foot Target store with an 11,738 square foot outdoor garden center, an increase in the existing parcel from 8.45 acres to 11.45 acres; and a modification to the Town Center Master Plan for the 61.9-acre Terra Vista Town Center, located at the northeast comer of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard in the community Commercial (CC) land use district of the Terra Vista community Plan. APN: 1077-421-068 and a portion of 087. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Mannerino stated he understood staff recommended approval of the project but not the s. ign request. Ms. Fong confirmed that was correct. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. John W. an'en, SLS Associates, Inc., 500 Yagnacio Valley Road, #190, Walnut Creek, stated he was appeanng on behalf of Target. He indicated most of the Target stores have a pharmacy and that "~t was the reason they requested the sign, but it was acceptable that the sign not be approved with the application. He Concurred with the staff report and thanked staff and the Lewis Company for their assistance in processing the project. Chairman McNiel stated he was happy the store is doing so well that it is to be expanded. He felt the expansion will be positive for the center. He Commented that if the City starts allowing individual signs for all types of auxiliary services, all businesses would have one huge sign. Hearing no further testimony, he closed the hearing. Commissioner Mannerino stated that if the lack of the sign approval was not a problem for the 3pplicant,~e~,vas~cer:tainly-in4aver-ef-the_applicatien. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it will be a welCome addition. Motion: M°ved bY Mannerino, seconded by Stewart, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 99-40. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MAClAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY - carried B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-21 - POLAR ICl- .ENTERTA NMENT, INC. - The proposed development of a 75,000 square foot ice skating facility, including on-site sale of alcoholic beverages within the food concession area, on a 5.19 acre portion of Term Vista Town Center and a modification to a portion of the Town Center Master Plan, located near the southeast comer of Haven Avenue and Town Center Drive in the Community commercial (CC) land use district of the Term Vista community Plan. - APN: 1077-421-87. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Glen Pierce, MCG Architects, 18201 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 250, Irvine, stated he represented Polar Ice. He concurred with the Comments made in the staff report He requested clarification regarding the request for promenade elements in the parking lot as they would not be reConstructing the parkJng area to the east. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the intent was to include in-kind promenade elements within the new portion of the pedestrian walk between the new building and the main drive aisle. Mr. Pierce responded they would be Continuing the theme and that was acceptable. commissioner Mannedno requested clarification regarding the alcoholic license requested. Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 9, 2000 o ?/,,~ i::: ©~O,:~ ~ 'r:O;:© f.:.~.!.~:~:~ ~_~ ~.,~,~;:~? :.:...~...... ~ .....~...... ::.~:::::~ - / l~ ~:::.--.........~,...... ~ ~ .....~........~ .....~.~. ...-...-.~ /,' ~~::::~ :::: :::::::::::::::::::::: ~ ~ :::::::::::::::::::: :: i :::::~ ..: ~'~ ... .... ......... ..... ~ ......... ...... .], ...............:.......... .... Plan View ,0 ,,_ _'%_.,,. levation T H E CITY 0 F [~A N Cll 0 C U C AFIO N GA SlaffReport DATE: January 24, 2001 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Warren Morelion, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-69 - ROBERT K. LAIRD - A request to construct a 6,348 square foot single-family home on .71 acre of land within Tract 11626 in the Very Low Residential Distdct (1-2 dwelling units per acre), located at 8923 Laramie Drive - APN: 1061-810-06. Related File: Minor Exception 00-12. MINOR EXCEPTION 00-12 - ROBERT K. LAIRD - A request to extend the maximum building height from 30 feet to approximately 33 feet and the detached garage height from 16 feet to approximately 17.5 feet on a 6,348 square foot single-family home on .71 acre of land within Tract 11626 in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre), located at 8923 Laramie Drive - APN: 1061-810-06. Related File: Development Review 00-69. ANALYSIS: A. Applicable Requlations: The construction of the project will result in a cutJfill of more than 5 vertical feet and 2,298 cubic yards. Because the cut and fill exceeds 5 vertical feet and 1,500 cubic yards of soil, this project requires Planning Commission review and approval according to the Hillside Development Regulations (Section 17.24.020.B.2 & 3 of the Development Code). B. Backqround: The project site is located within Tract 11626, which is an 82-1ot subdivision that was approved in 1983. To date, there are approximately 30 vacant lots left within the tract, including six with homes being constructed on them at this time. A survey of existing houses within the tract has shown that there are 2 two-story homes with the same architectural style that is proposed. The homes use terraced walls, contour grading, and vegetation to address hillside conditions and soften their appearances. C. Proposed Project: The applicant is proposing to build a single-family home that will step southerly with the lot's natural grade, resulting in a three-story design. The main and upper floor of the home will front Laramie Drive and will be visible from the street. The lower floor at the rear of the home is only expected to be visible from adjacent properties to the sides and ITEMS H & I PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 00-69 AND ME 00-12- ROBERT K. LAIRD January 24,2001 Page 2 rear of the property (Exhibit "D"). A 1,630 square foot single-story detached g,a. rage is proposed in the southwest corner of the lot. Consistent with the existing houses within the tract, the applicant proposes to use additional architectural features and landscaping to soften the appearance of the project and address the hillside conditions. D. Gradinq Committees: On December 19, 2000, the Committee recommended that the applicant provide additional information and resubmit for review at the next available Grading Committee meeting. On January 2, 2001, the Committee reviewed the project and could not recommend approval because the grading concept is inconsistent with the City's Hillside Ordinance. The Committee felt that the project creates excessive cut and fill where alternatives and other techniques are available for use. For example the project cou d~eJ- redesigned by owedng the front of the main floor to a level that is similar to the project's proposed lower level; thereby, eliminating the project's 9.5-foot fill and lowering its overall height in the front of the house to one level as seen from Laramie Drive. E. Desiqn Review Committee: On December 19, 2000, the Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Coleman) reviewed the project and acknowledged that it is within a tract that was approved pdor to the adoption of the Hillside Ordinance. With this special circumstance, the Committee approved the project with the idea that strict interpretation of Hillside Regulations on this project would be out of character with existing development in the neighborhood. The Committee felt that the hillside conditions created by the project's design could be addressed with an architectural revision to the south elevation and by planting mature landscaping to screen and soften the size of the project. The applicant agreed to those changes. F. Technical Review Committee: On December 20, 2000, the Committee reviewed the project and determined that it will be required to go to the Planning Commission because the cut and fill exceeds 5 vertical feet and 1,500 cubic yards of soil. The Committee also determined that a Minor Exception will have to be approved by the Planning Commission allowing the maximum building height of the building to extend from 30 feet to approximately 33 feet and the detached garage height from 16 feet to 17.5 feet. The project is consistent with all other applicable standards and policies in the Development Code. G. Minor Exception 00-12: The applicant has filed a Minor Exception to extend the maximum building height of the house from 30 feet to approximately 33 feet and the detached garage height from 16 feet to approximately 17.5 feet. The extension would allow a three-story residential design of the home that is consistent with existing development in the neighborhood (Tentative Tract 11626). Extension of the detached garage height would allow recreational vehicle storage in a structure with a similar architectural style as the main house. To mitigate the size of the project, the applicant will be required to revise the rear elevation and plant mature landscaping around the three-story portion of the home and the detached garage; therefore, staff recommends approval of the Minor E~ception. H. Environmental Assessment: The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 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. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 00-69 AND ME 00-12- ROBERT K. LAIRD January 24,2001 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Development Review 00-69 and Minor Exception 00-12, through the adoption of the attached conditions and Resolutions of Approval. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:WM\ma Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Information Sheet Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit"C"- Grading Plan Exhibit "D" - Elevations Exhibit "E" - Floor Plans Exhibit "F" - Detached Garage Elevations and Floor Plan Exhibit "G"- Minor Exception 00-12 Application and Exhibits Exhibit "H" - Letter from Applicant dated January 10, 2001 Resolution Approving Development Review 00-69 Resolution Approving Minor Exception 00-12 INFORMATION SHEET DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-69 FILE NO: Development Review 00-69 PROJECT NAME: Single Family Residence APPLICANT: Robert K, Laird LOCATION: 8923 Laramie Ddve FLOOR AREA: 6,348 square feet. LAND USE CLASSIFICATION: Residential EXISTING ZONING: Very Low Residential (VL) EXISTING LAND USE: Lot 13 of Tract 11626 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre ADJACENT ZONING/LAND USF: ZONING LAND USE North: Very Low Residential (VL) Single-Family Residence South: Very Low Residential (VL) Single-Family Residence East: Very Low Residnetial (VL) Single-Family Residence West: Very Low Residential (VL) Single-Family Residence SITE DESCRIPTION: The site is vacant and slopes southerly at approximately 11 percent. There is perimeter fencing on the east and west properly boundaries due to adjacent single-family development. A 20-foot Community Trail with fencing exists at the south end of the lot. Access to the site is from Laramie Ddve. SITE SIZE: The lot size is .71 acres, TOT~N_ FLO~ AI~Jk: / / / / / / / / ~//! -- ._ C-,OivI~IUNI'I~ m TP. AIL ' ~ITE PLAN SECTION A-A SECTION C-C SECTION D-D SECTION E-E TRACT NO. H626 2~ LOINER F=LO0~ PLAN HAIN FLOOR PLAN CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Community Development Department UNIFORM 10500 Civic can tar Drive A PPL I CA TI ON Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 477-2750 Par~ ~ Name of Proposed Project ; (staff u~e only), i ' ~ , Legal Oes~np~on of Prwect (Asse~oKs Parcel No.) _ A~Wi¢~nt~ Name P~one Legal OwnefsName (il~iffetentlrom above) I I Phone Number; Type of Review R~quested (Please Check A~I Appllcable'~oxes) ~ Community Plan Amendment ~ Hillside Development >4 DU ~ Tentative Panel Map ~ Conditional Use Permit ~ Conditional Use Pe~it ~ Landmark ~teration Permit ~ Use Determination (Non-Construction) ~ Lot Une Adj~stment r~ VacationofPublicRight~f-Wayor ~ Dev~esign Review-Comm/Indus ~ Mi~or Development Review Easement ~ Dev~esign Review - Residential ~ Minc: Exception ~ Vadance ~ Developmen~ Agreement ~ Pm-Application Review ~ Other: ~J Development Dzstrict Amendment rj Prehmino~ Review ~ Ente~ainment Pe~it r~ Specific Plan Amendment ~ General Plan Amendment De~alled Description of Proposed Project (Attech Additional Sheets If Necessa~) I certify that I am presently the legal owner of the above-described prope,ly. Further, I acknowledge the filing of this application and certify that all of the above information is true and correct. (If the undersigned is different from the legal property owner, a letter of authorization must accompany this form.) Date ~ L~_~41~,~-.--Pnnt Name and Title / ~-~-( I! ~ - ~ ELEVATION .~,.) ?) .5OUTH - REAR ELEVATION ,--,3 ROBERT K. LAIRD A.I.A. C-15171 ARCHIT CTURE oN architecture , planning · ur~a'-~ e sig Hofmann Residence (DR 00-69 & NJ[E 00 12) ~~ / January 10, 2001 Muny nfthe surrounding homes built in the subdivision had been completed prior to the City's adoption of the Hillside Development Regulations. A new smaller house with a lower profile as encouraged by thc Hillside Development requirements would be inconsistent with the neighborhood. Enforcement of the regulations would not only damage the value ofth~s project, but would also devalue the surrounding properties. The lot slops down from the street 32' in elevation. The front of the house is 2-story in scale. The attached and detached garages arc located on the Southwest end of the lot which places them adjacent to the garages to the West. Also the house is angled away from the adjacent property to the West, thereby mimm]zing the impact to the neighbor. The building is also graded down four feet (4') on this side. The view for this lot is oriented towards the southeast. Windows facing southeast look across a Commumty Trail. Homes to the South (across this Community Trail) are down approximately 30' and their view is also oriented in the same direction (away from this project). We have graded the lot to minimize the overall height and mass of the building to cause the least impact on the homes to thc East, South and West. Exceeding the maximum cut/fill height of five feet (5') is requested in order to have doors on the north and east sides of the house to exit at grade level. The proposed maximum fill depth is seven feet (7'). Hillside Development Regulations has the maximum amount of soil that can be moved on a lot at 1500 CU.YD. Our design actually moves 1149 CU.YD. The City counts the same soil twice (as cut ~md as fill). We have a balanced grading plan that does not require any import or export of soil. Lowering or moving the house would only create more cut and fill soil. The ronf areas that necessitate die Minor Exception are approximately 420 S.F. for the house and 230 S.F. for the detached garage. Both areas are behind higher roof areas that are allowable. Granting of an Exception will not block any neighboring views or be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. As stated above, the project meets city zoning and the character nfthe surrounding neighborhood. The desigu specifically maintains the scale and flavor of the properties in the vicinity so ns not to create ~ny adverse impact, cumulative or otherwise. The proposed project is of similar floor area~ building height, volume and value as neighboring properties. The utilization of a Hipped roof reduces the mass of the building and that will allow it to blend into the existing homes of this area. il 143 n. harvard ave., suite f, claremont, ca 91711 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-69, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 6,348 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY HOME ON .71 ACRE OF LAND IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT 8923 LARAMIE DRIVE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1061-810-06. A. Recitals. 1. Robert K. Laird filed an application for the approval of Development Review 00-69, 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 24th day of January 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occun'ed. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved bythe 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 January 24, 2001, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at 8923 Laramie Drive with a street frontage of 65.31 feet and lot depth of 315.87 feet; and b. The property to the north, south, east, and west of the subject site is all single-family residential development; and c. The site is vacant and contains no vegetation other than a few scattered weeds; and d. A 20-foot Community Trail exists just south of the site; and e. Perimeter walls exist on the east and west of the site; and f. The proposed development is consistent with single-family development in the area (Tentative Tract 11626); and g. The applicant has filed a Minor Exception to extend the maximum building height from 30 feet to approximately 33 feet and the maximum detached garage height from 16 feet to 17.5 feet. ~.~ ~'--~-/c~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-69 - ROBERT K. LAIRD January 24,2001 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the distdct in which the site is located; and c. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. The 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 CEQA 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 and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Plannin,q Division: 1) Approval is for a 6,348 square foot home at 8923 Laramie Drive. 2) In addition to the vegetation required by the Hillside Ordinance, mature landscaping will be required to be planted adjacent to the house and detached garage to screen and soften the size of the project, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Cucamon,qa County Water District: 1) District requirements: a) Existing meter connection to the public water system. b) Existing sewer lateral connection to the public sewer system. c) All sewer laterals shall be equipped with an approved backwater valve assembly. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-69 - ROBERT K. LAIRD January 24,2001 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2001. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Lamj T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of January 2001, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-69 SUBJECT: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE APPLICANT: ROBERT K. LAIRD LOCATION: 8923 LARAMIE DRIVE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements completion Date 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employe.es, 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. B. Time Limits 1. Conditional Use Permit, Variance, or Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, extedor materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. SC-8-00 I Project No. DR 00-69 Comoletion Date 3. Occupancy of the fadllties shall not commence until such time as all Unifo~n Building Code and / / State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Pdor to occupancy, plans shall be -- submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance pdor to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be / / submitted for City Planner review and approval pdor to the iSsuance of building pem3its. -- 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for / / consistency pdor to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, ~ building, etc.) or pdor to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, / all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit iSsuance. 7. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transfom~ers, 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. 8. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a dear and concise manner / including proper illumination. 9. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall not prohibit the keeping the equine / animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot -- owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors of homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&Rs. 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. 11. For residential development, return walls and comer side walls shall be decorative masonry. __ / / D. Building Design 1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or / / projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. E. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in / / the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or pdor final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. AIl 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. 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 sc- o-oo ¼ Project No. DR 00-69 Completion Date shrub per each 100 sq. fl. 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 al:so 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 pdor to occupancy, 4. Front yard and comer side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development / / Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. F. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location / / of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for ~ mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval pdor to the issuance of building pem3its. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710 FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: G. General Requirements 1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Pl~rnbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, f~ure units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g.Planning Division Project Number (i.e., 'Ir #, cUP #, DR #, etc.) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. 4. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to / the City prior to permit issuance. H. Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be / marked with the project file number (i.e., CUP 98-01). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of pem3it application. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. SC-lO-O0 3 Project No. DR 00-69 Completion Date 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to __/ / existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and __/ / prior to issuance of building permits. 4. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all __/ / supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits. I. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for required occupancy separation(s). /.__ 2. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. 3. If the area of habitable space above the first floor exceeds 3,000 square feet, then the /.__ construction type shall be V-1 Hour. J. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City /___ Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 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: K. Street Improvements 1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: __/ ./ StreetName Curb& A.C. I Side-t Drive I Street Street I Comm I Median I Bike I Otherl Gutter Pvmt wa k Ap~p r. L ghts TrTs Trail Island Trail Laramie Drive 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. SC-lO-00 4 Project No. DR 00-69 2. 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 pdvate street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs flint. b. Pdor 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 widng. 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 fee 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 comers 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 dudng 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 upoa completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be / / installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. / / 3. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in / / accordance with the City's street tree program. ~ -- L. Drainage and Flood Control 1.Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. M. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electdc 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 (CCVVD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bemardino. A letter of compliance from sc- o-oo Project No. DR 00-69 Completion Date the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case Of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. 4. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. /_ / Approval of the final parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: N. General Fire Protection Conditions I. Fire flow requirement shall be: / / a. 1.750 gallons per minute, Per '97 UFC Appendix Ill-A, 5, (b) (Table). 2. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. 3. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, /_____ if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with a 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. 4. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to fina /.____ inspection. 5. 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 Residence Development. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: O. Security Hardware 1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. / / 2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within / / 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. / / P. 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. Q. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime / / visibility. SC-10-00 6 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MINOR EXCEPTION 00-12, A REQUEST TO EXTEND THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FROM 30 FEET TO APPROXIMATELY 33 FEET AND THE DETACHED GARAGE HEIGHT FROM 16 FEET TO APPROXIMATELY 17.5 FEET ON A 6,348 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY HOME ON .71 ACRE OF LAND IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT 8923 LARAMIE DRIVE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1061-810-06. A. Recitals. 1. Robert K. Laird filed an application for the approval of Minor Exception 00-12, 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 24th day of January 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved bythe 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 dudng the above- referenced meeting on January 24, 2001, including wdtten and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at 8923 Laramie Drive with a street frontage of 65.31 feet and lot depth of 315.87 feet; and b. The property to the north, south, east, and west of the subject site is all single-family residential development; and c. The site is vacant and contains no vegetation other than a few scattered weeds; and d. A 20-foot Community Trail exists just south of the site; and e. Perimeter walls exist on the east and west of the site; and f. The proposed development is consistent with single-family development in the area (Tentative Tract 11626); and g. The proposed home exceeds the maximum building height of 30 feet by approximately 3 feet; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ME 00-12 - ROBERT K. LAIRD January 24,2001 Page 2 h. The proposed detached garage exceeds the maximum height for an accessory structure of 16 feet by approximately 1.5 feet; and I. The proposed detached garage architecture is similar to the main house; and j. The applicant has filed the subject Minor Exception to extend the maximum building height from 30 feet to approximately 33 feet and the maximum detached garage height from 16 feet to 17.5 feet. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. _ The 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 CEQA 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. Planning Division: 1) Approval is to extend the maximum building height from 30 feet to 33 feet and the maximum detached garage height from 16 feet to 17.5 feet. 2) In addition to the vegetation required by the Hillside Ordinance, mature landscaping will be required to be planted adjacent to the house and detached garage to screen and soften the size of the project, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ME 00-12 - ROBERT K. LAIRD January 24, 2001 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2001. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of January 2001, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: