No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997/06/11 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY JUNE 11, 1997 Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Barker Commissioner Bethel m II. Vice Chairman McNiel Commissioner Macias m Commissioner Tolstoy ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 9, 1997 Adjourned Meeting May 14, 1997 May 28, 1997 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. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT - A review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive APN: 1074-351-10 and 1074-541-21. 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. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-27 - TEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING, INC. - A request to develop a service station, drive-thru fast food restaurant, and canopy totaling 7,672 square feet on 1.1 acres of land, and a master plan of the surrounding 1.9 acres of land, in the Office Park Distdct of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 1077-672-37. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related file: Parcel Map 14001. Go ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14001 - LEW!S DEVELOPMENT CO. - A subdivision of 3.5 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Office Park District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 1077-672-37. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 96-27. Vl. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS D. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD ACTIVITY CENTERS (Oral report) Eo FOOTHILL BOULEVARD/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE UPDATE (Oral report) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS AND SCHEDULE (Oral report) VIII. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. Page 2 I, Gaff Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on June 5, 1997, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. VICINITY MAP '.'.':':':': .............'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.' ' · 'e· ....· w .'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.- '..... .....IIeeeeeeaelweleeew~. ? .......· iI '-'.'."."-'.'.'. ...........'.'.'-'-'.'.'.'.'.'-' "1 ....4 · ....'.'.'.'.".'...-.-.-..........I· .........· ..........II'1111111111/~?~I ...............o ...........· · ........'.'.'-'.'.'.'.'.' .............le~:'.'.'.' e,~ .....: ...... .....'- -'-',l '.'.'.'.'.'.'. .......' ..................'.'.'.'.' .............'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.' · .:.:::::::.:.:.:.: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=============================================================== ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ ~"1 '' ': ......."'"'"'""""' ......................""""""'" .............""""""'"'"'"" .........: ............"'"'""" .........: ..........:' [ i i iii ?i ?ii i!!iiiiiiiii!iiiiii .....'iiil ..... ""'" ....."' .....""'"""'"'"'"'"""'""'""""""' .......:'""""'""'"'"'"'"'""" ""' ' ' '" ':'"":'"" """"'""'"'"""'"""""'"' ......"' ':':'"":'"'"""' '" ' ":'"'""'""i ~ I '..= '-~-' '..' -'--~.'.'.-~ '-=~ '-.;-' '.~.' '.. .....,: ........::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :',~...:.: m ~ _,~'~ ~ ~ I::::::i:!::: :!: :i:f:!:!:i::: :i:i:!: :::::::::::::::::~: :i:::: :i:::: :i: :i: :i:i:i: I~ I :::: · ' C,a~a~ ~ 1.2:::::::::: :.:.'-'-'.'-'-'.'-'.': :':: .'~' .' '-'>:': :-;.:.:.:.'.'-'-'.'.'.'.'.'-'-'.' I I -- ~ ' :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ...."'/'"""~':':':':':':': ....:':':-;-:':':' I~:':':':~ I .~ ,::::::::i::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::.I:::::::~ I '~'~ ..,...,. I::::::::::: :::::::!:!:i:i:i:!: 1. :: ::::3 :i:i: :::::::::::::::1.:i:i:: · - ,,, / l.:.:.:_--::!. ,. A.T.& S.F. RR Page 3 June 10,1997 William D. Angel 12966 Arapaho Rd. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 (909) 899-4566 Re: Tentative tract Map No. 14771 Mr. Chairman and members of the planning commission I am a property owner in both the Haven View Estates home owners association and in the RCV Haven View home owners association. I am also on the architectural review board for Haven View Estates and a board member of the RCV home owners association With regards to the above referenced project, please refer to the attached diagram of the location and layouts for the subject project and adjoining properties. As you can see, the access for this project is through gated, private streets owned by the respective home owners associations. Haven View Estates is one of only two gated "custom home" communities in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. We have strict architectural controls over quality, appearance and design over the 201 lots in our neighborhood. While Lauren development and the property owner, Cristiano partners, are proposing to create a separate home owners association they will still be using our gates, entrance theme, streets and name recognition. The applicant has never formally submitted to the Homeowners association's architectural control committee. Instead they have chosen to create their own home owners association thereby circumventing our design review process. We believe based on recorded documents this parcel ~vas the originally intended to be part of our home owners association and thereby subject to the same review process the existing 201 lots are subject to. Please review the letter drafted by the attorneys for the RC-V outlining the legal position of the RC-V home owners association. There are significant issues that need to be resolved prior to approval by the planning commission. The following are issues and comments I have regarding compliance with the Hillside ordinance, the General Plan and the development code; · There are existing slopes on the property exceeding 30%. Isn't a variance be required. (17.24-11) · Existing water courses are located on the site. Can they be completely removed? (17.24-36) · According to the hillside ordinance, all lots shall have the building envelope plotted. (17.24-5) · The general plan shows this site as a major recharge area. (Figure IV-2) · The vertical elements on plans 2,3&4 do not comply with the hillside ordinance unless the buyer selects the portico option. · The development code requires new developments to be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. These are not individual custom homes. The elevations and plans are duplicated thru-out the proposed project. More variation should be required. (17.08.010) I would like to emphasize that Haven Vie~v Estates is a custom home community. In many areas in the city different neighborhood have certain themes. For example, in the Deer Creek project just to the south of Haven View Estates, the design theme of the project requires all homes to have Mediterranean styling with similar architectural design, colors and textures. Haven View Estates is characterized by very different and individual architectural designs, styles and diversity. The property owners take pride in the diverse custom qualities of the homes which are very unique in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The applicant is proposing to build a tract of homes that will concentrate and repeat the houses within our neighborhood thereby making it inconsistent with the neighborhood. If the planning commission feels that it should allow tract development in our neighborhood, they should be designed and built to have the greatest diversity in exterior elevations. I do not agree that just making changes in paint and trim colors and textures will be sufficient, but varied roof lines, arch components and landscaping should be required. As a fifteen year resident of Rancho Cucamonga, and a local builder, I would like to praise the planning departments many years of high quality and compatible planning and design review. The City has earned a reputation and awards for having high standards and quality developments. Haven View Estates has also been developed, working in conjunction with your design review process, as one of the few premier custom gated neighborhoods in the city. Our unmatched location and trend for even larger homes will make Haven View Estates a landmark for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. We hope you will take this into consideration when making your decision regarding the applicants proposal. Sincerely William D. Angel Property owner z../, 33 JUN--09--9? MON 11 :qT SAGE*COUNCIL ~18946946~ P. 01 Frotectin0 .~d Pre~ervin9 Biolo~ica~ Pivers.~, ~/~t~ve Pi~nts~ ~/~ttive Animals ~nd ~V~t~ve L~nds Vera Rocha, Co-Founder $hoshon¢-Gabrielino Nation Cultural Affairs Director Leeona Klippstein, Co-Founder Conservation Programs Director Douglas Doepke, Treasurer PoJJcy Programs Coordinator June 6, 1997 Pete Soreasea U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2730 Lokar Avenue West Carlsbad, CA. 92008 FAX (619) 431-9624 Bill Tippett CDFG NCCP Program 4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego, CA. 92123 FAX (619) 467-4235 Janinc Brown, Secretary Steven Fisher, Ecologist Science Programs Coordinat. or Daniel Patterson, ,Ecologist D~sert Programs Coordinator Patrick Witchell, Naturalist Peninsular Ranges Coordinator Kathy Knight, Public Affairs Coastal Wetlands Coordinator Valerie Pilmer, Planner County of San Bernardino Planning Department 385 N. Arroxvhead Ave, 3rd Fl. San Bernardino, CA. 92415 FAX (909) 387-4099 Brad Bullet, Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA. FAX (909) 987-6499 San Bernardino Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and violalions of the good faith agreement for project review. Elizabeth Francis, Public Affairs Arroyo Seco Coordinator A! Kelly, Wildlife Biologist San Bernardino Valley Coordinator Udo Waid, Public Education Interfaith Outreach Coordinabor A OVISOR Y MEMBER5 Spirit of the .Sage Council is formally requesting that the referenced responsible lead agencies comply with the terms of the MSHCP MOU and ensure agency review of proposed projects within the identified planning area. It has come to our attention that once again signatory cities are not in compliance with the MOU and that the state and federal signatories are not enforcing compliance. This lack of enforcement perpetuates the Sage Council's criticisms of so-called regional conservation planning, the NCCP Program and Multi-Species HCPs. Jasper Carlton, Director Biodiversity Legal Foundation Lorin Lindner, President Fund for Wild Nature Paul Watson, Director Sea Shepherd Conservation 5ocie .ty Kieran Suckling, Director 5W Center ~or Biological Diversity Dr, Ed Grumbine, Director Sierra Insti0ate ]'he Sage Council has previously complained to the state and federal lead agencies that local government (City and County) continue to approve development projects without adequate biological and cultt,rai surveys, including inappropriate mitigation. Local jurisdictions that are party to Agreements and aware of survey protocol are in violation, yet the state and federal public trust agencies turn a blind eye by failing to enforce. Such failure of enforcement is interpreted by the Sage Council as malicious neglect and a violation of the public trusl. It has been a year ago that the Sage Council complained about development approvals and grading (bulldozing of imperiled habitat) in the City of Fontana at Hunter's Ridge. Still the USFWS and CDFG NCCP have failed to adequately correct these actions. The latest problem with noncompliance of the MSHCP MOU is within lhe City of Rancho Cucamonga. JUN--~9--9? MON 11:48 SAGE+COUNCIL ~10946946~ P. 02 RE: San Bernardino MSHCP MOU violations Page Two The City of Rancho Cucamonga has given a "negative declaration" for a development project, Lauren Development Tract 14771, that is within the'MSHCP Planning Area and contiguous with the National Forest and County Flood Control easements. The project site is Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub and is expected to sustain state and federally rare, threatened and' endangered species. The project site is bounded by. the Deer Canyon Debris Basin to the north, the Deer Creek Channel to the east and to the west by an earthen levee. The natural topography includes a 9% regional slope to the south and incised drainage courses. Basically on a fan and within the Deer Creek/Wash watershed and floodplain to the west of the North Etiwanda Reserve. Although the Lauren Development project is less than 50 acres, it' is a significant habitat area and should receive the stipulated agency review' and "good faith" effort that was agreed upon in the MSHCP MOU. It is tile Sage Council's understanding that the state and federal agencies have been implementing "5 acrs exemptions"policies, but not 40 - 50 acres. It is quite obvious to the Sage Council that the state NCCP program and the USFWS "new user friendly" ESA policies do not assure that listed species and imperiled habitats are adequately conserved. Here again is another perfect example of how local government and developers make a mockery of environmenlal regulations and take advantage of so- called "voluntary compliance" and "good faith" efforts. The Sage Council demands that the state and federal public trust agencies enforce regulatory compliance or be held in contempt of the public's tntst and in violation of CEQA, CESA, Native Plant Protection Act, Native American Heritage Act, State Historic Preservation Act, National Historic Preservation Act, NEPA, ESA and the MBTA. It is our understanding that the federal gover~ment has given the state and county public funding to develop and implement a regional conservation plan. From what the Sage Council has seen and experienced, the County of San Bernardino and MSHCP MOU local government signatories continue to resist complying with Agreements and regulations. The Sage Council and public are left with impotent wildlife agencies and "toothless tiger" conservation programs such as the NCCP. Because of the seriousness of this mat~er and that the City of Rancho Cucamonga is scheduled to approve tile Lauren Development on the June I l, 1997 "consent calendar" without public comment, the Sage Council requests that the USFWS, CDFG, County and City take immediate corrective actions in resolving ~his matter by complying with your Agreements and Contracts. If the referenced regulatory agencies fail to correct this matter adequately, the Sage Council and effected people reserve the right to take appropriate legal action and have exhausted our administrative retnedies. The Sage Council recommends that USFWS, CDFG and County contact the City of Rancho Cucamonga immediately and demand that the Lauren Development project be removed from the City's consent calendar and agenda until there has been a comprehensive review by the regulatory agencies to ensure compliance with the terms of the MSHCP MOU Agreement. JU~9--97 MO~ ll :49 SA~E+COU~CIL ~10946946~ P. 0~ RE: Smi Bernardino MSHCP MOU violations Page Three In addition, the public should be notified of the regulatory review of the project and any associated meetings to ensure adequate public'participation in government, especially those decisions that effect public trust lands and resources (environment). The Sage Council requests a written response to this letter of complaint and request for corrective actions. Please include this letter in the Administrative Record for the MSHCP and the Lauren De,elopment project. Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to your response. Leeona Klippstein, Co-founder Conservation Director Spirit of the Sage Council U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer U.S. Senator Chaffe Rep. George Miller, California State Senator Tom Hayden Larry Silver, Esq. California Environmental Law Project Eric Glitzenstein, Esq. Meyer and GlitZenstein Kimberley Delftno, Esq. U.S. PIRG (310) June 10, 1997 VIA FACSIMILE - (909) 477-2849 AND FEDERAL EXPRESS (3101 478-8100 FAX {310) 478-6363 03022 -003 Planning Commission of City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, california 91729 Attention: Brad Buller Re: Tentative Tract Map No. 14771 (the "Subject ProDerty") Dear Mr. Bullet: This firm represents Rancho Cucamonga V-Haven View Estates Homeowners' Association (the "Association"). We have been requested by the Association to address the application for design review of the homes, to be located on Tentative Tract Map 14771, originally filed by Brock Homes and assumed by Loren Development (,,Applicant") in Ehe above captioned matter. The hearing date for Applicant's request is June 11, 1997. The Association is composed of homeowners of a 150 lot residential plarmed development located on 101 acres, which property is known as Tract No. 12332-2 and is located south and west of the Subject Property. The Association's property was subdivided in 1990 and remains mostly unimproved to date. The general area is a quiet residential neighborhood, characterized by large custom single family homes and large parcels of vacant land. Applicant has requested approval for design of forty (40) tract homes. The Applicant intends to construct ancillary improvements, access streets, walkways and parkin~ facilities on the Subject Property. The proposed plan calls for major grading and other significant modifications of the topography and ground surface of the Subject Property. The plans Applicant proposes are nothing less than enormous given the nature of the surrounding properties, and the complicated drainage problems that would be caused by such large scale development. Such modifications could result in the exposure of the Association~s property to geological hazards resulting from flood hazards and ground failures. Furthermore, possible changes in 10:8t L6/0t/90 Pier, ling Commission of City of Rancho Cucamonga June'10, 1997 Page 2 water absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amounts of surface water runoff will greatly affect the Association's property. The Association hereby objects to and opposes any requested design approval, which is the subject of the above-captioned matter, unless the conditions and modifications as described below are adopted. The Subdivision Map Act grants authority to the City to regulate and control the design and improvements of subdivisions within its boundaries. One of the primary goals of the Map Act is to encourage orderly community development by providing for the regulation and control of the design and improvement of subdivisions, giving proper consideration to its relation to adjoining areas. Furthermore, the request must be desirable to the public convenience or welfare and must be in harmony with the general plan. The design of the subject Property, as requested by Applicant, is outside the scope of the standards set forth in the Map Act and the general plan, as well as the Hillside Development Regulations adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD BE ~EOUIR~D The proposed plan calls for major grading and other significant modifications of the topography and ground surface of the Subject Property, which slopes range from five percent (5%) to twenty five percent (25%). The proposed development does not conform to the intent of the Hillside Development Regulations, which seek to limit the extent of grading alternations and to encourage sensitive development in the hillside areas. On the large scale proposed by Applicant, such modifications could result in the exposure of people and adjoining properties to geological hazards resulting from earthquakes, flood hazards and ground failures. Possible changes in water absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amounts of surface water runoff will greatly affect the Association's property. Moreover, a man-made levee for flood control purposes is located along the southern side of the Subject Property, north of Ringstem Drive and Tackstem Drive. The detrimental impact of the removal of this man-made levee has not been fully investigated. Development of this nature should not be permitted without a concurrent requirement that Applicant prepare an environmental impact report. Circumstances have significantly changed since the issuance of the Negative Declaration in November, 1989, and the changed circumstance must now be fully evaluated. NO LEGAL _ACCESS The subject property does not have legal access through the private streets owned by the Association. For purposes of providing background, there are two agreements controlling access through the property known as Haven View Estates (the ,'Estates Property"). Both S00/£00d GEL' 0N I0: 8I A6/01/90 I..,A W 0 W' IPi CLP ~ WOLZ*. I~FKI~r ~ S~AP~mO. LLP P~a~mn9 co~mmss~on o~ City of Rancho Cucamonga J~e 10, 1997 Pa~e 3 agreements arguably granted Applicant a non-exclusive easement of access to and over Ringstem Drive, Clover Place and Tackstem Street (collectively referred to as the "Access Streets") for vehicular and pedestrian pttrposes reasonably related to the construction, maintenance, marketing and use of the residences and related improvements located within the Subject Property. Mowever, since the Haven View Estates Homeowners' Association could only grant access over and through the Access Streets located on the Estates Property, these agreements did not grant any rights to Applicant over the Association's property. While a First Amended and Restated Grant of Mutual Easements was recorded in February of 1990, upon careful review of this document, we believe legal access to the subject property ham not been granted over the Access Roads, within the Associatio~'s property, to the Applicant. Accordingly, the Applicant has no legal right to use the Access Roads within the Association's property and must establish alternate legal access to the Subject Property. C~_C_TER OF DEVELOPMENT The proposed development is inconsistent with the development of the Association's and the Estates' properties and will be wholly out of character with the surrounding area. The Association's property and the Estates' property, together create a luxury community, characterized by large custom homes. These communities, through strict architectural controls, are in the process of establishing one of the most prestigious housing developments within Rancho Cucamonga. It was always intended that the Subject Property would be developed only with custom homes of similar size and quality. In fact, it was always assumed that Subject Property would be annexed into the Association and thereby be subject to its architectural controls. It is incumbent upon the City to do everything within its power to preserve and encourage high-end development, since this kind or premiere housing enhances property values throughout the City. The development of smaller tract homes, as proposed by Applicant, located adjacent to the lovely custom homes within the Association, will have a detrimental effect on the property values within the Association. The City must require that the Applicant's development conform to the architectural standards adopted by the Association. g00/~00d 6EL'0N EM:SI L6/0!/90 ~lannin~ Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga June 10, 1997 Page 4 In conclusion, on behalf of the Association, objection is hereby formally made to the request for design approval. Sincerely yours, WOLF, RIFKIN & SHAPIRO, LLP MS: dr cc: Rancho Cucamonga V-Haven View Estates Homeowners A~sociation I: \030~2\003\LETTE~\PL~RC~. 610 ~00/g00~ 6EL'0N £0:8I &6/~I/98 LOEB 8, LOEB 213-688-3460 Page 2/6 .Job 997 Jun-10 Tue lg:14 1997 LC)EB~EBLLP A UIIIlllI, LIIiJl, ltY PAIITNI#INF Jllllll~J 11BIICI~IIN~ML GOIIPOE~&TIOmJ IDaJ WiLlroll BOULEVARD FA~I6MILI: 11S'OO0'O4eO 10~ TeL: Ni!i YMIi Nm Ymm. MV Tt t,1t-4~41~ 21M M lmI~ILW. S~rm 101 If'M: ",--- ,,~it Jt, Lv ~ Dial No. 213.688.3622 e-mail: lViMCKEfrH~loeb.e~n Jmm 10, 1997 VM It,*, '_mile Jamcs Markn~ E~. Ou'ly & Slough Post O~ce Box 1059 Bma, California 92622-~059 Chailen~ of Cur-,,,,,,~m United for R:.: .t,le Ewpansion to ~ 13evn~,,nt Project Development Rt~i~ 9'/-I l-Lauren DewlGp,~ent ("ProBere') has been identifiod as a Consent Agenda item at the Jun~ 11, 1~7 P!mmin~ Commimion hau~S ('Hearins"). P_~*her than 'non-~stmvmial" as described in tim Pia~ Commission Agmda ("Exhibit A"), qqaoval of th~ Project would violn~ not only City of Ranchn Cuoamonp, tim UnitM Status Dispammnt of Intmiot lqdt and Wildlife Service ("Wildlife StayimP') and the California Dcp&t~ of Fiah and Game ("Fish and Game"). Lo~b & Lo~ ~ Cuc*nv,nss~ United for B~ _,o,,nble Exparmion ("CURE'), Im~Mm~d non-profit mtil~01po~a{M amoeiation which is comprised of proproy ownws and enviro,~e.,~i 8roups ol-;-nJ'...I the !'roBrot.' CURE will be filin8 briefs Ired supportin~ evidence []ll~,[' Ill factrod and !cgal infimtiti~s of l~ Pmje~ on June II, 199e/. I 8pologi~ for not tmvin{ this information to ymi ~ howevcr. moat prope,ty ownm re~iv~ -"imtfonuai" nofice of the H~ fmth~firut time onMay27, 1997. Dininto n~n'al ' )d~.h~xI is co,,~ from tim Spirit of the Sa~ Coun~ fnnnatiy objectin{ to the Project ("Exltih't B"). Iq(~?~l~.Ln2 LOEB & LOEB 213-688-3460 Page 1/6 Job gg7 Jun-10 Tue lg:14 lgg7 LOEB J. OEB LOrn & LOIB LLP ATTOaliVe AT ~ 1MMJ WILlHIRE BOULEVARD LOI ANOELEI, GA 80017-~4J'6 TI~LBmONE: I1a.eel.a,wo FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL Dite: June 10, 1997 Time: 6:52pm Please deliver the following 6 pages (which include thia cover lettcF)... To;.m FFom: City Council City of RJmcho Cu~on~n Facsimile: Voice: Malissa Hathaway McKeith Perwnal ID: 90089 Direct Dial: Client/Re: 66666/6666 Facsimile: (909) 477-2.~49 (909) 4?'/-27O0 (213) 68L367.2 (213) 688-346O Note: If tr~q~i~ion is not complete, please call our operator at (213) 688-3478 MessnEe to Addressee: PLF, ASE DISTRIBUTED ATTACHED TO EACTFOF THE CITY COUNCIL - EO~fi3ERS AS SOON AS POSS]BL~. THANK YOU. The Honorable William J. Alexander The Honorable Diane Williams The Honorable Paul Blane Thc Honorable James V. Curatalo The Honorablc Rc~ Gutierrez Thio ~n is mingled only for the use of b Jndividnld or e~ity if) which it is 8ddrmstd, grid ~ ~ftlglm :-ttm,,fJtim, that b Jw'ivil~:~Ed, confidential and ererapt 6usU dbebmre usader BppJJcohk brw. If IJu rfilet o! Iha msssqJ iJ not ~ bladed recipient, o~ b'E cmpJoy~ Or night req~mbls tr daawrins the mainF to t!~ itmsd~ ~i~ient, you m bmby ~ dmt say dissemmltion, dlstr~bution or coirym[ of Ibis :~. '~ ...... is slri~ly pmln'bi~d. If ym~ ha~ W I!dl ~,,, · ~4on ~ e~r. n~mm nntifv us immt-din~lv by ~,l~mu and ~ II~ ori~l nmm~s to us a~ 11~ sb~vu nddvl~ v~ ~ U..~'. Postal LOEB & LOEB 21 3- 688- 3460 Jamm Markman, Esq. June I0, 1997 Pab, e 2 Page 3/6 Job 997 Jun-10 Tue 19:14 · ; *':' lgg7 ~vtev.-ions of Tcnmtive Trm:t M~p 14771 appmmt in 1990, ~J~ Plmmtng Commission, w~ it to approve the Pmje~ is mlyia~ oa m outdaryl luitM ~ady Checklist dmf~ in 1989 and · Neptiv~ Dechrufiou q2proved in 1990, No a~nmentel analysis of ~ Pmjeut !as been co~,~ sinue that timo. end th=re hu boon no public noticc coi~;.~,.,;,,F t!~ D~ to the nmnm~m owners who have movcd to this mm in ~e put stoma years. Aaal.k,.-qy. upt~,a or singe idenP~ic-,on oft!~ ~ proproy as ~"3-1-1' (the rsge~ sad ~ habitat dmig.-~c.,t) by Fish and Crame,. Evidmoe to be ~ ._::es,!~ ~o. of the Nagstaw Deebmion for proper etonming fed C1~A compliance. Momowr. ~,~ W'ddl~ ~ h~ ~ t!~ I~ ~ has not compieml tbe ~hdmfeml Speub r~aulamry qsproval ~a.~rwu This co-firroation from the Wildlib ,~gvige b h dLrect ¢aau-"',~,~ to mtmnmm made. 1997 ("Exhibit C"). Although ~ will be submifti~ evidava tO ~ thC -4mioid~iive record in the link Iblt the Plojcct il Ijtjxoved lt,-~- IO.;, ~ rotreally requests: (t) that the ~ be taken from flu Co-~ ~t Assndt; (2) that the ~ be continued; (3) ,is, FoEmid written notice of any fur, bar qsprovoJs, including approval of the Find lVlq). be Movided to tfFeutod IMrtles. Aitemativcly, if the Plnnins CL~mi'S'_~ entcrtabm matm~ on the marits, will request recirculation of the 1989 Ncsmive DeclmMion sud full CEQA complimlCC before dewl~ WW~ovd ill srumed. Tbe ~ of maminsfui notice fi)F the June 11, 1997 rpeef4P- h811m4omly hlak)erLd C[JR~ and other pm~es' ~ is particularly concerned tim Lmuen !:)c~1opment's runoval of an levo~ and modifications to the Deer Ouek Wash creatc mious safety imum for thusc The above ismt inelu~ CIJl~'f right to rme I CROA eh~!lea~c at this stage of the pmceedi.8~ will be outlincd in detail. I writo to you today, attcufion as th~ City Attorney, I wo~ld ~ to pred'~c my coremcuts by kstt~ you know that I have had considerable experienm with p~ staffs in bo(h imp and small jurisdictioa.% and that somo o~ whtt I am about to ro~ may be mm3suted to the typiGal file disorpnization tim me recountors. Nevertl~eu, CURB mere that som~ of the actions (or in-cJir~M) of Plmning SLtff marebet, Tom Gubx~ wm'e NC:N2&172.L0Z LOEB & LOEB 213-688-3460 Page 4/6 Job 997 Jun-10 Tue 19:15 Re~~g thoimme~i'~y of matters,. I requital th~ "~mmpl~tn" file relating to Lauren Developing. and Jl~ Jun~ l 1, 1997 Hm'ing. AP~d"~ is a copy of my co,,~po~t..ca dated Mny 27,. 1997 ("Extn'bit D") requesting that lbs Lam'en tim amount that Mr. Grnhn infonmi m~ would covet tl~ xerox costa. On May 29, 1997, I m:eived the almdmi mmonndm ("Exhibit stating that the matter would bo ~m th~ C~m--~t Agmd~ and that tl~ apmi~ iron was 'not an edversaritl public heari~" Tim May 29 memr,,~h,~ also ~fh~ed that the requested copies misht be available by June 2, 1997. "'"ecn~se of thf~ short timc l'~mnining tO p!~ for lhC ~ ~ Wyll~l, · ~ ill tho ~ wesit to the Plnnning Depamnent and ~ I oopy of the ~ Study and Jh~ Negative Declaration. Mr. Grahn provided het with a 1983 initial study on a diff~mt pmj~t. He futJh~ reiterated that it wa~ "too Me' to challe~g~ th~ Proj~t and mM he~ that I~ could not und~-mand what all b 'rum" was about. On the afternoon of Jun~ 2. 1997, I received copies of a portion ofthe Tentativc Tract file only. ~ was not m~n a copy of tl~ mual Tmmliw Map, any rcvisiom to the Map. or · con~l~d~ Pmjc~-t applic~ion I innnedial~ calm Mr. Grahn and M, ked hi~ wlusm the design review doo,me-+-*ic~ wa~ re. lat/ng ~o the J.ne 1 ~. ~997 Henring. Claiming "confusion." ~ statM ~ thg Rcf~ ~ on my May 27, 1997 letter sp~ifiM th~ Tenlative Tra~t No. only, m he liraired copies to that file. When I reminded him of our convcrr, ation on May 27. in whie. h I mired 1997 RC1~417R. L~. LOEB & LOEB 213-688-3460 Page 5/6 Job 997 Jun-10 Tue 19:15 1997 James M~Esq. June lO, 1997 Page4 for the "complete file" relating to the June 11, 1997 roeerin& he chudde~ At that filed ..4~ .otae "aiffa~zt" ~ be pma.m4 the folknv~ 4ay. On June 3, 1997, sfie~-' documents m ~ but it was ;,~vnatlntely apparcnt that, oreo qain, the cornpl~ file had not been prudnced. I therefore sent co,.r. spondmcodamlJune 4, 1997 ("Exhibit F") which was aspecific doemnmt n~lumt fo~ item~ thai I Imm~ d~ald exi~ b~ had not yet heea gm~mxl. Thc files requednd were rn~.wed on the arismoon of Jun~ 4, The only docmnent conccmin8 the l~v~q~0r'$ complian~ with tho Species A~t was the April 16. IS~7 ~,c~.. ,w:. :k ;_~e from the Devoloporto Ptannlns Staff taler .~.,r. cd above. lnquirJm were made of Mr. Grahn at that time, andbe slated "the Developer was in fall ~em91iane~" At that point. be q~dn reitmatnd tlmt it "too late" to chall~nl~ th~ Proj~ sad rH~..amlly asked why re~a..-~ 'did not trust Pbnnins The following day, June S, 1997, I reit c,,,,,._,:oadence t..lautht8 a · specific copy of the MOU bct~;~--,, the City of Rancho Cucam0nsa and the Wildlife Service and any other rclcvant 4oc,~ rdating to Endangered Spatim. X further requested that Mr. Oralm stop i~fn,'mk~ i~!'a,~t,, that it wa~ "too late" to the DevelopmcnL Attachat is a copy oftl~ June 5, 19F7 ~r.pondm~ ('BMn'bit G") end rmponse born Mr. Chdm rotins that no such MOU exim Chhibit IF'). On June 9. 1997, Scott Ellason from the ~V*tldlife Servia c~ Mr. Grahn. Only after tim call did my offlec receive a-r-ng~ lat~ in tho day that the MOU had barn "located." One docummt. however, ttmt Plmming Staff has never ~1ocatod" and that wns recei~ by Randin Cucmmngn'a Planning ~ was coti~el~lencc d~ted April 18, 1997 firore the Wildlife Servi~ (~bJ~ibit I") specifically advising the Developer that the C. mstc-~-b,' surveys nvb,.,qt~d wero not accc, ptablc. As you know. any grading of tl~ Project parcels in the fec~ of this correspondcnce would bc i!lcpL Fither the Dov~ has failed to infnnn Plannins Staff of this correspo~e-ce or Pbamln8 Staff has 18riorod it and has Goe44~,~ to Whcth~ Mr. Gralm's overly partben appmr. h to this Project smounts to wrongdoing remains to be s~en. I am formally requesting that this mattar be ruviewed by the appropriate ps~tiea. The residents of Ranelm Cttc~m,.-~p m~ entitled to evcnhandad treetment by th~ Plannin~ D~uncn~ Mr. Grahn's strons .bias NCI~&I7~.Ln~ LOEB & LOEB 213-688-3460 Page 6/6 Job 997 Jun-10 Tue 19:16 1997 Jamcs Mark:man, Esq. June 1 O, 1997 Page 5 favoring the Project tm bccn ovidrot to many individuak and tam beea ,,, for tho~ people to ol~ect. I believe your office should look into ~ nattar to d,.~,mi~ if d~uments were intentionally withheM or "miq~l:-ce-' CURE requcsts that someone else be assisned to the matter pmalnS aMsuval ofthe Final Map to avoid any further ~ of conflict or i...:.rw,,;cty on the pan of 't nnins as it becomcs available. I would bc more titan ~ m discuss this matterwith youtod~y. My home telephone number is (909) g~)-8702. Asain, ~ apolosiz~ that tl~ oomplete briefs will not be availablc until tc,,,~,,,.~, but our ability to teNrand mortar has been severely hampa~ by ~ ~ ' t dinedbed above. ! look £orward to v¥~et~! you at time Hearin~ tomon'ow. City Council Merebern: (via facsimile) (w/o e~,lo~n,es) Th~ Honorable William L Almanda " The Honorable Diane WHliams The Honorable Paul ]~!sm~ The Honorable James V. Cmatalo " The Honorable Rex Gutiemz " Leona Klippstcin, Spirit of the Sage Council Larry Silver, Esq., California NOI2&17'Z.L02 LOEB EB A LIMITID LJaJl~lT¥ PAR"rNE#$HJP hli~LUOMdO PI~OFEI&IO#AL COI~"OR&TIONI ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1004) WILlFIRE BOULEVARD SUITE 1800 I.O~ A#G~LEI, CA g0017-2475 TELEPHO#~: 213-888-3,400 FAcsr'.';LE: S~rrE 2200 TEL W&I#N4TMI, D,C, 2100 M Wa~WGTm,. D.C. 20037-!207 ~OME T'F.. ~11-31~ ;~,( 0 11- 31~,S7&,4~3 NC~176.L12 Direct Dial No. 213.688.3622 e-mail: MMCKEITH~Ioeb.com June 11, 1997 Via Teleeopier and U.S. Mall James Markman, Esq. Markman, Arczynski, Hanson, Curly & Slough Post Office Box 1059 Brea, California 92622- ! 059 Re: Cucamongaus Urnted for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") Opposition to Lauren Design Develot~ment Approval Dear Mr. Markman: The following correspondence and evidence (the "Opposition") is submitted on behalf of Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") in opposition to Lauren Development's proposed construction of 40 tract homes on 25.9 acres located at Ringstem and Tackstem in Rancho Cucamonga (the "Projeer').' This challenge is based upon several grounds including, but not limited to: (1) the failure of the City, of Rancho Cuearaonga ("City") to provide not:ce to impacted parties of the June l l, 1997 Design Review Hearing {"Hearing") thus depriving impacted parties of their due process right~ to notice and an opporVanity to be heard; and (2) the failure of' the City or the Developer to conduct any environmental review of the Project for over seven years despite documented changed circumstances and new information not previously available at the :ime ~e 1990 Negative Dectaratioa was approved.z 1 The original and 5 copies of this Opposition will be filed with the Planning Commission on June 11. 1997. 2 CURE incorporates by reference its letter of Jtme 10, 1997 to .Tames Markman, Cis, Attorney, raising objections to the Plar~ing Deparu'~ent's production of documents (Exhibit 1 ) CURE's ability to prepaxe for the June 11, 1997 meeting (continual...) James Markma~ Esq. June 11, 1997 Page 2 As evidenced by the number of individuals who will be in attendance at the Hearing and the atXaehed Petition in Opposition to the Development,3 the Lauren Development Project is axrything but "non-controversial" and, thesefore, its inclusion on the Consent Agenda is entirely inappropriate.4 CUKE formally requested that this matter be removed from the Consent Agenda on May 28, 1997, and renews that request now (Exhibit 3). Ct~E further requests that the Planning Commission defer reaching any deciaion on the Development Review Apgmv~ until aRer the City reeirculates the 1990 Negative Declaration and otherwise fully complies with CEQ^. Most of the homeowners living in the vicinity of the Project moved to the area after 1990, and they had no idea about the Project until approximately two weeks before today's Heating, CURE's members genuinely are conc. era~ that the City has not adequately evaluated safety issues concerning the removal ofapetipheral containment levee that currently redaces the risk of flooding to downgradient prop~y owners. Attached to this Opposition is a Declaration from Bruce Co!i_ina, a civil engineering expert from Dames & Moore, testi.~/ing that this peripheral containment lcv~c provides important safety to residen~ particularly in the event of an earthq. ake :(...continued) was significantly hampered by the difficulties encountered in our at~empts to locate and copy relevant documents. For this reason alone, the Planning Commission should, at a minimum, defer a decision until a more thorough presentation can be provided. 3 A Petition of over 100 names in opposition is aRached. (Exkibit 2) ~ Both CURE and Spirit of the Sage Council have requested if, at tl~ matter be removed from the Consent Agenda (Exhibits 3 and 15). Tlx¢ Ralph M. Brown Act, Crovernment Code §§ 54950-54962 details the requirements to be followexl by local bodies, including city councils and plaxming commissions. The intent of the Brown Act is stated in Government Code § 54950 in pertinent part, that "[iJt is the intent of the law that their actions [city councils, planrang comm:ssions, etc.] be taken operdy and that their deliberations be conducted openly." Except under specific circumstances not applicable here, the Brown Act requires that meetings of city bodies shall be open and public and all persons shall be permitted to attend ar~y such meetings. Gov't Cade § 54953. "Eve"ry ag~-mda for regular meetings shall provM¢ an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body's consideration of the item." Gov't Code § 54954.3. ~CM::'4176. L 12 James Markrnan, Esq. June 11, 1997 Page 3 damaging the Deer Creek Debris Basin Channel to the North (Exhibit 4). CURE members also believe that funh~ traffic, noise arid air pollution studies are necessitated by the funding and ~proval of the Highway 30 corridor. On the environmental front, the California Gnatcatcher was li~ted as an endangered species on March 30, 1993 a~er the Negative Declaration was approved. As recently as June 10, 1997, the United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service ("Wildlife Service") has advised the City that the Developer has not complied with the Endangled Species Act and that no gr~clin~ may commence until Wildlife Service approval is granted (Exhibit 5). Moreover, the Developer has not conducted any new CEQA compliance in response to the California Dep~,aaanent of Fish mad Game's ("Fish and Game") recent dedgnation of the area in which the Lauren Development Project is situated as habitat that is Category "S1.1" and "GI". This designation signifies that the Project property contains the rarest and most threatened type of habitat~namral community, and this ranking is only assigned when less than 2,000 acres remain in the world (Exlfibit 6). According to a leading expert on alluvial fan sage scrub, the alluvial fan sage scrub habitat at issue on the Lauren Development Project properb' is part of one of only eight remaining areas of it~ type on earth (Breruaan Declaration, Exhibit 7). Thus, although Lauren Development'$ destruction of 25.9 acres of raze habitat may initially appear insigrdficant, it actually constitutes about 1.5 percent of the total r~aaining habitat for Gnatcatchers on e~rh. Despite the importance of this habitat, the Developer has not been required to, nor is he taking, any mitigation measures. Rather, the entire propert)' is proposed to be graded, and this rare habitat pextmmently Lauren Development has never provided direct notice to any homeowner in the area, and yet it has gone to great lengths to document the "supposed" lack of interest by res/dents. As recently as May 28, 1997, Lauren Development "innoce~dy" questioned why "so few people are causing so much concern and alleging so much cata.~rophe" (Exhibit 8). The logical answer is tha: the vast ma3onty of residents first learned of' :he Development the weekend of May 25, 1997, when Euc:id Management finally sent a nondescript notice about the proposed May 28, 1997 presentation by La~e,x Development on the Project's architecturai design (Exh/bit 9). Althou$h Lauren Development appears to have ~ speaking wiL~ Bruce Ann Hahn, the President c,f Haven View Estates, and Euclid 146~g4! 76. L12 lames Markman, Esq. June 11, 1997 Page 4 Management, neither Euclid Manageturret nor Ms. Hahn have any legal anthorily to represem or act on behalf of propeaty owners in connection with the Development.s Any effort by Lam-en Development to characterize itself as the 'triotim" of a last minute environmental ambush should be ignored. Until this point in time, Lauren Development and City Staff entirely contxolled the process and at any time could have opened matters up to wider comment and negotiatioa. Lauren Development's failure to pwvide any meaningful notice was nothing more than an obvious strategy to avoid the inevitable public outcry that has now occurred. That strategy has backfired and Lauren Development will now have to face the level of scrutiny required by CEQA and necessitated by the serious environmental and gafety risks posed by the Projea. I. PROJECT BACKGROUND The 25.9 acre Project orionally was proposed by Brock Homes in 1989. A Negative Declaration was approved on November 14, 1990 as well as Tentative Tract Map No 14771. As the Planning Commission likely is aware, such a Map ordinarily would have expired in November 1992; however, the Planning Commission firs~ grained a 12 month extension on October 28, 1992 and state legislation subsequently was passed tha~ would have allowed Cri~iano to automatically extend the life of the Tentative Map another 24 months.* In ~ Lauren Development also is aware of concerns expressed by Bill AngeL, an RC-5 developer, that Ms. H~m has a potential conflict of interest. Lauren Development has been careful to document for Planning Staff the fact that "Ms. Hahn · . . a local Realtor... has brought potential land deals to us in the past.." "Chronology of Events Leading up to This Meeting" attached to May 28, 1997 correspondence to the Planning Commission." (Exhibi! 10) In a letter to Planning Staff dated May 16, 1997, Lauren also documented the fact that "Ms. Hahn asked what price they [the homes] were going to sell for. We said they would sell for as much as the market would bear. Ms. Hahn, a broker, asked if we were going to list the homes with brokers. At this, Bill Angel remarked to her that might represent a 'conflict of interest.'" ~ CURE objects to and retains the right to challenge these extensions as the Ptanning Department file was incomplete and the extension documents were not produced. From pape~'ork in the file, it appears that Cristiano, the current property (continued...) nCN~ 176. L12 James Markman, Esq. June l l, 1997 Page 5 September 1996, Lauren Developmeat resurrected the Tentative Map and began processing the Project towm'd final approval of the Development Design and the ultimate filing of~he Final Map. On April 16, 1997, Lauren Development submitted its "Design Review Application -- Tract 14771" (Exhibit 12). As discussed below, this document was never circulated for public comment, does not address the "changed circumstances" of concern raised in this Opposition, and coritaills efther false or misleading conu~ents concerning Lauren Development's compliance with federal and state environmental laws. MULTIPLE EXTENSIONS OF THE TENTATIVE MAP AND FAILURE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC NOTICE OR A~N OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION VIOLATE THE SUBSTANTrVE AND PROCEDURAL RIGHTS OF IMPACTED PROPERTY OWNERS Failure to Provide Notice of the Extension of the Tentative Map Deurlved Affected Property Owner~ o! Due Process The unnoticed and procedurally defective extenzions of Tentative Map 14771 have served to deprive affected pwperty owners of due process of law. Speaking directly to the due process fights of adjacent property owners in the context of tentative map approvals, the California Supreme Court emphasized that "land use decisions which 'substantially affect' the property' fights of owners of adjacenl parcels may constitute 'deprivations' of property within the context of procedural due process." Horn v. County of Ventura, 24 Cal. 3d 605 (1979). The City, moreover, cannot claim that its posting oltre agenda pursaant to the Government Code satisfied due process.? According to the Court, prior notice must, at a minimum, be reasonably calculated te afford affected persons the realistic opportunity to protect s(...continued) owner, did not file for extcr~ion per the requirements in Rancho Cucamonga's Subdivision Map Ordinance. Section 16.20.100 provides "The application sha~ be filed not less than 60 days prior to the expiration date .... " October 14, 1993 correspondence from Cristiano to Beverly Nissen clearly establishes that the application was not received in a timely f~hion such that ,~hc subsequent approval of an extension of the Tentative Tract Map violated the ordinance. (Exhibit 1 l) 7 it appears that even property owners witlfin 300 feet of the Project did not receive notice. ~C#24176.L1Z LOEB & LOEB 2-3-66&-;3460 F'a~ 7, 2. .,.~. OsO ; ; .,~-. ' /.-~. ,:-~" James Markman, Esq. June 1 I, 1997 ~Page 6 their interests." ld at 617 citina Scott v. City of Indian Wells, 6 Cal.3d 541 (1972). Procedural due process recluir~'m~mts apply equally to extension of t~ntahve maps. "It goes without sa~ing that a decision extending a tentative map invokes the same policy concerns as a decision approving a tentative map; . . . Griffis v. County of Mono, 163 Cal. App. 3d 414 (1985). Although the court in ~ dismissed petitioner's challenge to a defective extension based upon the 90- day statute of limitations in Government Code section 6654__99.37, the petitioner in Griffil~ had had notice of the extension hearings. No meaningful notic~ was providal here. The due process requiremenU set forth in Ho_.o_.o_.o_.o_.o_.9~ are "not rooted in ~.atute but ate compelled by the stronger force ef constitutional principle" and thus cannot be eliminated by the Legislatures pa~age of Goverr~ent Cod-. section 66452.6.*_ Horm su_~ra, 616 Cal. 3d at 616. The procedural due process infirmities also support CLR~.E's positio~ that the 90-day statute of limimtiom has been tolled under the "discovery rule" or otherwise is unconstitutional as applied here. The City's November 1993 approval of Cristiano's extension was defective and thus the Tract Map is invalid. The City's failure to comply with its own regulations renders the 1993 ex~nasion invalid and thus the Tentative Map expired as a matter of law. 8 These same ird'mmties will apply if formal notice is not provided before the Developer's attempts to file its Final Map as that decision also is dis~r~tionaty pursuant to local ordinance. See. Save El Toro Association v. Bays, 74 Cal. App. 3d (:~ (1977). The City of Ran~o C'ueamonga ordinances mandate that the City Counsel shall disapprove a Final Map under 16.18.110 if "[t]he design of the subdivision or proposed improvements are likely to cause mbstanhal emSronmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or theix habitat" or "the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely !o cause serious pu. bli¢ health problems." See Cucamonga Subdivision Ordinance Section 16.16.110A. Cucamonga's Land Development Review Code section 17.06.010 specific, ally states: "It is the purpose of tl'ds section to maintain the public health, ~afety and general welfare and property throughout the City." Approving the removal of the levee given the current record wou!d expose the City to tort claims in the event that flooding ultimately damages residents domgradient of or living a! the Lauren Development. James Markman, Esq. June 11, 1997 Page 7 Fafiure of the City to Provide Notice to Affected Property Owners of the I)evelopm~mt Desitin Henriup Violates Due Proce~ The policies outlined in Horn similarly apply to the City's failme to provide notice to affected property owners of the instant Development Dcsisn approval. This orniss,.'cn is particularly egregious given the passage of seven years and the scope and detail of the Design Review Application and the passage of seven yea~ since the public has had an opportumry to comment. Proceeding to evaluate this matter on the merits on June 11, 1997 given the complexity of the Devoloper's application is particularly unfair because of the difficulties CLrR.E has experienced in obtaining complete records from Plann/ng Staff. CURE incorporates by reference correspondence to Mr. Markman dated June 10, 1997 (and accompanying exh~its) concerning the delays created by Phmning Staff. The Commission should not entermln the Developer' s application on the merits th/s evening given the complexity of the Design Application, the short time to respond, and the difficulty of obtaininE pertinent files. APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN .zkPPLICATION VIOLATES THE CA~,IFORNIA ENVIRONIv~NT.a,I. OUAIJTY ACT The June 11, 1997 Requested Approval Is "Discretionary" and Thus Subject to CEQA Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), both public and private projects which may have a significant environmental effect require the preparation of an environmental impact repor~ ("EIR"). Pub. Res. Code § 21165. Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, 8 Cal. 3d 247 (1972). An activ/ty is a "project" when it causes either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and which is an activity that involves issuance to a person of a permit, license or other entifiemcm. Pub. Res. Code § 21065. CEQA applies to all discretionary approvals. A discretionary project is one which requires The public agency to exerc~.se judgment in deciding whether to approve or disapprove the particular activity. Id. § 21080.(a). S~.e ~ CEQA Guidelines (Cal, Code Regs. tit. i4 § 15357), The leading case of Friends of Westwood. Inc. v. City of Los Angeles. 191 Cal, App. 3d 259, 268 (1987) states that "[t]he essential element of a ministerial act is that the approving agency does not have the legal authority to refuse a qualified appl/cant or to insist upon modifications or M¢$12&'i 76. L'~2 LOEB 213-688-3~E0 James ,Markman, Esq. June 1 I, 1997 Page 8 change~ in his project . . ." (Emphasis in original.) Thus, where the agraIcy can deny or condition a project, it is discretionary and CEQA applies. Hexe, the Development Design approval process set forth ha the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Land, Development, Review, empowers the Planning Commission to approve or deny applications and to impose conditions upon any such approval, clearly bringing it within the definition of a discretionary project, and CEQA therefore applies. Rancho Caeamonga Development Code § 17,06.010(C)(1) states on its face that ~[tfhe Planning Commission is authorized to approve or deny applications and to impose reasonable conditiotu upon such approval, subject to appeal." (Emphasis addod.) That same code seelion goes on to list the many possible types of conditions that may be imposed oe the Project. The section concludes by stating that the Commission may impose any additiotud conditions "as the Commission may deem necessary to ensure ¢ompatibilily with surrounding u~s . . . to preserve the public health, safety and wel£ar¢." gae. ~ Rancho Cucamonga Development Code § 17.£~.010(E)(3) and 17.06.010(F). Based on the provisions in the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, the Planning Commission has the right to deny or impose conditions, which makes the Project discretionary and subject to CEQA. Cbanged Circumstances and New Information Not Previously Available at the Time of the 1990 Negative Declaration Trigger Further CEOA Review The Environmental Initial Study Application film in Aught 1990 is nothing more than a form checldist with conclusory statements, the support for which is nowhere to be found (Exhibit 10). The Planning Commission ~e for this Project does not contain a copy of a traffic study or any biological or wildlife study supporting *.he "no impacts" conclusion, CURE is not attempting to challenge the many inadequacies it, the ongmal Negative Declaration at this juncture, however, the absence of careful analysis at that time on issues of flood control safely, endangered spacica, wildlife habitat, and traffic and air quality cannot be ignored in evaluating the need for further CEQA compliance based upon new information and demonsu'ated changed circumstances. The Pla,ming Commission should not ignore the paucity of in.formation supporting the Negative Declaration in evaluating the importance of the substantial evidence submitted herein to establish changed circumstances. Otherwise, the Planning Commission is approving a Project that risks substantial injux3, to Juoe 11, 1997 Page 9 resid~ts and impacts to plant and wildlife in violation of federal, state and local law.' Multiple changed circumstances apply: ( 1 ) New Listed Endangered Species The federal listing of the California Gnatcatcher occurred subsequent to the 1990 N~gative D~laration approval m March 1993. ~ite Lauren Development's misleading claims in its .april !6, 1997 letter re Design Application (Exhibit 12) that compliance with the Endangled SImc'ies Act is 'voluntary" and has occurred, tl~ Wildlife Service confumed on Jtlne 10, 1997, thal the Devaloper is not in compliance and that grading may not be permitted until Wildlife Service approval is granted (Exhibit 5). 9 The substantial evidence submitted by CURE more tha~ satisfies the requirements of CEQA section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 req 'arttrig supplemental CEQA review. Subpart (a)(2) of the Guidelines requir~ further CEQA analysis where (2) substantial changes occur with r~p~ct to the circumstances under which the projoct is undertaken which will require major revisions in the EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of ne~v significant environmental effects or a substantial increase. in the sev~rrity of previously identified significant effects. Laurel Heights v. Regents, 6 Cal. 4th 1112 (1993). CURE submits, however, that Section 21166 and Laurel Heit/hts does not control recircutation of a negative declaration and that the "fair argument" standard should apply instead. First, the very language of section 21166 and CEQA section 15162(a)(2) references previously identified significant environmental effects. Quite remarkably, no significant environmental effects were identified in the 1990 Imtial study. Second, the holdi_ng in Laurel H~ights is limited to "eertified-EIRs." The policy enunciated by the Supreme Court to protect developers from constant reopening of the CEQA record was based in large pan on the type of detailed EIR that previously had been conducted and the ext~sive public comment received before it was certified. In contrast, the record is devoid of any technical studies to support, th~ many "no impact" comments in the Initial Study. Under the circumstances, CURE asserts that the appropriate legal standard for analysis of changed circurnst~,ces requiting re-circulation of the Negative Declaration is the "fair argum~mt" standard. No Oil Inc. v. CiW of Los Angeles, 13 Cal. 3d 68, 75 (1975). Se~ also CEQA Soction 21090(b) and (d). Jam~s Markman, Esq. June I 1, 1997 Page 10 (2) Designation of Prol~rty as $. 1.1 Habitat The boom development years from the mid-I980's to the eaxly 1990's resulted in such rapid des~tction of alluvial fan sage scrub habitats that Fish and Game has now designated the area as S I.! and G.I. This designation by' definition is "very threatened." These new designations require CEQA analysis and identification by Lauren Development of project alternatives and mitigation measures. ~ ~ (3) Traffic, air quality and noise must be reevaluated in light of increased developmeat and approval of Highway 30 Although there axe references in the file a "traffic study", none was located. That traffic study, however, could not have considered the approval and imminent construction of Highway 30. Exhibit 13 is confirmation from the San Bernardino Associated Governments dated June 6, 1997 stating that the Highway 30 EIR was cer3fiexl and that the Haves View exit h~ been approval. A~ st Haven View will significantly increase traffic in the area~ Of obvious impact to the Lanten Development Project is the new access that the public will have to the National Forest. Additionally, numerous other developments in the immediate ar~a have occurred since 1990 that were not considered. Traffic alone from the Sunday congregational services at two c, huxchas on Haven north 0fHiHside have si~t,,nificantly increased weekend traffic. Moreover, the record contains no evidence concerning the impacts that the Development will have during construcfior~ on existing homeoveners. When the 1990 Negative Declaration was approved, less than 15 homes were built in Haven View and RC-5. Now over 50 homes are lived in with the attendant pedestrian traffic. None of these changed eireumatances have been considered and r~luire further analysis under CEQA. ~o Contrary to the representations of Lauren Development in i'.s April 16, 1997 correspondence that the habitat condition of the property was degraded, Michael Brennan, leading expert in ailuvial fan sage scrub habitat, has concluded "In my opinion the propany within Teamfive Iract No. 14771 is prim habitat a~ea to support a wide range of wildlife, including the California Gnatcatcher, which is a federally-listed enviromental species. Additionally, the mslaj~ct property can support the San Diego Horned Lizard and Plummer's Maripoaa Lily." (Brahman D~cl. at ¶ 3). 176. L12 Jam~ Markm~,E~. J~cll,-l~7 Page-l-I Also directly bearing on new traffic impacts not considered previously are polential disputes between Laur~ Dcvclopmen% RC-5 and Haven View concerning access. In its April 16, 1997 Design Review Application (Exlgbit 12), Lauren Development inco:rectly claim~ that "recorded agreements stipulate that ~ to these future homes will not cause si~ificaat traffic impacts upon the existing Haven Vim' Estates community." Althoug~ ~he easement agreements discuss access, there is absolutely no discussion about traffic or other CEQA impact-type analyses. More importaml~, the Developer is aware that Rancho Cucamonga-5 has questioned its access rights over RC-5's easements (Exhibi! 12)? W=e RC-5 to prevail on any such claim, Lauren Development traffic would be concentrated over Clover and Tackstem in Haven View. This issue must be resolved and the changed condition addressed before final approval of the Project (4) Safety Risks of the P.-nipheral Containment of Removal of Levee Must Be Re~,aluated Arguably the most serious impact that the Lauren Development Project could have on surrounding downgradient residents (as ,veil as future purc~ of Lauren Deve!opmcm homes) is the r~noval of the existing peripheral containment levee. Lauren Development has justified its removal by claiming that the Deer Creek Channel, more than one mile to the north, is sufficien! to protect Haven View and RC-5. Lauren Develvpment conclud~ (withow, any technical support cited) that the Deer Creek Debris Basin and Deer Creek Charnel obviate "the need for the b~m and swale, making the site developable" (Exhibit i 2). Attached is the Declaration of B~ce Collins, a civil engineer with Dames & Moore, one of the largest g~otechnical and t'agin~g firms in the world (Exhibit 4) Mr. Collins, who has particular expertise in flood control projects, has concluded that the removal of the peripheral containment levee reduces the safety of downgradient residems and inc~asea possible flooding. (Collins Decl. at ¶ 3) He further concludes that the mitigation mtmsures proposed by Lauren Development are not an adequate substitute for the peripheral containment levee. As it is, Mr. Collins points out that the Deer Creek Channel does not provide absolute pmte~on for downgradient homes. (Collins Decl. at ~[ 3) I,~24176.L12 t~ The Recorded Easement Agreement Nos. 056050 and 056051 are in the Planning File. Other relevant and related easement agreements referenced in the file were not located. Jamea Markman, Esq. June 1 [;1997 Page 12 Since the original Negative D~laration was i~u~d, far mor~ ~'xioua is the fact that post- 1990 information concerning local earthquake faults haa not ~ considered. The existing De~t Cr~ Channol is in clo~ proximity to that fault and could thu~ be impacted in an earthq~ul~. (Collins Decl. at ¶ 5) D~,pending ulmu the extent of the repairs required, the debri~ hasin might not be fully oper~tion~l.n When removal of the lev~ was first ad~ in 1990, the then Developer, Brock Homea, was involved. Brock was a local developer with a proven track record in Cucamonga and aplxmrs to have had substantially more ass~-ts tlum Lauren Development? Downgradient residents of Lauren Development must rely on Lauren Development's financial wherttwithal to complete the Project and on the future 40 homeowners to maintain the lev~. This latter point is of particular concern as various comments in planning doemeats appear to assme that all Havea View and RC-5 property owners will share m the cost of maintaining th~ flood "improvements" built by Lauren D~elopment. If this is the City's assumt~ion, it is not the understanding ot Haven View property owners and it is not supported by the existing easement or access agra-merits on record. IV. CONCLUSION Approval of Development Review 97-11 violates the due process clauses of the United States and.California Constitution, the California Environmental Quality Act and the Federal Endangered Species Act. Given the level of public controversy surrounding this Project, ~roval by the Planning Commition of Item No. 94-11, currently on the Cotmerit Agendg, should not occur. Instead, the Plmming Cornmission must recirculate the Negative Declareion, r~luire compliance with ~ The safety issues surrounding removal of the levee are not limited to compliance with CEQA but al~o must be reviewed under the safety e~,ineering desima criteria set forth by Cucamonga Ordinance. Affected property owners have not had sufficient time to evaluate the engineering design and Developer blue prints on these issues. ~3 Public information concerning I)ev¢!oper'a resources is limited; however, the attached Dun & Bradstreet shows rolnima~' ~sets. Addresses provided by Lauren in public records do not show a Cucamonga location and the Agoura addresses are a juice bar and a residence (Exhibit 14). The name of the business located at the address provid~ by Lauren on Arrow Route is C, li£omia Construction Corp. ng~Z4176. L 12 LOEB & LCEB 2i3-655-34f:0 Fage '4, ~5 uoO 3.58 ,~un-]] ,',e~ '8;03 :~.~.7 James Markmaa, Esq. June II, 1997 CEQA, and allow sufficient time for affected property ownera to comment on gae other tentative map conditions aml compliance contents that could not be ~ in the time allotted? Respectfully submitU:d, Malissa Hathaway Attorney for Cucamongans United For Rmmonable xpa ion ("CURE") The Honorable Cucamonga City Council: The Honorable William I. Alexander- The Honorable Diane Williams The Honorable Paul Blanc The Honorable James V. Curatalo The Honorable gcx Outi~u~z Ms. Leeona Klippstein, Spirit of the Sage Council Larry Silver, Esq., California Envimmmental Legal Fund Scott Eliason, United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Liam Davis, California Department of Fish and Game Frank Clifford, The Los Anoe!es Times ~' CURE reserves all rights to challenge the Development once the complete record is obta/ned and reasonable I-linc to resporgt is provided. C~dr concerns include, but are not limited to, elevation envelope as it appears that, as of June 4, 1997 review, Lauren Development is still not in compliance with Resolution t~90- 183. Additionally, CURE reserve~ the right to challenge under the requirements of Hillside Development Regulations Section 17.24 of the Development Code. #¢~2~176.L12 James Marlonan, Esq. June 11, 1997 Page 14 Exhibit I - Exhibit 2 - Exhibit 3 - Exhibit 4 - Exhibit 5 - Exhibit 6 - Exhibit 7 - Exhibit 8 - Exhibit 9 - Exhibit 10- Exhibit 11 - Exhibit 12- Exl, fibit 13 - Exhibit 14- Exhibit 15- LIST OF EXHIBITS June 10, 1997 Me, Keith !ertl' to James Markman Petition May 28, 1997 Mc~th letter to Tom Grahn Bruce Collins Declaration June 10, 1997 letter from U.S. D~a~tment of Iaterior to Tom Grahn Califorma D~artmmt of Fish and Game Element Ranking and Diversity Databas~ Notation Michael Brennan Declaration ,May 28, 1997 letter from Lauren Development to Planning Commission May 20, 1997 Euclid Manag~aen! Notice Initial St'ady Checklist and Negative Declaration October 14, 1996 letter from Cnstiano xo Nissen April 16, 1997 Lauren Development letter re Design Review Application June 6, ! 9.~7 San B~-naxgino Associated Governments Corr~spond~tce re Highway 30 Approval June 6, 199? Investigation Report of Larry Troxel Jane 6, 1997 letter from Spiri! of the Sage Council -9347 · LDEB & LOEB Page 2/5 Jol:: 383 Jun-11 Wed t5:02 1997 3 5 10 [2 15 22 23 26 DZCZd~ATTOI~ O~ B~Ut'q~ C~O~.z.~'MS I, Eruce Collins, declare and state as follows; 1. I am a Senior Engineer at Dames & Moore, one of the larges~ geotechnical firms in the world. I have a Bachelor of S¢lence~ Degree in Civil Engineering and graduate studies in hydrology from the University of California and waste water treatment from O]~mhoma State University. In my over 35 years as an engineer I have had extensive Sxl~ertence on flood control and dralnage issues. I was project hydro!ogler and facilities design engineer :or developin~ a comprehensive master plan for flood control and storm drainage for metropolitan Reno. Also, I was project manager of the Major Urban Studies Plan for Metropol=tan Spokane Wats= ~esources and Flood Control, Seattle District. Army Corp~ of ~ngineers. The statements ma~e herein are in suppor~ of the opposition of Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("Cb'R~") to the Lauren Develop~nt Project. The statements made are of ~f own personal knowledge and, if called as a witness, I woul~ and could testify to =he Uruth thereof. 2. On June 1D, 1997, ! performed a si[e inspection an~ evaluation of the D~er Creek alluvial fan containment levee. Lauren Development is proposing to remove a substantial section of the ~rainage swale and embankment which now provldes a protective bartlet for flood wauers and drainage originating across the broad alluvla] fan of Deer Creek after leaves the point where Deer Canyon comes out of %he mountains. The~e changes would ai~er ~he level of f5ood control offered ~o Maven View/RC-V · 9347 · LOEB & LOEB Page 3/5 Jo~ 363 JJr-ll Wed 15:92 1997 1 4 ? 8 9 10 11 14 20 · The Perimeter Swale and Levee Are Still Valuable Flood Protect/on Structures. 3. It has been presumed by Lauren Development that the consuruction of the Deer Creek Debris Basin and concrete channel has rendered the perimeter containment swale and embankment obsolete0 thus rendering its removal as ~o consequence to Iota1 drainage. This presumption fails to recognize the benefit of thzs 'perimeter containment drainage structure which is sugplementar¥ to =he Deer Creek Basin that serves to concentrate the surface water flow of Deer Cree~ and direct it into a concrete channel, ~._~oi=e the Deer Creek Basin. home owners and res,~nts on the other side of ~he swa~e an~ l~vee would be significantly less safe if the levee is to be breached an~ if the drainage swale is fil!ed in. The Perimeter Swale a/%~ Levee Provide Secondary Flood and Drainate Containment. 4. In aesessin~ the value and benefits to the residents of RC-V/Haven v~ew Estates provlded by the perimeter swale and levee, it should be recognized that the Deer Creek D~brls Basin only collects and directs surface water into ~he 21- Concrete drainage channel and that there is a substantial 22 quantity of subsurface flow through the alluvial fan and surface drainage originatlng below the basin now being intercepted by %he perimeter swale and levee. An inspection of the Deer Canyon debris dam site and adjacent ~rea indicates that the ~ebr£s dam has Do significant storage capac1=¥ -- a maxlmum ~p~h of the retention basin being a depth of 15-18 fee= a: the low fi~ intake structure. The spil]way discharges ~o a lined concrete · 9347 , LOEB & LOEB Page 4/5 Job 3B3 Jun-11We~ 15:02 1997 rectangular channel which conveys flow down across the alluvial fan which spreads across the Deer Creek-Day Creek break in slope as these w&te,-ways come out of the steeper mountainous terrain 4 above. Additionally, approximately 2~0 acres of land below ~he debris basin are tributary to the perimeter ditch and levee. - spoke to Mr. Ray Lenabu:g of FEMA's San Francisco offzoo. The 7 FEMA Zoning is ~gw dependent on the levoe's existence. Mr. Lenaburg states that the developer would have to prove that the perimeter swale/levee is no longer e~sential to provadlng =he 100-year flood level of protection. This proo~ would have =o 11 include the complex hydrologic evaluation of surface wa=or runoff not intercepted by the debris basln and the potential for 1'3 -art~$~a~ ~es~f~6i~g 6f' f~ow througf ~he %~1%%i~i ~a-n. 14 · Solmmic Vulnerability $houlM Be Recknizam. 15 5. In addition, the existing levee and perimeter 16 awale provide an even more significant benefit as a "last ditch" 17 containment bartlet in the event of potential failure of the Deer lB Creek Debris ~sin and s~rface flow 1-"ereoption structure due to 19 damage from an earthquake. In th~s regard, ~t should be clearly ~0 re=ognized that virtually all structures in Southern California 21 are subject to earthquake damage valnerability, but that in 22 particular there has been recent rede!ination of a sign:~icant 23 fault line in very close proximity to the debris basln. Thls 24 higher level of seismic zisk may not have been considered and is 25 a factor that must be evaluated now, in light cf more detailed 26 data from recent seiemic s~udies in this area. 9347 . 1 4 10 11 12 13 18 21 23 28 LOEB & LOEB 5/5 Jo~ 383 Ju~-11 wed 15:03 1997 For =he above significant drainage and seismic reasons, The Deer Canyon Basin does ~ot function as a flood retention reservoir as there is very little s=orage capacity in the basin. Its primary function is to colle¢= surface water a= the mouth of Deer Canyon an~ collect i= into a concrete channel which conveys this ~10w down =0 the larger =xibutaries in the valley and ultimately in~o %he Santa Alna Elver. 6. In conclusion. it is the opinion of Dames & Moore that the very significant benefit o[ the existing peri,ere= swale and levee shoul~ be recocjnized and be given serious consideration relative to the permitting of dsve!op~en= o~ lane which might protection to ~ownetream residents. The propoee~ substitution for =he perimeter swale an~ levee by =he construction of a 6-foot ditch as per Amended Tentative Map Section "A-A" is not an adequate subltitution or mitigation measure. I= is our op=nion that this facility shoul~ be pro:ected from breach, fillin~ or inadequate replacement. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is =rue and correct and :hat this declaration was executed at Santa Ar~a, California on June 11, 1997. Collins a. NAME & TITI,E: Bruce Collins, Se,iur Engineer c. NAME OF FIRM WITil WilICII ASSOCIATED: DAMES & MOOR It. ¢. EDUCATION: DegrceO)/Year/Sp¢¢ia!izatlon B.S., Civil Engineering, llnivcrsity of California Graduate Sindies I lydrology, U,fiversiiy of California b. PROJECT ASSIGNMENT: p.r0._Je_.cl_Maltager/Groundwate~' & Wastewaler Ttcatmcnl d. YEAilS EXPERIENCE: Wilh This Firm. Wllh Oilier Firms 33 f, ACTIVE REGISTRATION: Year First Rel:islered/Dlscipline Civil Engineer, Washington Advnnced WaslcWaler Trealmenl. Oklahoma State (In|versily _ OTHER EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS RELEVANT TO TIlE PROPOSED PROJECt: Mr. Collins' professional engineering experience of over 35 years has predominantly involved munkipal and industrial wastewater management and treatment projects, His experience with water resources quality engineering includes directlore of major river basin a.d melropolil·n area water resetsroes qualily managemeal Ida.aloe. It also includes II~e dcsign of systems and spccific cqnipment selection for arealmeal of industrial waste discharges and Ireatmcnl facililies for groundwater and soils rcmcdimion. Mr. Collins has eatensiva eaperlen£e with regulatory alT·lrs~ negollating and pmlllllirtg. a.d Im been J conlribuling aulhor of legislation deallnl~ ,vilh waler quality regulation lu Ihree western states. Idelropolilan Spokane Water Resmaces and Flood Control, Seatlie Dialriot, Army Corps of Engineers, Spokane, Washingion. Project manager of this major urban-sl~di~ mailer plan for developing melropolilao areas of Ihe Spokane River last.. Marine Corps Air ~nlitm, T. stin, Californian Task manager for Ih~ m~sler planting of the pa~ial b~ closure and housing expmt~ion. Responsibilities included tl,e preltmlna~ d~l~n ol a storm drainage system, the delinc~liot~ of the IO0-year flood plain, and Ihe evalualion of the stains of major improvements to Ihe connty's fio~ channel. Miramar HA8, Ulililies Master Plan for base expansion. Slaffengineer nud planner for the water, wnslewater. and storm drainage periions of Iht base-expansion master plan, IlS. A~my Caps of Engineers, Seattle Dish ice, Ihban Studies Plan for Melr~olitan Spokm~ Waler Resources, FIoi~ ~mhol m~d Wa~lewalcs M~ag~l. Dlrec(~ Ihb major study and pIon fi)r the Spokane River basin, which involved Metropolitan Spokane and the urbanizod area of H~h Idaho. CiIy of Reno, Nevada Flood Coatsol and Biota Drainage Master Plan. Projccl hydroiDgist end fac#illes ds'$lgla engineer for develophag a comprehensive master p~n for flood control and sierra drainage for mehopolilnn Reno. Developed nilemotives for ~nveying Ihe Truckee River Ihtough Ihe cenlfal businc~ and casino d~lri~ of downtown R~o. Was incremental in identi~ing fea~blo sites in the drained ~a [~ ~od control r~c~oirs, which sub~q~nlly were used by the C~*,ps of Engineen. Also correctly idcntifi~ the back waite effects of lite Visit Roof in the lower d~ tinago m ca. SoulIt Tacoma 8lorn Drainagc !mpmmdmcnl and Sccnic Lake I.)esign, Tacmna, WashingIon. Designed · sierrawater retention and flood control basin and pumping sialiDa. Designed Ihcse facililics as a landsc~ing amenity for mt adjaceni mci.o~ial pa~k. Pullman Airport Terminal, Palhaan WashingIon. l.)esiRned silo improvements for n new terminal baildanK. Designed an aisciMt packing tamp. storm drainoRe, vehicle parking, ulilillcs, and a landscape Irrigation syslcm. P~ojecl manager for special Slutties and consultation to the hvinc Ranch Water I)istri¢l regarding rcgulalory order concerning lite hapacts of storsn-ln(hseed ~ elease.~ of rerlaimed waler IO Newport Bay, California. Maimshah Air Face Base, (3~cal Falls, MenIaea. I'~cl)mcd a biomass energy plm~ to blend densi§ed wood waste fnels [~oduced in I.ivi.gston. Monla.a n. c~al-fircd boiler~ al Maimstrom, 1 Declaration of N/e~ael Brennan 2 ~, Michael Brennan, declare and state as follows: ~ 1. I havc a Bachclot of Scicnccs Dcgrc¢ in Biological 4 Sciences from the California State Polytechnic University and i 5 am presently completing a Masters Degree program at California 6 Polytecnic Pomona ill Fixe Ecology of Allu¥i~l Fmn S~e Sczub. 7 currently d., the lead biologist commissioned by the California 8 Depaz'%ment of Fish & Game to develop conservation and management 9 g~ideline~ for all remaining Alluvial Pan Sage Scrub in the 10 of California. ~ have exter~ive experience evaluating wildlife 11 and plant habitat and I nave ~peci~ic expertise in the Alluvial 12 Fan Sage Scrub habitat. 13 2. I have walked the boundaries of Tentative Tract 1~ No. 14TT1 which ~ unders%and is proposed for tract home 15 deve!o~ment. The statements made herein are in support of Cucamongans Unified for Reasonable Expansion's ("CURE") opposition ~o that development without an updated and appropriate environmental i~pact study. The statements made herein are of my personal knowledge and, if called as a witness, I would and could testify to the truth thereof. 3. In my opinion, the proper~y within Tentative Tract No. 14771 is prime habitat area to ~upport a wide range of wildlife, including the California Gnatcatcher which is a federally listed endangered species. Additional, the subject property can support the San Diegc Horned Lizard and Plummer's Mariposa Lily. 4. Moreover, the subjec~ property and surrounding area is one cf the eight remainin9 and the ~econd lar~esL stand 19 2O 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 000000000 0670~/97 Nt~#: I of AFS$ in %he world and therefore its preGervation is critical. 2 In my opinion, the proposed development would cause substantial 3 environmental damage and substantially and avoidably injure and, ~ in fact, destroy wildlife and their habitat. 5 5. i have not had the opportunity to review the 6 biolugiuml ~uz've¥~ "~uppu~dly" conducted by the developer 7 because they are not available in the City of Rancho CuGamonga 8 isles and neither the California Department of ~lsh & Game or 9 U.S. Fish & Wildlife have been able to locate the report that the 10 developer claims to have ~iled. Without access to those surveys, 11 ~ ¢aru~ot determine whether they were conducted correctly using 12 valid scientific methods nor can I determine if the consultant ~3 conducting the survey was qualified to evaluate the unique 14 Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. I have reviewed correspondence from 15 Lauren Development dated April 16, 1997 concluding "tl%at the area of the site degraded by the berm, swale and excess dirt dredged from the swale covers over 75 percent of the site. A~ a result, the property is largely disrupted with little (if any) left in its natural condition. Former water courses, both those immediately at the base of the berm in the swale and those draining into it, no longer ~unction due to the presence of =he near deer creek charunel to the east." 6. I disauree with these conclusion based upon my personal observations. First, virtually 99 percent of the ~ite has regenerated to a mature Alluvlal Fan Sage Scrub community. Tkis is indicated Dy the presence of sccd!ing rccruitmcnt of chaparral species such as Chemise (Adenostome fasciculatum), Birchleaf Mountain Mahogany {Cercocarpus betuloides, Ceanouhus 1 crassifolius, and, most importantly, the presence of mtuze 2 plants of scalebroom (Lepidospartum ~quamatum). I also diuagree 3 that the part of Deer Creek Wash running through the proposed ~ development "no longer functions" There is fresh alluvial 5 deposit of sand in addition to the pre~enu, of broom baccharis, 5 both of which are characteristic of functioning intermitrant 7 water courses. 8 7. At the time of the ~n~tial study checklist for the 9 negative declaration in the late 1980s, the property may not have 1~ had mature alluvial growth as it appears that the site was graded 11 in the mid-1980s. The character of the vegetation on the 12 property appears to have significantly changed since that ~ime 13 and now supports a wide range of species and plant life. These 14 changed circumstances necessitate the development of an actual 15 environmental impact study to assess alternative pro3ects and to identify mitigation measurers to a~propriately reduce the impact to plants and wildlife and their habitat. 8. ! am prepared to show slides and to testify on 5hess issues at the June 11, 1997 hearing if permitted by the Planning Co,lesion. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed at Rancho Cucamonga, California, on June 8, 1997. HAVEN VIEW ESTATES HOME SIZES Source of Existing Home Data: Rancho Cucamonga Dept. of Bldg. 8,: Safety 8 7 6 2 EXISTING HOMES (55) LDI HOMES UNEXPANDED (40) LDI HOMES EXPANDED (40) HAVEN VIEW ESTATES Summary of Existing Home Sizes Communi_ty Consists of 243 Lots: 55 Homes ~ 148 Vacant Lots ~ 40 Subject Lots Footage~ Street Address ~ Name First Name 2,456 5083 Bramble Ct. Knatcher JoAnne 2,530 5079 Granada Ct. Johnson Oregory L. & Shelley M 2,538 5069 Bramble Ct. Ellis Tony J. & Victoria A- 2,832 4972 Clover P1. Hazegh Hassram H. & Mastenah 2,915 4946 Clover P1. Kreiahecler Douglas A- & Chanuaine 3,141 5087 Granada Ct. Hahn Allen L. & Brace Ann 3,146 5068 Calypso Ct. Brewer Linda Sue M. 3,203 4925 Calico (2t. Zadick James W. & Paula E. 3,221 4945 Clover P1. Johnson Dwayne L. & Ingeborg M 3,300 5041 Calypso Ct. Ytmanez Joseph V. & Yolanda 3,405 4993 Ginger Ct. McKeith Malissa H. 3,409 4903 Cactus Fiorenza Anthony J. & Cheil 3,460 4987 Ginger Ct. Hawkins William E. 3,500 4999 Ginger Ct. Wyant Timothy A- & Katherine 3,523 4926 Cactus Carey Wayne S. & Debra J. 3,550 4975 Ginger Ct. Martel Gilbert A- & Sarah J. 3,568 5096 Granada Ct. Hiu~ins Kevin M. & Michelle W. 3,654 5075 Calypso Ct. Chao David 3,675 5087 Calypso Ct. Bellanca Ter~ M. & Debra J. 3,679 4951 Cactus Kruggel Earle E. & Patricia A. 3,703 5078 Granada Ct. Resar Timothy E. & Kathleen 3,741 5061 Calypso Ct. Wiedeman Delvin J. & Kimberly A 3,774 5088 Granada Ct. Kumra Arvind & Lynne 3,790 4947 Calico Ct. Maldonado Ernest M. & Mary J. 3,836 5029 Bramble Ct. Gupta Hari M. & Sneh Lata 3,900 4942 Cactus Seguy Albert G. & Joyce A. 3,924 5105 Equine P1. Say Joe 4,086 11045 Ranch Dr. Estupinian Mark C. & Dee A- 4,150 10978 Carriage Dr. Orvananos Leo J. Jr. & Shirley K 4,208 10951 Carriage Dr. West Brian & Kathie 4,393 5067 Granada Ct. Stophen Joseph H. & Maxine C. 4,665 4981 Ginger Ct. Salazar Rueben & Gelza 4,710 5066 Granada Ct. Bradford Thomas W. & Marilyn S. 4,766 4971 Clover P1. ARC Investment Cap 4,886 4907 Calico Ct. Althaus Lauren B. and Kanm C. 4,935 5096 Calypso Ct. Santuci Ralph Jr. & Irene A. 5,034 10991 Stallion Way Pacific West Land Development Inc. 5,231 4928 Clover P1. Crchs Raymond L & Sally A. 5,300 5097 Granada Ct. Young Jon R. & Priscilla A. 5,367 10885 Carriage Dr. Reias Ronald & Elizabeth 5,278 5108 Equine PI. Jenkins Kevin&Gretchen 5,278 5119 Lipizzan PI. Dub Leonard & Kao, Dior Y. 5,348 5074 Equine P1. Cribson Bruce & Susan 5,348 5050 Equine PI. Gaglio Jack G. & Laura A. 5,376 5129 Lipizzan PI. Gallade Alfred & Sonia 5,482 5092 Equine PI. Jung Hae-Chang & Pyung-Woo 5,482 5109 Lipizzan PI. Morris Leslie L. & Millie L. 5,482 5139 Lipizzan PI. Gaddis Dr. Otis Jr. & Gail P. 5,509 5122 Equine PI. Cantarero Robert & Nilda M. 5,608 5149 Lipizzan PI. Wronowicz Joseph J. & Margarct M 5,662 5159 Lipizzan PI. Okoye Christian E. 5,722 5091 Equine PI. Todd Allen & Joy A- 5,736 4998 Cringer Ct. Navarro Alfonso V. & Corazon S 5,804 5009 Bramble CL Ferteira Narcie & Mary R. 6,737 10817 Carriage Dr. Diaz Ricardo P..MD & Wiima 4,086 Median Square Feet 4.107 Sq. Ft. Average Size Home Proposed I~ Lauren Development, Inc. 3,000 Sq. Ft. Minimum Size Home Allowed per RCV/HVE Commumly CC&R's Completed 12 of Planned 37 Home Tract Developed by JCC Homes in 1990 LOT # LOT AREA SQ.FT. 50 29,871 51 23,317 52 53 54 21,166 55 56 105 106 107 108 22,91 r 109 110 24,219 111 21,048 112 20,208 113 20,045 114 20,005 115 20,125 116 21,915 HAVENVIEW ESTATES LOT INFORMATION PLAN BLDG.AREA SQ.FT H2 5,295 G1 5,482 LOT PRICE PRICE INCL. HOUSE &LOT SOLD SOLD K 5,376 D2 5,890 G2 5,482 J2 5,278 G1 5,482 J3 5,278 J2 5,278 G 1 5,482 J 1 5,278 SOLD SOLD SOLD SOLD SOLD SOLD SOLD SOLD Due to a comlnulug program of design and prcv. luct hnprovetnents, developer reserves the right to change features, designs, materials, prices and terms without prior notice or obligation. *Square fo~)tages are approximate and should be verified by the buyer. LOT # LOT AREA SQ.FT. 32 22,934 33 21,209 34 24,196 35 29,200 36 31,352 37 37,937 38 39 24,367 40 22,342 41 21,385 42 20,509 43 23,137 44 22,078 45* 20,647 46 20,002 47 48 22,663 49 HAVENVIEW ESTATES LOT INFORM/ .TION PLAN BLDG.AREA H2 5,295 J2 5,278 H 1 5,222 F1 5,376 E2 5,660 F2 5,348 G2 5,482 F2 5,348 J3 5,278 GI 5,482 E1 5,376 F1 5,376 G2 5,482 J1 5,278 F2 5,348 LOT PRICE SOLD SOLD SOLD SOLD SOLD SOLD PRICE INCL. HOUSE &LOT Due to a continuing program of design and product improvements, developer reserves the right to change features, designs, materials, prices and terms without prior notice or obligalion. *Square footages are. approximate and should be. verified by the buyer. TRACT Q E TACKSTEM DR. ~ WILSON AVE, FOOTHILL BLVD. NORTH RANCHO CUCAMONGA 10 FW¥ ~//C/N/TY MAP [ ] I ] HAVENVIEW E STATES '.' ~ 2~ ~ :~" ;~ ~.:z~.. ~. ,~: ~:y '.,..~.:~...' ~>._.~ ,' ~..~+~ ~..~ With the panoramic San Bernardino mountains as a backdrop, Havenview Estates beckons you to experience a level of spaciousness, privacy and luxury, you never thought Affordable. With carefully detailed 5 bedroom single family homes providing up to 5,500 square feet living space & the choice of 13 exciting and splendid exterior designs all on over 1/2 acre lots - the choice is yours. A wealth of amenities include a dramatic two story entry, wood burning fireplaces, large family room, raised-panel wood entry doors, .textured ceilings, central air conditioning, and oversized tubs in master bedroom suites. PRESENTED BY J.C.C. DEVELOPMENT JACK POWER (714) 945-5922 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: June 11, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Thomas Grahn, Associate Planner DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT - A review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 1074-351-10 and 1074-541-21. SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site is currently vacant with an average slope of 5.9 percent, although some portions reach a 10 percent slope. A man-made levee for flood control purposes is located along the southern side of the site, north of Ringstem Drive and Tackstem Street. The site is bordered on the north by a Los Angeles Bureau of Power and Light easement, on the east by Flood Control District land, and on the south and west by Tract 12332-2 (Haven View Estates) which is partially constructed. Haven View Estates is a gate guarded community developed with custom and semi-custom homes and private streets. The project site is located on a remainder parcel in the northeast portion of the gated community (see Exhibit "A"). ANALYSIS: Background: Tract 14771 was approved by the Planning Commission on November 14, 1990. That approval included a 40-1or subdivision of the project site (see Exhibit "B") and proposed grading (see Exhibit "D"). General: The project is subject to the requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations and as such was designed to minimize the amount of grading (see Exhibit "C"). The design includes split level pads with multilevel breaks ranging from 36-inches to 78-inches between the garage floor and interior levels of the first floor. There are essentially six different floor plans; Plans 1 and 2 have side-slope elevations, while Plans 3 and 4 have both side-slope and uphill-slope elevations (see Exhibit "G"). Floor plans range in size from 3,127 to 4,307 square feet. These floor plans have three elevation alternatives that include French Country, Spanish Colonial, and Italian Tuscan that when used on the six different floor plans will result in eleven different houses being constructed on the 40 lots. L I TEr,'I A PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT DR 97-11 - LAUREN DEV. June 11, 1997 Page 2 Go Do The exhibits attached to this report contain the two Grading Plans associated with this project. Exhibit "D" contains the Grading Plan previously approved by the Planning Commission and Exhibit "C" contains Grading Plan proposed for the current project. Proposed grading is in substantial conformance with the originally approved grading plan and was designed to minimize the amount of grading associated with the proposed project and maintain the contour characteristics of the existing topography. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Bethel, Macias, Coleman) reviewed the project on May 20, 1997, and recommended approval subject to the following: A maximum of 13 lots should have front-on garages. There are currently 16 lots with front-on garages, therefore, 3 lots should be revised to a side-on garage condition or with the garage placed toward the rear of the structure. 2. Door and window stucco surrounds shall be provided on all elevations. 3. Provide additional multi-pane window treatments to accent the side and rear elevations. Neighborhood Meeting: Representatives from the two Homeowners Associations within Haven View Estates were present at the May 20, 1997, Design Review Committee meeting. These representatives were given the opportunity to comment on the project and raised issues such as: neighborhood compatibility, garage orientation, garage appearance, view of structure from the street, and unit square footage. On May 27, 1997, a Neighborhood Meeting was held in the Rains Room at City Hall. Notices for this meeting were mailed out by Euclid Management Company who manage the two existing homeowners associations within Haven View Estates. Notices were mailed out on May 21, 1997, and the meeting scheduled for May 27, to provide community awareness of the project and afford the applicant the opportunity to make any necessary design modifications prior to the Planning Commission meeting. The neighborhood meeting was attended by 3 representatives of the project applicant, a Planning Division representative, and 11 persons representing eight separate parcels (see Exhibit "1"). The following issues were identified: percentage of front facing garage doors, providing additional massing to reduce vertical elements, use of optional design elements (e.g., porte-cochere), building square footage, unit cost, providing additional exterior materials (e.g., stone, brick, metal railings), providing as much architectural variation as possible to create compatibility with the surrounding development, and providing an additional elevation alternative on the single story elevation. Following the Neighborhood Meeting the applicant indicated their willingness to modify their project based upon staff suggestions, Design Review Committee comments, and comments from the adjacent Homeowners Associations (see Exhibit "J"). The following modifications are proposed: door and window surrounds on all elevations, additional multi-pane windows, reducing the number of front-on garages, reducing the number of Plan 3 homes, providing a second elevation alternative for the Plan 1, reducing the number of optional elements (e.g., making the Plan 3 portal mandatory), and providing additional color schemes. PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT DR 97-11 - LAUREN DEV. June 11, 1997 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Development Review 97-11 through adoption of the attached Resolution. City Planner BB:TG: Attachments: Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit "A" Site Utilization Map "B" Original Tract Map "C" - Detailed Site Plan/Grading Plan "D" - Original Grading Plan Approved for Tract 14771 "E" - Landscape Plan "F" - Potential Corral Pads "G" - Elevations "H" - Design Review Committee Comments "l" May 27, 1997 Neighborhood Meeting Sign-In Sheet Exhibit "J" May 29, 1997 Letter from Applicant Resolution of Approval Project: Title' 4-'2 lifo Exhibit: Date: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14771 Project: "~ ~1 ' ~ Exhibit: t~ll Date: ;! CITY OF RANOHO,¢UCAr,~ONGA · \~ z-tl '"'"'"'~'"~ Exhibit: ~ Date: (~(t~ l~!~__ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, GRADING PLAN TRACT 14771 CITY OF !?ANCHO,CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION ProjectL Title' U~ol Exhibit: I~'~ r*~,~.~ , CITY OF RANCHO CUC~MONGA GRADING PLAN ,- ~,~ ......... TRACT 14771 '~"::® -'-- :--.1,,~_~ Project~ '~ Title: Exhibit: a,~,~M ~,,~ Date:, (,(tt?J. Z 0 '~0 ~--.~....~:".~' Or, A~ : Project:. ~ ~"~" I~ Title: .~~. f/Ik'120 ~(Vb/1, Exhibit: ttpl'--Date: (/{1t[¢[1 CITY OF RANCHO,CUCAMONGA PLA!qNING DIVISIOti Project' Title: ~¢~f4~.~ ~'~ Exhibit: Date: SECTION A PLAN I SIDE SLOPE Project: Title: Exhibit: ~' [ Date . .~,~'.~ :'-:,' lilt .~ -JTIF-Jl-3] . ~L'--Jl-JOF~I-'J[-]L FRONT ELEVATION . 'i ;' ... j" "'" · ....,'J"'.~-~';.'.t"~. ~ ':' ........: '',.,. RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ..... LEFT SIDE ELEVATION FRENCH COUNTRY PLAN 1 SIDE SLOPE Project: Title: Exhibit: Date: I · PLAN 2 SIDE SECTION A SLOPE .ii.'"' .~!:=:~,. ~".::~:~f.:~ '~,, ~',: ~ i.~ ~ o~..:.~.-:.:~:?..~:, ~Z,; ~. j;:~::. OF FIA'NC.:BO~- :QUCAM O NG A PLAN I SiON ....... !:.~.,.::!~, '": ................. Project: '13g. Title: Exhibit: Date' FRONT ELEVATION ~ ...... FRONT OPTIONAL PORTE COCHERE REAR ELEVATION .-~-.I--~" .~I:)'11 Zjr I ~ I! RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION ~ .... Rl~ OPTIONAL Porte COCHERE SPANISH COLONIAL PLAN 2 SIDE SLOPE LEFT SIDE ELEVATION Project: Title: ~'L,~lx7k'11' 5i4,~ Exhibit: ~r~ Date: " .............'"'~.::~.w~~- -"~~:~ FRONT OPTIONAL PORTE COCHERE REAR ELEVATION RIOHT SIDE ELEVATION ~ ..... LEFT SIDE ELEVATION RIGHT OPTIONAL PORTE COCHERE ITALIAN TUSCAN PLAN 2 SIDE SLOPE Project: 12Iz- ql-' tk Title: ~-kL&~ d~? Exhibit: Date'. L SECTION PLAN 3 UPHILL Project' "~ Title: ~'I,~-kZ " " " Exhibit: ~ Date: FRONT ELEVATION ....... ST~ ~ ~ ~ -~~ ~ ~S --'S~CO ~XTm~ ~ ~ .~ vr x s- s~co ~ *~ RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION ~EAR ELEVATION ....... LEFT SIDE ELEVATION FRENCH COUNTRY PLAN 3 UPHILL Project: 1~Iz- ql"/~, Title: ~,t/E~'kf't¢R~ Exhibit: ~7 Date: RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ...... LEFT SIDE ELEVATION ITALIAN TUSCAN PLAN 3 UPHILL .F¢~.~.~.,~.;::~::~~. ~:;;;~:~"~ .-,..~ CITY OF RANCI40.CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION Project: "~'~ ql-tt Title: ~,~,~'.)~'k'l'q ~ Exhibit' Date' SECTION A PLAN 4 UPHILL Project: Title' ~'b~xW Exhibit: Date: El ~:~, ~...,...~ '~-,.;"~z.~::.':::~"-~., ~ ,%' .~: ~.~. ~.:'~.~,..?.'~c CITY OF RANCHO,CUC. AMONGA PLANNING Pf~/iSjON SECTION A PLAN 4 SIDE SLOPE Project: Title: Exhibit: ~ Date: ~ . '4,T_"O,, ~'~ · - · - · FRONT ELEVATION ~ .... ~ ~ .......... FRONT OPTIONAL PO.TE COCH[.E ~ ~ ~=~'/'~,,,:;' .~ ........... F~?~'~ ~'T ~ /~:~':~ ~ '-.~~.~ ' .~ ~,. ~ REAR ELEVATION =,~o.~ RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION ~ ..... LEFT SIDE ELEVATION ,~..~..'.<:..~ ........~' ~,:~'~... RIGHT OPTIONAL PORTE COCHERE SPANISH COLONIAL PLAN 4 SIDE SLOPE .:(" ~:::.'...~,. g.::~;i'.: '~, ~;:..,~;.!;.'.~. "::: '.b:..:.::::::.':.'.,~ :,.. ~ ~ ~..f:' ~'.--~, ?:.:..~;:.~. ~,~ ~.~.::~ CITY OF RANC!,IO,CLJCAI',IONGA PLANNING DIVISION Project: Title' ~"L,~>~ Exhibit: ~t Date: ~'~ ~, ~.., ~ .................. ~ ....... ' ": , - ~'~ ":' ''-"'1 .............. ~.~, ,~,.~~ Jl[~4111 ~~f~ .,, :'~' FRONT ELEVATION ~'"~" "~ ~ /--~- ~[- FRONT OPTIONAL PORTE COC~RE ~"~' ~ ..... ~7--~-~' ~ - -,~ ...... ~ ..........~ n ~- ~ ~, ~ - ..... . , ., ~ ,.. .., ... ...._.... ,~ ../~.~,,..~... ~ U.~ . . ... · .,}~.~.~--,. · . 5~ .~ ~ ~ , ~ . . . r REAR ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION RIGHT OPTIONAL PORTE COCHERE FRENCH COUNTRY PLAN 4 SIDE SLOPE LEFT SIDE ELEVATION Project: 12Iz. q'~.-U, Title: DL~'x'~'N1R ~l'~ f"'7 " Exhibit: ~l~ Date' FRONT ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION ..... . :,-;~: ,. ,: ..... .............. ,- c~,. -,-. _ ~3;~,-.~..~ .... . · , ..... . ' :s~l~ ~" ~ ~; ..... ~ ... =.. ~ ....:.: .. ~ ~, ,..~,~_.~ ~i..-: ......~,,'~'~-,.~..:~~ ~-, · '&~' ~ ~ ............. ' ~l~l~ REAR ELEVATION ...... LEFT SIDE ELEVATION SPANISH COLONIAL PLAN 4 UPHILL Project: "PG ql-t\ Title' ~'b~'z~k~ dt'~ p; Exhibit: ~l~ Date: . FRONT ELEVATION ~ ~" ~IGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ...... FRENCH COUNTRY PLAN 4 UPHILL LEFT SIDE ELEVATION Project: 'l?'E-. fi'~.-I~, Title' ~'),,E'/'"z'k,51' o~p2 Exhibit: ~ Date: 6:40 p.m. Tom Grahn May 20, 1997 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT- A review of the detailed Site Plan and building elevations for Tract 14771, donsisting of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 1074-351-10 and 1074-541-21. Ba.c.kground: Tract 14771 was originally approved by the Planning Commission on November 14, 1990. The project site is currently vacant with an average slope of 5.9 percent, although some portions reach a 10 percent slope. A man-made levee for flood control purposes is located along the southern side of the site, north of Ringstem Drive and Tackstem Street. The site is bordered on the north by a Los Angeles Bureau of Power and Light easement, on the east by Flood Control District land, and on the south and west by Tract 12332-2 (Haven View Estates) which is partially constructed. Haven View Estates is a gate guarded community developed with custom and semi-custom homes and private streets. The project site is located on a remainder parcel in the northeast portion of the gated community. Design Parameters: The project is subject to the requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations and as such was designed to minimize the amount of grading. The design includes split level pads with multilevel breaks ranging from 36-inches to 78-inches between the garage floor to interior levels of the first floor. There are essentially six different floor plans; plans ! hhd 2 have side-slope elevations, while plans 3 and 4 have both side-slope and uphill-slope elevations. The floor plans range in size from 3,127 to 4,307 square feet. These floor plans have three elevation alternatives that include French Country, Spanish Colonial, and Italian Tuscan that when used on the 6 different floor plans will result in 1 I different houses being constructed on the 40 lots. Elevations were not provided for the Plan 3 side-slope elevation because of the design similarity to the Plan 3 uphill-slope elevation. Staff Comments: The folloxving comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The folloxving broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. Conditions of Approval for Tract 14771 (Resolution 90-138) identify that a maximum of 33 percent of the lots shall be front-on garages. There are 40 lots within the tract and therefore a maximum of 13 lots may have front-on garages. There are currently 16 lots designed with front- on garages, therefore 3 lots shall be revised to a non front-on garage condition. The applicant has chosen a design alternative that technically results in a garage door that fronts- on to the street on an additional 17 lots. The Plan 2 and 4 side-slope elevations provide a garage located to the rear of the house, from 38 to 46 feet behind the front elevation of the house, and situated behind an optional porte-cochere. It is staffs opinion that these are not front-on garage elevations and would not be subject to the previously identified condition of approval. Secondarv Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. Lots 23 and 39 do not meet the front setback requirement. Project' Title: Exhibit: Date' DRC COMMENTS DR 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT May 20, 1997 Page 2 2. Lot 1 does not meet the ~:omer side yard setback for the porte-cochere. 3. Provide door and window stucco surrounds on all elevations. Provide additional multi-pane window treatments to the side and rear elevations. Staff Recom menclarion: Staff recommends that the Committee for~vard the project to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Public Comments: Bruce Ann Hahn felt that the proposed design was not compatible with the neighborhood for the following reasons: Floor plans are too small and garage doors are facing the street. Bill Angel expressed concerns that side slope front elevations were too narrow as viewed from the street. He also stated that some of the side elevations should be redesigned to break-up the flat two-story vertical plane. He opposed the proposed houses because they did n6t't~11 the width of the lot. Design Revie~v Commit-tee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Tom Grahn The Design Review Committee felt the proposed project presented a "custom home" feel in the architecture and generous setbacks. The Committee noted only a small number of homes have been built within this large neighborhood. The proposed floor plan sizes were deemed appropriate. The Committee noted that the majority of garage doors do not face the street and, in those situations where they face the street, the garage is typically set back 38 to 46 feet behind the front of the house behind an optional porte-cochere. The Committee recommended approval subject to the following: A maximum of 13 lots should have front-on garages. There are currently 16 lots with front-on garages; therefore, three lots shall be revised to a side-on garage condition or with the garage placed towards the rear of the structure. 2. Door and window stucco surrounds shall be provided on all elevations. 3. Provide additional multi-pane window treatments to accent the side and rear elevations. Project' '~, , Exhibit: Ill LAUREN DEVELOPMENT INC. May 29, 1997 RECEIVED Mr. Thomas Grahn Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca-91729 MAY 2 1997 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division Re: DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION- TRACT 14771 Dear Mr. Grahn: Enclosed are the 8.5" x 11" PMT's which you requested. I would like to take this opportunity to summarize revis. ions made to our plans since their original submittal and to propose three additional measures which will further benefit the project. These revisions resulted from suggestions proposed by staff, the design review committee and the three meetings at which the Haven View Estates homeowners were present. Window & Door Surrounds: We agree with the city's and the homeowner's recommendation to add additional surrounds around all windows and doors. Multi-pane Windows: We agree with the city's recommendation to add additional multi- pane windows to the homes. Front Facing Garage Lots: We agree with the city's recommendation to change the homes on three lots to non-front facing garages. The resulting change to the plot plan brings the project into conformity with the 33% condition referenced in the Conditions of Approval. Reduction in Number of Plan Three Homes: Concerns were raised by the neighbors about the number of Plan Threes and there reception by the public. Although we feel confident that this plan will be well received by the public, we have elected to reduced the number of Plan Three homes from twelve to nine homes replacing them with two of the larger Plan Fours and one Plan Two. This re-plotting of larger homes is in response to the homeowner's request to increase overall project square footage. The average of all units is now 3,988 square feet (outward appearance, optional interior areas expanded) while the median size of the existing Haven View Estates home is 4,086 square feet, a difference of only 98 square feet. Project: 42¢-. Title: Exhibit: Date: Second Elevation for the Plan One: Although we currently propose to construct only four of these homes, we will agree to the neighbors' request that we provide another elevation for this plan. This new elevation would of course be subject to Planning approval prior to submittal to Building & Safety. The new Plan One elevation we are considering will have a side entry garage. This design would not only satisfy the neighbors concern for additional diversity, but it could farther reduce the number of lots with front facing garages. Making the Portal on the Plan Three Mandatory: We believe the home is very attractive with or without the portal. In fact, this home was designed without it and it was added to create diversity among the plans. However, at our meetings with the neighbors, they felt that this optional item should be made standard. Although we will agree to include this portal as a standard element wherever setbacks allow, it should be noted that the inclusion of the portal as a standard feature, as well as the deletion of three of these plans, will decrease the diversity available. Increasing Diversity With Four Additional Color Schemes: With the addition of the Plan One change, this project we will have six floor pl.ans, twelve elevations and 12 exterior color schemes. Add to this the extensive list of customizing elements available for both interior and exterior enhancement and we are quite confident that no two homes will be alike. However, to offset the changes made to the Plan Three and to address the concerns of the neighbors to add additional diversity, we would like to add 4 more color schemes. Two of these color schemes would employ brick veneers and two would employ stone veneers. The total available exterior color/material treatments would therefore increase to 16. Of course, these new color schemes would be subject to Planning approval. If you wish to make these last three items additional conditions of approval, that is acceptable to US. Very truly yours, John L. Allday 11030 Arrow Route, Suite 102 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 97-11 FOR TRACT NO. 14771, A REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR 40 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 25.35 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE AND NORTH OF RINGSTEM DRIVE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074-351-10 AND 1074-541-21. A. Recitals. 1. Lauren Development has filed an application for the Design Review of Tract No. 14771, 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 11th day of June 1997, 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 substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on June 11, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. That the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs I and 2 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. /],5/ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-11 (TRACT 14771)-LAUREN June 11,1997 Page 2 Planning Division 1) A maximum of 13 lots shall have front-on garages. The remaining lots shall have either a side-on garage condition or with the front facing garage placed towards the rear of the structure. 2) Door and window stucco surrounds shall be provided on all elevations. 3) Provide additional multi-pane window treatments to accent the side and rear elevations. 4) The developer shall provide each prospective buyer with written notice of the cross lot drainage condition, in standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 5) The slope along the south side of Lot 5, adjacent to Tackstem Street, and along the south side of Lot 26, adjacent to Ringstem Drive, shall be terraced in conformance with the Hillside Development Regulations. Terraced walls shall not exceed 3 feet in height and shall be separated by a minimum of 3 feet and appropriate landscaping. 6) All applicable conditions from Resolution No. 90-137 and 90-138 shall apply. Enqineering Division 1) Driveways on corner lots 15 and 26 shall be located at least 50 feet from the intersection BCR, or the maximum distance allowed by the lot size, to minimize conflicts between vehicles turning right and those backing out of driveways. 2) A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated cost of operating all street lights during the first six months of operation, prior to building permit issuance or approval of the Final Map, whichever occurs first. 3) All applicable conditions from Resolution No. 90-137 and 90-138 shall apply. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-11(TRACT 14771)-LAUREN June 11,1997 Page 3 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 1 lth day of June 1997 by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CON DITIONS PROJECT#: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: Development Review for Tract 14771 Development Review 97-11 Lauren Development East of Haven Avenue, north of Ringstem 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: Time Limits Completion Date Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. / / B. Site Development 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. / / 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. / / 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. / / 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. 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. / / SC - 5/97 Project No. 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. 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. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. o 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. C. Building Design 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. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment, detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. D. Landscaping A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in this case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. All private slopes of 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 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 DR 97-11 Coml)letion Date / / / / / / / / / / / I / / SC-5~7 2 Project No. 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. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 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. 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. 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. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 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. Environmental 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. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the AlquistoPriolo Special Studies Zone for the Cucamonga Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: F. Site Development The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. DR 97-11 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 5/97 3 Project No. 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. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 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. G. Grading 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. 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 POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: H. Building Numbering Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. DR 97-11 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 5/97 4 June 4, 1997 Mayor WLlliam J. Alexander Rancho Cucamonga City Hall 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91729 RECEIVED CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ADMINISTRATION JUN 0,9 199Z Dear Mayor Alexander: I am writing to ask for your help in opposing the construction of the 24 hour Texaco Service Station and drive-thru fast food restaurant being proposed for the South-West comer of Baseline and Milliken in Rancho Cucamonga. It has been proven that commercial enterprises of tl'ds kind bring with them undesirable elements such as an increase in traffic, noise, pollution and theft just to name a few. The Albertsons shopping center, just North on Milliken which contains a Mobil gas station has been plag-ued with problems starting after dark. The outlook is not good for our very quiet, peaceful neighborhood of 128 townhomes which will be primarily affected by the commotion and subsequent problems if this proposed project is allowed to proceed. Rancho Cucamonga prides itseft on being a forward looking city, but this proposal to destroy the sererdW of our neighborhood for a known problem causing enti ,t-y does not in any wa~,' speak well'of the sort of planning we want from elected officials. We have vacant land'in th~ city,' which is more appropriate for titis kind of enterprise. Let us leave our neighborhoods to the citizens and taxpayers of Rancho Cucamonga who value and take pride in their homes. We will be presenting a pet/t/on opposing this project at the June 11~h Planning Corrmzission Meet4ng. Sincerely, CC: Diane WilLiams, Mayor Pro Tem Paul Biane, Councfi Member James V. Curatalo, Council Member Rex Gutierrez, Council Member E. David Barker, Planning Commission Chair Robert Dutton, Rancho Cucamonga Corminfinity Foundation Chair Jack Lain, City Manager Rick Gomez, Community Development Director May 28, 1997 RECEIVED JUN 0 9 1997 Cily of Rancho Cucarnonga Planning Div. is!on I am writJ_ng to ask for your help in opposing the construction ot the 24 hour Texaco Service Station and drive-thru fast food restaurant being proposed for the South-West comer of BaseLine and Milliken in Rancho Cucamonga. It has been proven that commercial enterprises of this 'kind bring with them undesirable elements such as an increase in traffic, noise, pollution and theft just to name a few. The Albertsons shopping center, just North on Milliken which contains a Mobil gas station has been pla..maed with problems starting after dark. The outlook is not good for our very, quiet.. peaceful neighborhood of 128 townhomes which will be primarily affected by the commotion and subsequent problems ff this proposed project is allowed to proceed. Rancho Cucamonga prides itself on being a forward looking city, but this proposal to destroy the sererdw of our neighborhood for a 'known problem causing enPitv does not in any way speak we12 of the sort of planning we want from elected off~cials..We have vacant land in the city wh_ich is more appropriate for this kind of enterprise. Let us leave our neighborhoods to the citizens and taxpayers of Rancho Cucamonga who value and take pride in their homes. TO: PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PO BOX 807 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIF. 91729 FROM: GORDON AND KllvlBERLY LA HUE 7301 BELPINE PLACE # 3 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIF 91730 DATE: YU'NE 8, 1997 REF: PROPOSED GAS STATION, DRIVE THRU FAST FOOD RESTAURANT, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MLLIKEN AND BASELINE APN: 1077-672-37. WE ARE EXTREMELY OPPOSED TO THIS SITUATION. WE ARE ORIGINAL RESIDENTS OF WILLOW PARK TOWNHOMES AND HAVE BEEN SHOWN MAPS AND PROPOSALS FROM LEWIS BEFORE 5VE PURCHASED OUR HOME, STATING AND CLEARLY SHOWING THIS PIECE OF LAND IN QUESTION TO BE THE SITE OF FUT- URE OFFICE PARK. WE WOULD NEVER HAVE PURCHASED OUR HOME IN WILLOW PARK IF WE HAD KNOWN THAT THERE WOULD BE A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT, GAS STATION TO BE BUILT ON THIS SITE IN QUESTION. ALSO...NOT STATED IN THE NOTICE FROM YOU BUT, STATED TO US IN A MEETING WITH TEXACO ,LEWIS AND US, IS TH]EIR INTENTION TO ALSO INCLUDE A MINI MART SELLING ALCOHOL. TFIE NUISANCE AND THE SAFETY INFRINGMENT UPON US IS TOTALLY UNFAIR WE ARE EXTREMELY CONCERNED FOR THE INCREASED RISK FORCED UPON US BY A FACLLITY ATTRACTING CUSTOMERS THAT WILL PURCHASE LIQUOR AT ALL HOURS AND CHEAP 24 HOUR FAST FOOD DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL AREA. IT IS OUR OBSERVATION THAT NOWHERE ELSE IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA OR ANY CITY FOR THAT MATTER IS THERE A GAS STATION DIRECT- LY ADJACENT TO A RESIDENCE...DO YOU? THIS IS CLEARLY A PIECE OF LAND THAT IS IDEAL FOR A COMfiMUNITY MINDED COMMODITY THAT IS WELL BLEND- ED TO THE PEACEFUL RESIDENTIAL TRACT NEXT TO IT. TH~ CITY IF IT FEELS THE NEED FOR YET ANOTHER GAS STATION, FAST FOOD, MINI MART FACILITY, WOULD BE BETTER SERVED BY LOCATING IT ON FOOTHILL BLVD AWAY FROM HOMES!!!...WE WILL DEFINITELY MOVE FROM OUT OF THE CITY, AND DO OUR SHOPPING OUTSIDE OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA IF THIS OR ANY LIKE FACILITY IS ESTABLISHED ON THIS CORNER. SINCERELY, P.S. WE WERE CONTEMPLATING PUCH~SING ANOTHER HOME IN THE TERRA VISTA AREA AND STOPPED AT LEWIS OFFICE IN APRIL TO GET THE TRACT MAPS OF FUTURE BUILDING AND IT AS RECENTLY AS APRIL 19997 SHOWS AN OFFICE PARK ON THIS CORNER, NOT A LIQUOR SELLING GAS STATION, FAST FOOD FACILITY! June 10, 1997 City Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 RE: Permit 96-27 Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. Comer of Baseline and Millikin RECEIVED JUN 10/997 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division The construction of a Texaco gas station at the corner of Millikin and Baseline will cause irreparable harm to Willow Park homeowners. Property values, which have decreased drastically in the last few years will ph]mmet even further. Homeowners, who are presently enjoying a very modest increase in property values, will be faced with the reality that their property will never be worth the debt owed on the property. If the property does not increase in value, many homeowners may elect to simply let the property go back to the mortgage company. If this happens, the homeowner association will not be able to collect association fees sn~fficient to maintain the property. Additionally, actions may be filed against Lewis Homes. From day one, Lewis Homes has represented to the original homeowners that only a professional office complex would be built on the location wkich Texaco wants to purchase. This representation was paramount in many homeowners decision to purchase. Now, when they experience a turn down in business Lewis Homes intends to totally disregard its covenants with the homeowners. If such representations are construed as condition precedent to purchase, each homeowner may well have the right to invalidate their contract for purchase. It is not the intent of the homeowner to invalidate their contracts. To the contrary, except for the decline in property values which has taken place over the last few years, the homeowners are, in general, delighted with the complex. However, most homeowners are not in a financial position to withstand another decrease in property values. Make no mistake about it, an all night gas station, mini-mart and fast food facility only a few feet ~om ones front door, will surely deter any prospective buyer. Once the Texaco station is built each and every homeowner in Willow Park will have lost the majority of their initial investment. In some cases, the largest investment a family may ever make, or a retirement for which one worked 20-30 years. In either event, there will be no way for the residents at Willow Park to recover ~om the harm this proposed Texaco station will inflict. Finally, the consequences of the project should be no surprise. If such a project worked to enhance adjoining property, the owners of Lewis homes would build the Texaco station within a few feet of their personal residences. ' -----'Jerry Adams 7331 Belpine #30 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 cc: Willow Park Homeowners Association Crime Mitiffation Measures · Lighting Levels to Current City Standards · Window Visibility/Cash Register Visibility · Parking Lot/Gas Pump Visibility from Cash Register · Limiting Window Displays, Racks, Advertisements to a Maximum of 15% of Window Coverage · Drop Safe/Timed Access Control Register · Exterior Pay Phones Programmed for Outgoing Calls Only · No Exterior Bathroom Access · No Coin Operated Games Limit Size and Regulate Lighting of Trash Enclosures Mandate the Posting of No Loitering Signs Require and Annual Review by the Planning Commission for Possible Modification of Conditions if CUP Required Use of Closed Circuit Television Cameras and Monitors Reference: Santa Ana Police Department APPLICANT'S VOLUNTARILY SUGGESTED CONDITIONS ON PARAMETERS OF OPERATIONAL AUTHORITY Applicant voluntarily agrees to limit the parameters of his operation as follows: 1. The issuance of a use permit shall be subject to periodic review. 2. Alcoholic beverage sales shall be limited to beer and wine only with no hard or malt liquor sold; The site operator and employees will be required to attend, participate and successfully complete training program which will include and is not limited to training segments on safety, accident prevention, robbery deterrence, personal safety responsible tobacco retailing, loitering, deterrence, effective alcohol management, facility maintenance and litter control. All facility personnel will be required to participate in quarterly reviews. 4. The hours of sale of beer and wine shall be limited so that no sales occur before 6:00 a.m. or after 2:00 a.m. daily; 5. Applicant shall post signage at food mart precluding consumption of alcohol beverages on site precluding loitering. Applicant shall post signs at the food man in compliance with any and all municipal codes notifying the public in both in English and predominant second language in the area with regard to open containers. 7. Exterior advertising shall comply with all local sign ordinances and there will be no advertising indications of the availability of alcoholic beverages; 8. There will be no beer and wine advertisement located on the motor fuel island. 9. No fortified wines shall be sold; 10. No ice in quantities of less than 2 pounds shall be sold, furnished or given away; except for ice dispensed at the soda fountains 1 I. No beer and wine will be displayed within five feet of the cash register or the front door. 12. No beer or wine display will be made from an ice tub; 13. No sale of beer and wine will be made from a drive-in window; 14. No self illuminating advertising for beer and wine shall be located on the building or windows; 15. Employees on duty between 7:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. who sell beer and wine shall be at least 21 years of age; 16. There will be no coin operated amusement devices or video games on the premises; 17. Applicant will secure the premise with appropriate security lighting and employee scrutiny of the adjacent areas under which lighting under the control of applicant shall be directed in such a manner so as not to unreasonably interfere with the quiet enjoyment of nearby residence. Applicant shall further provide adequate lighting visible to identify and actions of all persons entering or exiting the premise; 18. The applicant shall maintain a free of litter all areas of the premise under which applicant has control; 19. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises shall be removed or painted over within 72 hours of the discovery thereof: 20. A sign will be posted in the window to identify that the cash register contains $50.00 or less in cash and the drop safe is not accessible to the employee; 21. There shall be no sale or rental of any adult magazines, videos, tapes, discs or fills at this location; 22. The public restroom will be available for public use while the food mart is open for business; 23. The food mart is equipped with security cameras that are capable of receiving an image on film or tape that can be made a permanent record and that can be enlarged through projection or other means. Cameras will be maintained in proper working order at all times and shall be subject to periodic inspection by the local police department. 24. All improvements on the property will be continuously maintained, including repairs to structures and replacement of dead or diseased plant material. 25. Signs and curb painting shall be utilized on site to encourage parking in designated parking area.s; :B&Wcond May 26, 1997 Dear Planning Commission Board Member: I, a Homeowner/Tenant, of Willow Park Homeowners Association, disap~ro_~ve of the proposed construction of the Texaco gas.station located on Milliken Avenue and Baseline Road. NAME ADDRESS NAME 20) 21) 22) 23) 24) 25) 26) 27) 28) 29) 30) ADDRESS May 26, 1997 Dear Planning Commission Board Member: I, a Homeowner/Tenant, of Willow Park Homeowners Association, disapprove of the proposed construction of the Texaco gas.station located on Milliken Avenue and Baseline Road. NAME ADDRESS 14) 26) 27) 28) 29) 30) ADDRESS May 26, 1997 Dear Planning Commission Board Member: I, a Homeowner/Tenant, of Willow Park Homeowners Association, disapprove of the proposed construction of the Texaco gas ~station located on Milliken Avenue and Baseline Road. NAME 2) ~C%~ D~C~ ~H ADDRESS ADDRESS ///~8 7~,~,~ ~/:Z~ . ~. CO~ ~ ~6~ C~ ?~73o May 26, 1997 Dear Planning Commission Board Member: I, a Homeowner/Tenant, of Willow Park Homeowners Association, disapprove of the proposed construction of the Texaco gas.station located on Milliken Avenue and Baseline Road. NAME ADDRESS NAME 18) 19) 20) 21) 22) 23) 24) 25) 26) 27) 28) 29) 30) ADDRESS ADDENDUm..-? OFFER 10 PURCHASE AItD DEPOS]~ RECEIPT (No. A) Page ! of 4 This Addendum is hereby 'made Dart of the Offer to Purchase and Deposit Receipt date ",' ..,'as the Buyer and Lewis Homes of California, as the Seller. It is mutually AGREED and UNDERSTDDD between BUYER and SELLER as follows: ]. Buyer unders.Lands that a final grading inspection and subsequent certification by the design Civil Enoineer, which is required bY the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and in some instances b~ the Veterans Administration, will be made on the subject lot; that it will be graded substantially in accordance with the grading plan approved by said City, and except for grading to achieve a level "pad area" on which to construct the house, grading will include any swales, slopes, and berms as described and shown on the plot and grading plan for the subject tract. 2. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has established a Street Lighting MaintenancP District and a Landscape Maintenance District for the area which includes this Subdivision. The cost of maintaining the districts is on the property tax bill of each homeowner within the District. The rate has 'been set by the City for the 1987-1988 tax year at $138.27 for single family dwellings. This rate is subject to change annually. The Terra Vista Community Plan is subject to revision due to changing economic, social, and governmental conditions, and other considerations, and, therefore, this Community Plan.and'any facility in or adjacent to Terra Vista is subject to change or deletion without notice by Lewis Homes or by public authorities. Such circumstances may have already resultedwin changes te the Con~unity Plan and Lewis Homes shall not be obligated to construct or install any facility or improvement shown therein. 4. Buyer agrees to walk over the entire area of subject lot prior to close of escrow and review the..planned or existing locations of the swales, slopes, berms, and easements reserved for utilities and drainage. 5. Buyer has received and read a copy of the Declarations of Restrictions for subject tract which has been recorded in the official records of the County of San Bernardino, and Buyer clearly understands all of the conditions thereof. 6. The Foothill Fire Protection District has created a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District which encompasses most of the Terra Vista Planned Community and other developing areas in or near Rancho Cucamonga. Special taxes will be levied annually on all developed properties within the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District to pay for fire protection facilities and services. lhe special tax on each unit is currently $44.00 per year. The special tax may be adjusted annually for changes in the cost of living; however, the maximum special tax for each unit is $80.00 per year. : Effective 04/21/89 SALESH:14150 Addendums-! Lot 7. ADDENDU~ ~ OFFER TO. PURCHASE AND DEPOSI ,ECEIPT (No. A) Page 2 of 4 Tract 14150, Rancho Cucamonga, California Date ~~ The attached map will give you an idea of how the neighborhood in which you are purchasing a home presently is proposed to be developed. It is based on information available as of February 9, 1989, and represents one concept for future development. This information is very tentative, and may be changed substantially. We make no representation that development will take place as shown and assume no responsibility for errors or omissions in this map. We are merely providing this to let you know wi~at tile current thinking is. We reserve the right to make changes in the proposed land use, street pattern, or type, style, or price of buildings to be constructed. Buyer is purchasing a lot in a planned community which will include many different land uses and types of development. Adjacent and nearby properties may be developed for uses different from the Buyer's property inc)udtng such uses as apartments, condominiums, co,~ercial businesses, public utility facilities, schools, churches, and other uses other than single family residential development. Buyer has been informed of proposed uses of adjoining properties but acknowledges that these uses are tentative only and subject to change without notice to Buyer. Buyer has been specifically informed by Seller that business entities affiliated with Seller intend, but are not obligated, to develop and operate certain con~nercial projects within the portion of the Terra Vista Planned Conillunity bounded by Haven Avenue, Church Street, Milliken Avenue, and Foothill Boulevard, including but not limited to: a. A business park,'"'expected to include both office-type uses and light industrial uses; b. Two (2) office par~; c. A community shopping center; and d. Miscellaneous other commercial developments. Buyer has had ample opportunity to seek and obtain any additional information relating to the above-described commercial projects which Buyer deems necessary or material to Buyer's decision to enter into this Agreement, and, based upon such information, Buyer agrees not to oppose approval by any local government agency of any said projects. The Terra Vista Planned Community is intended to be developed over a period of years. The rate of development is unknown. As a consequence of development, Buyer acknowledges ti~at he will be exposed to inconvtences relative to traffic conditions, noise, and dust, which are associated with normal construction activities. Over time, the Planned Con~nunity and virtually all surrounding areas are intended to be developed into an urban environment rather than remai. ning in open space. Buyer acknowledges that this development will result in more traffic, noise, drainage runoff, and demand for public services, and may affect views, as well as air, water, temperature, light, and other conditions. ~ Effective 04/21/89 SALESH:14150 Addendums-2 Lot r ADDENDU~,"g OFFER TO PURCHASE AND DEPOS] '-'iECEIPT (No. A) Page 3 of 4 Tract 14150, Rancho Cucamonga, California Date 10. The project of which this home is a part adjoins the right-of-way of Milliken · Avenue. Milliken ~venue is eventually to be constructed as a six-lane divided major arterial highway which will be able to carry traffic characteristic of highly urbanized settings, and will affect noise levels as well as other aspects of the neighborhood environment. 11. Terra Vista is located in a portion of San Bernardino County that occasionally is subject to high "Santa Ana" wind conditions which may cause blowing dust and sand. Although Seller shall act reasonably with respect to the maintenance of its remaining property in surrounding areas, Buyer acknowledges that due to such wtnd conditions, it is not always possible to prevent dust and sand from being blown from Seller's property onto Buyer's property. 12. Seller has reserved a blanket easement upon, across, through, and under the common areas for ingress, egress, installation, replacement, repair, ~nd maintenance of all utility and service lines and systems including, but not limited to, water, sewer, gas, telephones, electricity, television, cable, and/or communication lines and systems, 13. Parking of all vehicles is prohibited on the interior streets of this project. Parking is permitted in designated parking areas only. 14. Tract 14150 was formerly known as tract 1327], and some of the previously prepared disclosure documents. may still bear the old tract number. APPROVED AND AGREE~ ~0: By: uB-~-~?~ By: This acceptance cannot be signed by a salesperson. All Lots. Effective 04/21/89 SALESH:14150 Addendums-3 PRESENTED BY: GREAT WESTERN REAL ESTATE ACCEPTED AND AGREED ~0: LEWIS HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, a partnership Seller By: ,fi-"~-f ~uthorlzed Agent/Dat~ ,/, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: June 11,1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Thomas Grahn, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-27 - TEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING, INC. - A request to develop a service station, drive-thru fast food restaurant, and canopy totaling 7,672 square feet on 1.1 acres of land,~ and a master plan of the surrounding 1.9 acres of land, in the Office Park Distdct of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 1077-672-37. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: East - West - Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Vacant; Park Site of the Terra Vista Community Plan South - Existing town home units; Medium Density Residential District (8-14 units per acre) of the Terra Vista Community Plan Central Park Plaza; Neighborhood Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan Existing town home units; Medium Density Residential District (8-14 units per acre) of the Terra Vista Community Plan So General Plan Designations: Project Site - Neighborhood Commercial North Park South Medium Residential East Neighborhood Commercial West Medium Residential Site Characteristics: The project site is vacant and vegetation consists of grass and weeds. The site slopes gently to the south at an approximate 2.6 percent slope. The site is bounded by Base Line Road to the north, Milliken Avenue to the east, and existing 2-story town homes to the south and west. A Terra Vista Community gateway sign currently exists on the project site. ITEM B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-27 June 11,1997 Page 2 D. Parking Calculations: Number of Numberof Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Service Station 2,515 1/250 10 10 Fast Food Restaurant 1,125 1/75 15 15 Out-door Patio Area 300 1/100 3 3 TOTAL 28 28 ANALYSIS: General: The proposed project includes a combination Texaco Star Mart and Del Taco drive- thru restaurant building totaling 3,864 square feet and a freestanding service station canopy totaling 3,808 square feet (see Exhibit "B"). The Texaco/Del Taco building is located adjacent to Base Line Road, with both business operations having pedestrian access from the south. Texaco will occupy the east side of the building and Del Taco will occupy the west side. The Del Taco drive-thru aisle wraps around the east, north, and west sides of the building with the product pick-up window located along the west elevation. The drive-thru aisle will be screened from Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue through a combination of berming and landscaping (see Exhibit "D"). A patio area is proposed to the west of the building and drive- thru aisle. The specifics of patio furniture have not been reviewed and conditions of approval require City Planner approval prior to its installation. The project was designed to provide some architectural compatibility with Central Park Plaza, a shopping center located directly east of the project site. Proposed architectural elements provided with this project include variation in building mass, proportion, and scale; stucco finish; tile wainscot; tile accents; cornice details; precast columns; trellis elements; and large store front windows (see Exhibit "F"). The Design Review Committee determined that the proposed project exhibited a level of architectural treatment and detailing significant enough to establish a specific theme for the future master planned area and did not recommend any additions or deletions to proposed architectural elements. The proposed project is subject to the provisions of Resolution 88-96 which establishes specific development standards for drive-thru facilities. The resolution identifies certain concerns that include compatibility of use, circulation, and visual and aesthetic appearance requirements that must be addressed in the project design, except when the project is located within a shopping center or master plan. The Design Review Committee determined that because the project is located within a master planned commercial development, the minimum area and building setback requirements of Resolution 88-96 should not be applicable. The proposed project includes a total of 3 acres which will be subdivided into 2 parcels through Tentative Parcel Map 14001. The project site totals .1 acre and includes the proposed Texaco Star Mart and Del Taco restaurant. The remaining parcel contains 1.9 acres and is master planned for future development (see Exhibit "E"). PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-27 June 11, 1997 Page 3 Design Review Committee: On April 15, 1997, the Design Review Committee (Bethel, Macias, Coleman) reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to the following: Revise the north elevation to provide greater movement in the building plane by providing a pop-out element, similar to the west elevation, and flank the projection with a lattice cover. The Committee determined that the overall concept and level of architectural treatment and detailing on this building are sufficient to establish a specific theme for the remainder of the project site. 3. Two additional precast column elements shall be provided on the west elevation. 4. Delete the red band around the base of the canopy element. Trees shall be installed with Phase 1 along the interior perimeter of the project site, adjacent to the existing residences, to assist in screening and buffering those residences from the project site. 6. Provide shade trees south of the outdoor eating area. Add tile medallion insets to the north side of the entry tower. Redraw the elevations to show a consistent height on the entry tower. O: Technical Review and Grading Committees: The Technical Review and Grading Committees reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to the conditions contained in the attached Resolution. Environmental Assessment: In completing the Initial Study, staff determined that there would not be a significant adverse impact upon the environment from this project. Issuance of a Negative Declaration is recommended. FACTS FOR FINDING: Before approving a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission shall make certain findings that the circumstances prescribed below do apply: That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code and the Terra Vista Community Plan, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Go That the use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Terra Vista Community Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-27 June 11,1997 Page 4 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. A letter was received from an adjacent homeowner stating her objection to the proposed project (see Exhibit "1"). RECQMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:TG: Attachments: Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map "B" - Detailed Site Plan "C" - Grading Plan "D" - Landscape Plan "E" - Master Plan "F" - Building Elevations "G" April 15, 1997 Design Review Committee Comments "H" Initial Study Exhibit 'T' Letter of Opposition Resolution of Approval Project: Title: ~JcP Exhibit: t~/~,~t Date: CITY OF RANCHO,.CUCAMONGA PLAN N IN.~:'~D.I..VISIO N i Project' Title: ~~ ~/~ Exhibit: "'I~'" Date:~ ' ~{1l ~'--~-- .-< ~.; ,'~ ....~',~]4,.,-", CITY OF R~N.C.'.HO, ,,C. LIC, AMONGA PLANNING DIVISION Project: Title: Exhibit: ~t ('./i~t~' Date: MASTER PLAN COHCEP~UAL GRADING PLAN Project:, Title: Exhibit: \ \ BI'IN-~] A V N q-N I'l'111ft Project' Exhibit: ~'~1'~ ~ Date: ~iI~,~,'~ CITY OF IIANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION Project: ~(~' ~[(~' ~-~ Title: ~--I~. ~'l?e ~'~¢c~ ...... tt~_ I~ ~ /. ~xnlDIt: Vg Date: ~[11[~ S33Vd5 ~§ :a](]LAOIJd ONl~¥d JS 001,'9 CITY OF RANOHO,CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION Title: ~ ¢¢4'lf'6v' Exhibit: "P j' Date' Jll I SOUTH ELEVATION 'A' EA~LEVATION~'~_' IIII /1111 IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII Illllll / <> ,,,,,,I, - II IIIIIIL I -' 1 I I~ ... ~., o,,,,,~ ~,,,,,,~ KEY ~ ~.. ..~.:~ CITY OF R, ~I ~,~AMONGA PLAN~I~ Project: Title: Exhibit: tl ~.lt~ Date: ~c~",,,c'~HIIIIlll~ltUll~lllllm~l~liittiliiiltt!l 11111FIItltHIi ~l~1ttl!!!!~1ttllliitllllNtlllllttllllllllllllll NORTH ELEVATION 'G' Project: (JJ.~' qO- '?-'~ Title: Exhibit: ~ ~'q.-' t Date: / © / ~ ® CITY OF Project: , Title: ~a~. I~)1/~ ' . Exhibit: '~'~" Date: ~!tt.~l DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:30 p.m. Tom Grahn April 15, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-27 - TEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING - A request to develop a service station, drive-thru fast food restaurant, and canopy totaling 7,672 square feet on 1.1 acres of land, and a master plan of the surrounding 1.9 acres of land, in the Office Park District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the southwest comer of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 1077-672-37. D~sign Parameters: The project site is currently vacant. The site is bounded by Base Line Road to the north, Milliken Avenue to the east, and existing 2-story town homes (Tract 13271) to the west and south. A Terra Vista Community gateway sign currently exists on the project site. The project site includes a total of 3 acres which will be subdivided into 2 parcels. The project site (Parcel No. 1) is 1.1 acres and includes the proposed Texaco service station and Del Taco restaurant. The remaining parcel (Parcel No. 2) contains 1.9 acres and includes a master plan for future development. The project design includes a combination Texaco Star Mart and Del Taco drive thru restaurant building totaling 3,864 square feet and a service station canopy totaling 3,808 square feet. Staff Comments: The following comments are intencied to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion re~arding this project: The Texaco/Del Taco building will be the first development of this center and the building design and will establish the architectural program for the remainder of the master planned area. The applicant has indicated an intent to match the architectural treatment and detailing of the Central Park Plaz~ shopping center, located directly east of the project site. Therefore, it is important that the project design exhibit a level of architectural treatment and detailing to establish a specific theme for this development. This is not to say that the building design should follow the same architectural style as the Central Park Plaza, only to resemble its materials, messing, proportion, and scale. The project design currently contains a parapet and flat roof designs. All buildings within the Central Park Plaza incorporate a tile roof with both hip and gable designs, however, there are flat roof tower elements throughout the project site. The proposed project should be revised to more closely resemble the roof messing and materials of the Central Park Plaza. The applicant will be providing pictures of the Central Park Plaza indicating architectural elements that will be incorporated into the Master Plan for this project to establish design standards for this vroiect. Project: Title: Exhibit: DRC COMMENTS CUP 96-27 - TEXACO April 15, 1997 Page 2 Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Provide additional precast column elements to the west elevation (see attached exhibit). Landscaping should be installed along the interior perimeter of the project site, adjacent to the existing residences, to assist in screening and buffering the project site. This landscape buffer should be a minimum of 15 to 20 feet wide and should include clusters of tree plantings, shrubs, and ground cover. The plant species, planting and density, and size of plant materials (trees, shrubs, and ground cover, etc.) will be conditioned to comply with City standards. Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: The Sign Ordinance identifies a maximum of 3 s. igns for any 1 business. The elevations identify Del Taco signage on both monument signs and the west and south building elevations. This signage should be revised to comply with City requirements. The elevations of the canopy include a red band around the base of the canopy element. The red band constitutes signage and should be deleted from the elevation. The proposed project is subject to the provisions of Resolution 88-96 which identifies development standards for drive-thin facilities. That resolution identifies certain setback and minimum area requirements that must be addressed except when the project is located within a shopping center or Master Plan. Because the project site is located on vacant land and only utilizes a portion of the project site the entire site was master planned to address its future development. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be redesigned and returned for review by the Design Review Committee. Attachment Members Present: Staff Planner: Design Review Committee Action: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman Tom Grahn . DRC COMMENTS CUP 96-27 - TEXACO April 15, 1997 Page 3 The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the following: Revise the north elevation to provide greater movement in the building plane. By providing a pop-out element, similar to the west elevation, and flank the projection with the lattice cover, (see attached sketchs). The Committee determined that the overall concept and level of architectural treatment and detailing on this building are sufficient to establish a specific theme for the remainder of the project site. Two additional precast column elements shall be provided on the west elevation. Delete the red band around of the base of the canopy element. Trees shall be installed with Phase I along the interior perimeter of the project site, adjacent to the existing residences, to assist in screening and buffering those residences from the project site. Provide shade trees south of the outdoor eating area. Add tile medallion insets to north side of entry tower. Redraw elevations to show consistent height on entry tower. ® ® ® .... ~---I IOI I IJ[ I,~! ACC[SS I~'X)ll x-T--- m~r:mrrr~mmmmrT I?iil-illil~Jl-F[l[[il':i~"z/--I!-'~Z"F' ............. ,11 III .... J I, Iil ,'~-x' [ .. ? " ' /' A~'1001~[I) ALUI~I DItI'~ 11111U --~ / '~11 tOO~ II1_¥0111i - - lOP or pA~-Iiii,IiJ [IAIIll.(~,[ $I[[I. CO~JIII[IIIOP ,/4>'/- 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.: CUP 96-27 & PM 14001 Public Review Period Closes: June 11, 1997 Project Name: Project Applicant: Texaco Refining and Marketing Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 1077-672-37 Project Description: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-27 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14001 - A subdivision of 3.5 acres of land into 2 parcels and a request to develop a service station, drive-thru fast food restaurant, and canopy totaling 7,672 square feet on 1.1 acres of land and a master plan of the surrounding 1.9 acres of land in the Office Park District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 1077-672-37. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment, ff adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. June 11, 1997 Date of Determination EXHIBIT "H" Adopted By I:tTOM~CEQA\CUP96-27.PT2 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND Project File: Conditional Use Permit 96-27 Tentative Parcel Map 14001 Description of Project: A request to develop a service station, drive-thru fast food restaurant, and canopy totaling 7,672 square feet on 1.1 acres of land, a master plan of the surrounding 1.9 acres of land, and the subdivision of 3 acres into 2 parcels. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. 3631 Harbor Boulevard Santa Aria, CA 92704 General Plan Designation: Neighborhood Commercial Zoning: Office Park District of the Terra Vista Community Plan Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: To the north is the site of the future Central Park, to the east is an existing commercial center, to the south and west are existing townhomes. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Contact Person and Phone Number: Thomas Grahn, Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 Other agencies whose approval is required: South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health Services (DEHS) Initial Study for Conditional Use Permit 96-27 City of Rancho Cucamonga 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 ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Geological Problems (~') Water (v') Air Quality (v') Transportation/Circulation ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (v') Hazards (v') Noise (v') Mandatory Findings of Significance ( ) Public Services ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (v') Aesthetics ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Recreation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (v') I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. () Signed: I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. T1omas Grahn Associate Planner May 19, 1997 Initial Study for Conditional Use Permit 96-27 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. o Issues and Supporting Information Sources: LAND a) b) c) d) Potentially Signif'mant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignificantMitigation SignificantNo Impact IncorporatedImpact Impact USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.' Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Issues and Supporting Inforelation Sources: POPULATION AND HOUSING. a) b) Polentially Significenl Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than S~gnificantMibgation SignificantNo Impact IncorporatedImpact Iml:,act c) Would the proposal: Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) () ( ) (v') Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Impact GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) Potentially Sign~..ant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigatio~ Significant Incor'~3ratedImpact No Impact () () (¢) () () (¢) Initial Study for Conditional Use Permit 96-27 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: c) d) e) 0 g) h) i) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Seiche hazards? Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Subsidence of the land? Expansive soils? Unique geologic or physical features? Potentially Signif"mant Impact () () () Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorl~rated () () () Than SignificentNo Impa~ Impact () (v') () (,/) () (,/) () () () (¢) () () () (¢) () () () (¢) () () () (¢) Issues and Supporting Infonmation Sources: WATER. a) b) c) d) e) g) h) i) Potentially Signdicant Impact Will the proposal result in: Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) 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? ( ) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mibgation lncorporaled () () () () () () () () () Less Than Significant Impacl (~/) () () () () () () () () No Impact () (¢) (v') (,/) (v') (v,) (v') (,/) Initial Study for Conditional Use Permit 96-27 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5 Comments: a) Adoption of the proposed project will increase the amount of paved surface area which could result in a decrease in absorption rates and an increase in the amount of surface water runoff. All runoff will be conveyed to existing drainage facilities which were designed to handle the subject water flows generated from the project site. No mitigation is required. Issues and Supporting Informatic~ Sources: AIR QUALITY. a) b) c) d) Potentially S ignif~,a nt Impact Less Potentially Unless Than S~gnificant Mitigation Significant No Iml~act In¢o~orated Impact Impact Would the proposal.' Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) Comments: b-d) With the proposed development of a service station and drive-thru fast food restaurant adjacent to existing residential and commercial land uses, the air quality impacts from this development upon the residential development to the west and south are critical. The project will generate vehicle trips and potentially emit pollutants into the atmosphere and alter air movements in the micro environment. Permits will be required by the AQMD and DEHS for any uses that would potentially create any pollutants or other objectionable odors. The proposed project must also meet state and federal standards for emissions of gas, fumes, odors, etc. No mitigation is required. Issues end Supporting Information Sources: Potentially SignScant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impa~ Impact TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) () (v') Initial Study for Conditional Use Permit 96-27 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6 Issues and SuppoSing Information Sources: d) e) 0 g) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Rail or air traffic impacts? Polentially Significant Impact () () Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant IncorporatedImpact () () () () No Impact (14 (i,,) () () () (¢) () () () (¢) Comments: a) The project will be constructed outside any public rights-of-way, will not interfere with such transportation system components, and will be designed to meet all applicable rights-of-way improvements. The project will generate additional vehicular movement in a localized area. The City's General Plan EIR and Terra Vista Community Plan EIR address the short-term and long-term cumulative impacts of traffic upon these streets. Based on this information, the proposed project has no potential to alter the present pattern of circulation. No mitigation is required. Issues and Support~r~g Information Sources: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. result in impacts to.' a) b) c) d) e) Would the proposal Potentially SignScant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignificantMiligation SignificantNo Impact IncorporatedImpact Impact Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v") Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Initial Study for Conditional Use Permit 96-27 am Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. proposal: a) b) c) Would the Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 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? Potentially Significant Impact City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7 Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant InooGx~ated Impact No Imp~.,"t ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') () () () (~) ( ) ( ) ( ) (v,) Issues and Supporting Info,'marion Sources: Potentially Signif*man[ Impact Pomnt~ally S~nificent Impact Less Unless Than Mitigatio~'~Significant IncorporatedImpact No Impact HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? () () (¢) () b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? () () () (v) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? () () (v) () d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? () () () (v) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? () () () (~) Comments: a&c) The project will be regulated by, and required to obtain permits from, the AQMD and DEHS. Operation of the facility must meet all state and federal standards for air emission and public safety. No mitigation is required. 10. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: NOISE, Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? Potentially Significant Impact Less PotenliallyUnless Than SignificantMitigation SignificantNo Impact IncorporatedImpact Impact () () (~) () Initial Study for Conditional Use Permit 96-27 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant IncorporatedImpact No Impact () () () (~) Comments: a) Noise reduction and insulation features must achieve compliance with the maximum exterior noise levels for the adjoining residential areas which is 55 d.b.a. during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and 60 d.b.a. during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Maximum residential interior noise levels are 40 d.b.a./45 d.b.a. The applicant prepared a Noise Study to address exterior noise levels within the project and exterior/interior noise levels within the adjoining residential neighborhoods. The Noise Study concludes that the project will not adversely impact the adjoining residential areas as a result of a distance separation, on-site buildings, and the existing 6-foot high perimeter wall. Based on this information, the proposed project will not impact the adjacent residential areas. No mitigation is required. 11. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: 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) b) c) d) e) Fire protection? ( ) Police protection? ( ) Schools? ( ) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) Other governmental services? ( ) Potentially Significanl Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than S~gn[ficantMitigation S~gnificantNo Impact IncorporatedImpact Impact () () (v) () () (¢) () () (¢) () () (¢) () () (~) 12. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Signrficant Imoact 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? ( ) Potenhally Significant Impact Less Unless Than M~tlgalion Signlficanl IncorporatedImpact No Impact () () (¢) () () (¢) Initial Study for Conditional Use Permit 96-27 Issues and Supporling Information Sources: c) d) e) O g) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? Local or regional water supplies? Potentially Significant Impact City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9 Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significanl Incorporated Impact Impact () () () (v) () () () (~) () () () (~) () () () (~) () () () (v) 13. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) b) c) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Create light or glare? Potentially Significant Impact () () () Potentially Signify. an t Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant No lncocporated Impact Impact () () (~) () () (~) () (~) () Comments: c) The project site is site located within an urbanizing area which has no light sensitive uses. The only outdoor lighting associated with the project will be for security purposes or to illuminate entrances and parking areas. This type of lighting is common to the project area, including existing commercial areas to the east as well as residential areas to the south and west, and will not significantly alter the present condition or result in significant adverse impacts. Light fixtures will be designed to comply with City Standards. No mitigation is required. 14. Issues and Supporting Infon-nation Sources: CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical or cultural resources? Potentially Significanl Impact Less Potentially Unless Than SignScant Mitigation Signifyant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact () () () (¢) () () () (¢) () () () (¢) Initial Study for Conditional Use Permit 96-27 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 10 Issues and Supporling Information Sources: d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant Incon3oratedImpact No Impact () () () () () () (¢) 15. Potentially Issues and Suppo~.ing Information Sources: Significant Impact RECREATION. Would the proposal.' a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant IncorporatedImpact No Impact () () (¢) () () (¢) 16. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant Impact b) c) d) 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? ( ) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? ( ) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( ) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact Lass Untess Than Mibgalion Significant IncorporatedImpact No Impact () () (¢) () () (¢) () (~) () () () (¢) Initial Study for Conditional Use Permit 96-27 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 11 Comments: c) The proposed project will pay development impact fees established by the City, the rates of which have been designed to mitigate the potential impacts to fire protection services, police protection services, parks or other recreational facilities, and other governmental services to a level of non-significance. To the extent the project may impact upon utility resources provided by private utility companies, potential impacts upon such resources will be mitigated by the payment of rates and charges to these companies. 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): (v,) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) Terra Vista Planned Community EIR (SCH #81082808, certified February 16, 1983) TexacolStarmart Noise Study (Prepared May 8, 1997) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would OCCUr. IC'~"'*"~"'"~ ate: /A~ 'Z.~ ~. RECEIVED MAY ~ 2 19~7 City Of Rancfio Cucamonga Planning Divisio~ TEXACO / STARMART BASELINE RD. AT MILLIKEN AVE. NOISE STUDY Rancho Cucamonga, California D A 8 E-J.--I'N~. ~OAD :.. :i RKJK ~'03[RT KAHN- JOHN K~IN RKJK ROBERT KAHN · IOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES INC. May 8, 1997 Mr. Richard Tait TAIT & ASSOCIATES, INC. P.O. Box 4429 800 N. Eckhoff Street Orange, CA 92613 Subject: Texaco/Starmart Southwest Corner of Baseline Road at Milliken Avenue City of Rancho Cucamonga Revised Acoustical Study (CUP 96-27) Dear Mr. Tait: ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (RKJK) is pleased to submit to TAIT & ASSOCIATES, INC. the attached revised noise study for the Texaco/Starmart located at the southwest corner of Baseline Road at Milliken Avenue noise study in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This study has been prepared to examine off-site noise impacts to the adjoining residential areas with the development of the proposed site. The attached report indicates that the proposed uses within the site will be compatible from an acoustical standpoint with the recommendations included in this report. Furthermore, the existing walls adjacent to the site will adequately protect the adjoining residential areas. RKJK is pleased to assist TAIT & ASSOCIATES, INC. on the Texaco/Starmart noise study project and look forward to working with you in the future. Robert Kah., P.E. ~,*~_ Z~ RK:kgd/6792 JN:491-97-001 Attachments !'R qxSPC)RTATI¢)N PU-\N xIX(; i j~S, _~ i'~)\F~':C '\COL:S1 ICAL ENGINEERING }6(11 D~):'e Street. Suite 2~0 · ".,~,,.,,p(~rt J~,ati'~. '-- · ah~me: ~-14~ 4-4-~1,?,()9 · Fax: 1-14) 4-4-0902 TEXACO/STARMART SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BASELINE ROAD AT MILLIKEN AVENUE NOISE STUDY RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA (REVISED) Prepared for: TAIT & ASSOCIATES, INC. P.O. Box ~.~.29 800 N. Eckhoff Street Orange, CA 92613 Prepared by: ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1601 Dove Street, Suite 290 Newport Beach, CA 92660 May 8, 1997 JN:491-97-001 RK:kgd/6792 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................... INTRODUCTION .......................................... NOISE STANDARDS ....................................... Noise Rating Scales ...................................... Community Noise Assessment Criteria ......................... NOISE MONITORING ...................................... Measurement Procedure and Criteria .......................... Measurement Results .................................... ON-SITE NOISE EXPOSURE ANALYSIS AND CONTROL ............... CONCLUSIONS .......................................... PAGE 4 6 6 8 10 10 12 14 18 APPENDICES .LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA .............................. GLOSSARY OF ACOUSTICAL TERMS ........................... NOISE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS ........................... A B C LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A B C D E PAGE LOCATION MAP ................................... 2 RECOMMENDED NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES ............ 3 SITE PLAN ....................................... 5 TYPICAL OUTDOOR COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVELS . . 7 NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS LOCATIONS ................... 11 LIST OF TABLES TABLE EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ................. 2 EXTERIOR NOISE IMPACTS AT THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL AREAS ................................ 3 INTERIOR NOISE IMPACTS AT THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL AREAS WINDOWS OPEN ................... 4 INTERIOR NOISE IMPACTS AT THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL AREAS WINDOWS CLOSED ................. PAGE 13 15 16 17 TEXACO/STARMART SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BASELINE ROAD AT MILLIKEN AVENUE NOISE STUDY RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY An acoustical analysis has been completed to determine the off-site noise impacts of the proposed Texaco/Starmart development to the adjacent residential community. The site is located at the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Baseline Road in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (shown in Exhibit A). The results of this analysis indicate that future noise generated at the Starmart, from the drive-thru and by fuel delivery trucks will be the primary sources of noise impacting the adjoining residential property. The site will not adversely impact the residential areas which are located to the south and west of the proposed development as a result of the existing noise barriers adjacent to the residential areas. 'The existing 6-foot wall will adequately mitigate noise from on-site vehicle operations, the drive-thru adjacent to the Starmart building and fuel deliveries to the Texaco station to shield the homes located in this area. It is recommended that fuel delivery trucks be scheduled between 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM. Project noise mitigation measures are shown in ExhibitB. Future development adjacent to the site will further buffer noise impacts to the residential areas. EXHIBIT A LOCATION MAP HIGHLAND AVE. ,,; ~ .< Z ~ .-J O SITE -->16 BASELINE RD. ~ · RKI, K 491-97--001:01A TEXACO/STA~MART- BASEMNE ED. AT MILLIKEN AVE:., Rancho Cuca ia I~0KXT ICAH# .JOHN ICNt( ~OCt~11~S Ik'C. 2 EXHIBIT B RECOMMENDED NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES D A 8 E L--I-N-~-~--"R-~--A-D TTPdO~ ~TYE~I I iq ! ~ . ? .:F 4.91-97--001 :OZA TEXACO/b'TARbLa,RT-- t~SA.~ill~J-'R~'"'"NO. AT MILLIKEN AVE... Rancho Cucam~i~. ~alifomia t0~:lL'T ~ · J01ai ~ I~ /,.~;~ATE~ INC 3 ....... INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of an off-site noise impact study for the Texaco/Starmart development located at the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue at Baseline Road in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The project would include a Texaco self-serve gas station located on the southerly side of the site and a Starmart convenience market with a drive-thru located along Baseline Road (see Exhibit C). Included in this report is a discussion of the off-site noise impacts and recommendations for control site generated noise impacts. The general location of the proposed project is shown on the location map (Exhibit A). The site plan and preliminary grading plans were prepared by TAIT & ASSOCIATES, INC.. The City of Rancho Cucamonga Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments is included in Appendix "A". The City of Rancho Cucamonga utilizes the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment as the basic criteria for determining land use compatibility with respect to noise impacts. The applicant will be required to comply with the following conditions: Noise reduction and insulation features must achieve compliance with the maximum exterior noise levels for the adjoining residential areas which is 55 dBA during the hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM and 60 dBA during the hours of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM. Maximum residential interior noise levels are 40 dBA/45 dBA. The applicant will be required to submit a noise study prepared by an acoustical engineer to address exterior noise within the project and exterior/interior noise within adjoining residential neighborhoods. 4 EXHIBIT C SITE PLAN B A · E L---!-N-E----R O A D 4,gl--97--001:03A T-r_XAC0/b-TARMART- BASELINE RD. AT MILUKEN A'VF_.., Rancho Cucamonga. California 5 RKJK NOISE STANDARDS The City of Rancho Cucamonga off-site noise impact standards which have been applied to this project are as follows: MAXIMUM OFF-S!TE NOISE IMPACTS {dBA) I TIME FRAME DAY EVENING OFF-SITE RESIDENTIAL AREA 7:00 AM TO 10:00 PM 10:00 PM TO 7:00 AM Exterior 60 55 Interior 45 40 These standards have been reviewed with respect to the potential noise impacts generated by the site. A glossary of acoustical terms is included in Appendix "B". Typical outdoor noise levels are shown in Exhibit D. Noise Rating Scales A number of noise rating scales are used in California for land use compatibility assessment. These scales are: the Equivalent Noise Level (LEQ), the Day Night Noise Level (LDN), and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). These scales are described in the following paragraphs: A-weighted decibels (dBA) are the most common units used for measuring the loudness of a noise event. The human ear has different sensitivity to different frequencies of sound (noise). A-weighting is an attempt to give the noise 6 EXHIBIT D TYPICAL OUTBOOR COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVELS CNEL IN DECIBELS 90~ 80m OUTDOOR LOCATION ALONG SIDE A BUSY FREEWAY 3/,:I- MILE FROM TOUCHDOWN AT MAJOR AIRPORT DOWNTOWN WITH SOME CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY URBAN HIGH DENSITY APARTMENT URBAN ROW HOUSING ON MAJOR AVENUE OLD URBAN RESIDENTIAL AREA WOODED RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL CROP LAND RURAL RESIDENTIAL WILDERNESS AMBIENT SOURCE: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, PROTECTIVE NOISE LEVELS. 491-97--001:05A TEXACO/STAAMART - BASELINE RD, AT MILLIKEN AVE., Roncho Cucamonga, Callfomia 7 RKJK ROBI~IT ~ ~HN ~ k aSSOC~AS'~:~ 17t~. monitor the same frequency sensitivity as the human ear. Technically, it is the measurement of the energy being received when listening to (or monitoring) a source of noise. For example, the loudness of a highway may be 65 dBA when measured 50 feet away. The sound decreases as one moves away from the source, and the same highway would have a noise level of 62 dBA at 100 feet. The relationship between how one perceives a sound and the actual sound energy emitted by the source of noise is very complex. However, a good rule of thumb is that if a noise increases 10 dBA, its apparent loudness will double. Therefore, a noise that is 70 dBA will appear twice as loud as a 60 dBA noise. The LEQ scale represents the energy average noise level over a sample period of time. It represents the decibel sound level that would contain the same amount of energy as a fluctuating sound level over the sample time period. The LDN scale represents a time weighted 24 hour average noise level based on the A-weighted decibel. Time weighted refers to the fact that noise occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. For the LDN scale the nighttime period (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) noises are penalized by 10 dBA. The CNEL scale is similar to the LDN scale except that it includes an additional 5 dBA penalty for the evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.). Community Noise Assessment Criteria In community noise assessment, changes in noise level greater than 3 dBA are often identified as significant, while changes less than 1 dBA will not be discernible to the human ear. In the range of 1 to 3 dBA, people who are very sensitive to noise may 8 perceive a slight change. No scientific evidence is available to support the use of 3 dBA as the significance threshold. In laboratory testing situations, humans are able to detect noise level changes of slightly less than 1 dBA. However, in a community situation, the noise exposure is extended over a long time period, and changes in noise levels occur over years rather than the immediate comparison made in a laboratory situation. Therefore, the level at which changes in community noise levels become discernible is likely to be some value greater than I dBA, but 3 dBA appears to be appropriate for most people. Typical outdoor noise levels in terms of the CNEL scale are presented in Exhibit D. 9 .... NOISE MONITORING Measurement Procedure and Criteria To determine the existing noise environment and to assess potential noise impacts upon the adjacent residential areas, noise measurements were taken at two (2) locations adjacent to the existing residential areas. Noise monitoring locations were selected based on where the future Texaco/Starmart facility would have its greatest impact to the adjoining residential areas. In this way, impacts from the site can be compared to existing ambient conditions. The location of the noise monitoring sites are shown in Exhibit E. Noise monitoring was conducted on April 30, 1997 (Wednesday) from 8:30 AM to 9:00 PM. The purpose of the noise monitoring was to review current noise levels in the vicinity of the site and adjacent residential areas. These short-term monitoring studies are typical for assessing existing ambient conditions at a site. The primary site generated noise will be from the operation of the Starmart drive-thru -and Texaco fuel delivery trucks. RKJK has previously measured: (1) drive-thru traffic/speaker noise; and (2) delivery trucks. Additional noise measurements were taken at the project site to assess the existing (ambient) noise conditions. The instrument used was a LARSON-DAVIS Model 700 precision integrating sound level meter, programmed, in "slow" mode, to record noise levels in "A" weighted form. The sound level meter was calibrated before and after the monitoring with a LARSON-DAVIS calibrator, Model CA 250. The sound level meter and microphone were mounted on a tripod, five feet above the ground and equipped with a wind screen during all measurements. The above instrument automatically calculates the "percent noise levels" (Ln) for any specific time period. 10 EXHIBIT E NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS LOCATIONS LEGEND~ NOISE MONITORING LOCATIONS 491 --g7--O01 :O4~ TF. XACO/STA~I,A-~'T -- BASE~LJNE FID. AT MILLIKEN AV~.;"'~dn'cho cu~am6ngo. l'l The percent noise level "Ln" is useful to evaluate intermittent noise sources. The percent noise level is the level exceeded "n" percent of the time during the measurement period. L9o is the noise level exceeded 90 percent of the time measured, commonly used to estimate the "ambient" noise level. L~o is the noise level exceeded 50 percent of the time measured and can be seen as the "average" noise level. L~o is the noise level exceeded 10 percent of the time measured, and represents the peak or intrusive noise level. Measurement Results The results of the noise level measurements are presented in Table 1. Each site was monitored for a minimum time period of 10 minutes. Based on the noise measurement results presented in Table 1, the project site currently experiences ambient noise levels of Leq = 53.4 to 54.9 dBA and a L,,,~ = 64.5 to 66.0 dBA during peak traffic conditions. These measurements were made approximately 10 feet outside of the residential walls. It is anticipated that these levels would be reduced by at least 5 dBA within the backyards of the adjoining homes. Noise levels from the drive-thru were based upon previous measurements by RKJK at a drive-thru facility. The drive-thru speaker phones and vehicles produced an Leq -- 60.6 dBA and a Lr,,x -- 67.6 dBA at 50 feet. While the drive-thru speaker phone was audible during the monitoring period, it was overshadowed from time to time by vehicular noise. Noise levels for fuel delivery trucks were based upon data collected by RKJK for delivery trucks. These noise impacts at the reference distance of 50 feet are shown in Table 1. 12 TABLE 1 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOISE LEVEL IdBA) Site 1 ~ 53.4 66.0 47.5 59.5 55.5 53.5 51.5 Site 22 54.9 64.5 49.0 60.5 57.5 55.5 53.5 Drive-thru2 60.6 67.6 57.0 66.0 62.5 60.5 59.5 Fuel Delivery Trucks2 63.9 68.5 68.5 68.5 68.0 65.0 62.5 As measured by ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. on 4/30/97 (8:00-9:00 AM). Measurement approximately 10 feet from outside of residential wall. Noise level at 50 feet. 13 ON-SITE NOISE EXPOSURE ANALYSIS AND CONTROL This section examines the potential off-site noise impacts from the Texaco/Starmart development to the adjoining residential area. There are currently existing residential uses located south and west of the proposed development. Also, there is a 6-foot masonry block wall which provides shielding between the proposed development and the existing residential uses. The existing residential uses consists of 1 and 2-story homes. Future development between the Texaco/Starmart site will further buffer noise impacts from the site. Based upon previous noise measurements of potential on-site noise generators, noise impacts have been determined for the adjacent areas. Noise calculation worksheets are included in Appendix "C". The attached Table 2 indicates the projected exterior noise impacts from the drive-thru and fuel delivery trucks to these areas. The City standard for the residential areas are also included in Table 2. Based upon the projected noise levels, the proposed project will not exceed the daytime or evening exterior standards. The existing 6-foot masonry block wall provides adequate noise mitigation for the site. The City conditions also require that the residential interior standards also be satisfied. Table 3 and 4 presents the anticipated interior noise projections as a result of the development of the site for both first and second floor residential units. For purposes of this analysis, both windows open (Table 3) and windows closed (Table 4) conditions have been evaluated. As shown in Table 3, the City noise standards can be achieved assuming a windows closed condition for first and second floor residential units. This is a reasonable assumption given the location of these homes which are impacted by both Baseline Road and Milliken Avenue. TABLE 2 EXTERIOR NOISE IMPACTS AT THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL AREAS RESIDENTIAL SITE LOCATION Site 1 Site 2 WITHOUT EXISTING RESIDENTIAL 6-FOOT WALL MAXIMUM OUTDOOR NOISE LEVEL {dBA) NOISE STANDARD DRIVE-THRU FUEL TRUCKS DAY NIGHT 49.9 59.0 60 55 53.3 57.9 60 55 RESIDENTIAL SITE LOCATION Site 1 Site 2 WITH EXISTING RESIDENTIAL 6-FOOT WALL MAXIMUM OUTDOOR NOISE LEVEL (dBA) NOISE STANDARD DRIVE-THRU FUEL TRUCKS DAY NIGHT 44.2 53.4 60 55 47.5 52.2 60 55 15 TABLE 3 INTERIOR NOISE IMPACTS AT THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL AREAS WINDOWS OPEN~ 1ST FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE STANDARD RESIDENTIAL DRIVE-THRU FUEL SITE LOCATION TRUCKS DAY NIGHT Site 1 32,6 41,6 45 40 Site 2 35,7 40,6 45 40 WINDOWS OPEN~ 2ND FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE STANDARD RESIDENTIAL DRIVE-THRU FUEL SITE LOCATION TRUCKS DAY NIGHT Site 1 37.5 46.6 45 40 Site 2 40,8 45,5 45 40 Interior noise impacts assume a minimum of 12 dBA noise reduction with windows open. 16 TABLE 4 INTERIOR NOISE IMPACTS AT THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL AREAS WINDOWS CLOSED~ 1ST FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE STANDARD RESIDENTIAL DRIVE-THRU FUEL SITE LOCATION TRUCKS DAY NIGHT Site 1 24,6 33.6 45 40 Site 2 27.7 32.6 45 40 WINDOWS CLOSEDr 2ND FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE STANDARD RESIDENTIAL DRIVE-THRU FUEL SITE LOCATION TRUCKS DAY NIGHT Site I 29.5 38.6 45 40 Site 2 32.8 37,5 45 40 Interior noise impacts assume a minimum of 12 dBA noise reduction with windows open, CONCLUSIONS An acoustical analysis has been completed for the Texaco/Starmart development. The analysis indicates that the future noise environment is expected to be dominated by traffic noise exposure from Milliken Avenue and Baseline Road. The primary sources of noise generated from the site to the adjoining residential areas will come from the Starmart drive-thru and fuel deliveries to the Texaco site. However, the existing 6- foot residential wall and future buildings adjacent to the site will adequately shield the existing residential development. The project will not adversely impact the adjoining residential areas to the south or west of the project as a result of a distance separation, on-site buildings and the existing 6-foot wall. In order to minimize noise impacts from the site, fuel delivery trucks should be scheduled between 7:00.AM and 10:00 PM. This analysis and this report comply with the applicable City of Rancho Cucamonga requirements for CUP 96-270. 18 ,:'ro~eot.:, Title: Exhibit: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-27 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SERVICE STATION, DRIVE-THRU FAST FOOD RESTAURANT, AND CANOPY TOTALING 7,672 SQUARE FEET ON 1.1 ACRES OF LAND, AND A MASTER PLAN OF THE SURROUNDING 1.9 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND MILLIKEN AVENUE IN THE OFFICE PARK DISTRICT OF THE TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-672-37. A. Recitals. 1. Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-27, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 11th day of June 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on June 11, 1997, 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 corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue with a street frontage of 352 feet along Base Line Road and 290 feet along Milliken Avenue and is presently vacant; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant park land, the property to the south and west consists of existing town homes, and the property to the east is the Central Park Plaza; and c. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and the Terra Vista Community Plan; and d. The design of the proposed project, together with the conditions of approval, meet all applicable provisions of the Development Code, Terra Vista Community Plan, and drive-thru policies; and environment. The development of the proposed project would not have a significant impact to the PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 96-27 - TEXACO June 11, 1997 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, furlher, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Division 1) This approval is for a 3,864 square foot service station/fast food drive- thru restaurant and a 3,808 square foot canopy. 2) Delete the red band around the base of the canopy element. 3) Increase the size of the canopy columns to a minimum width dimension of 24-inches. 4) Provide shade trees south of the outdoor eating area. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 96-27-TEXACO June 11,1997 Page 3 5) Place public phones, newspaper racks, vending machines, and similar types of coin-operated products inside the building or in a location acceptable to and approved by the City Planner prior to installation. Placement of this type of equipment, product, or service not in a location approved by the City Planner shall be required to be removed at the owner's expense. Exterior public phones shall be restricted to out-going calls. 6) Install a security camera of a type and number approved by the City Manager, or his designee. Said camera must be capable of producing a retrievable image on film or tape that can be made a permanent record and that can be enlarged through projection or other means. Cameras meeting the requirements of this section shall be maintained in a proper working order at all times and shall be subjected to periodic inspection by the City Manager, or his designee. 7) Light fixtures shall not project below the canopy. 8) The design of the transition, including pedestrian walkways and any drive aisles, adjacent to the unimproved areas to the south and west shall be subject to City Planner review and approval. 9) Trees shall be installed along the interior perimeter of the project site, adjacent to the existing residences, to assist in screening and buffering those residences from the project site. The trees shall be a minimum 15-gallon size and of sufficient quantity to assist in buffering the adjacent residences from the proposed project. These trees shall be planted in a location that will not require their removal upon the development of the master planned areas of the project site. The final design of the landscape buffer, including both tree species and quantity, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner. 10) Fuel delivery shall only occur during the hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 11) All lights and glare associated with the illumination of the parking lot, pedestrian areas, or the operation and illumination of signs shall be shielded or directed so as to not illuminate adjacent businesses or residences or cause glare to motorists. 12) Patio fumiture proposed for the out-door eating area shall be subject to review and approval by the City Planner. Engineering Division 1) Public improvements for the full length of both parcel frontages shall be completed with the first parcel to develop. 2) Sidewalks shall cross drive approaches at the zero curb face. Provide additional right-of-way as needed where the sidewalk wraps around the approach. Special pavers shall be located outside the public right-of-way. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 96-27 - TEXACO June 11, 1997 Page 4 3) Revise Drawings 1267 and 1265 or 1447 to reflect construction of the new drive approaches, right turn lane, and street trees, with cross references on related drawings to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 4) Existing public improvements not being relocated due to the installation of drive approaches and the Milliken Avenue right turn lane shall be protected in place, including traffic striping and signage. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I~, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 1 lth day of June 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CON DITIONS PROJECT#: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: Conditional Use Permit 96-27 Texaco/Del Taco Facility Texaco Refining & Marketing Southwest corner of Base Line Road & Milliken Avenue ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Time Limits Completion Date 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not / / issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. 2. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to the issuance of building permits when no map is __/__/__ involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. B. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Terra Vista 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. 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. SC-5~7 Co Project No. o 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. 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. 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. ~ A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 10. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. Shopping Centers The Master Plan is approved in concept only. Future development for (each building pad/parcel) shall be subject to separate Development/Design Review process for Planning Commission approval. Modifications to the Shopping Center Master Plan shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. A uniform hardscape and street furniture design including seating benches, trash receptacles, free-standing potted plants, bike racks, light bollards, etc., shall be utilized and be compatible with the architectural style. Detailed designs shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Provide for the following design features in each trash enclosure, to the satisfaction of the City Planner: a. Architecturally integrated into the design of the project. Separate pedestrian access that does not require the opening of the main doors and to include self-closing pedestrian doors. c. Large enough to accommodate two trash bins. CUP 96-27 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC-5~7 10. 11. 12. 13. Project No. d. Roll-up doors. e. Trash bins with counter-weighted lids. f. Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis. Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of the enclosure and designed to be hidden from view. Trash collection shall occur between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. only. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash and debris remain for more than 24 hours. Signs shall be conveniently posted for "no overnight parking" and for "employee parking only." All operations and businesses shall be conducted to comply with the following standards which shall be incorporated into the lease agreements for all tenants: Noise Level - All commercial activities shall not create any noise that would exceed an exterior noise level of 60 dB during the hours of 10 p.m. until 7 a.m. and 65 dB during the hours of 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. Loading and Unloading - No person shall cause the loading, unloading, opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or other similar objects between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless otherwise specified herein, in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area. Textured pavement shall be provided at the project entry, across circulation aisle, pedestrian walkway, at the patio, and at the handicapped spaces in front of the main entry. They shall be of brick/tile pavers, exposed aggregate, integral color concrete, or any combination thereof. Full samples shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval pdor to the issuance of building permits. All future building pads shall be seeded and irrigated for erosion control. Detailed plans shall be included in the landscape and irrigation plans to be submitted for Planning Division approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The lighting fixture design shall compliment the architectural program. It shall include the plaza area lighting fixtures, building lighting fixtures (exterior), and parking lot lighting fixtures. All future projects within the shopping center shall be designed to be compatible and consistent with the architectural program established. Any outdoor vending machines shall be recessed into the building faces and shall not extend into the pedestrian walkways. The design details shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building 3ermits. CUP 96-27 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC-5~7 Eo Fo Building Design SC - 5197 Project No. CUP 96-27 Completion Date 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. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). Textured pedestrian pathways and textured provided throughout the development to spaces/plazas/recreational uses. pavement across circulation aisles shall be connect dwellings/units/buildings with open All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall, whichever is greater, of the total number of stalls for use by the handicapped. Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more parking stalls. Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feet. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily residential projects or more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first 50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of the required automobile parking spaces. Warehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle storage spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent on the required automobile parking spaces with a minimum of a 3-bike rack. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed 100. Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater, the number shall be rounded off to the higher whole number. Landscaping A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in this case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. A minimum of 20 % of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. / / / / Go No Project No. All pdvate slopes of 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 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. For non-residential development, property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. 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. 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.- 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. Signs The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Other Agencies The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. The final location of the mail boxes shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. CUP 96-27 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC-5~7 Project No. CUP 96-27 Completion Date APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. Site Development The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. J. Grading 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. 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. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. / / Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&R's or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of building permits, where no map is involved. / / Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final map. / / All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the final map. / / Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided. SC - 5/97 Street Improvements 1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike Other Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Milliken Avenue e e ~' f Base Line Road v' v' f Project No. CUP 96-27 Coml~letion Date / / SC - 5/97 Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per STD. 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. (e) Reconstruct existing bus bay as a bus bay/right turn lane per STD. 119 with a length as shown on the plans. (f) Install traffic signage, including R26 "No Stopping Any Time" signs as needed. Improvement Plans and Construction: eo 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. 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. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 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. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detour~ 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. / / / / / / / / / / / / Project No. 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. 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. 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 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. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautification Master Plan: Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue . N. Utilities 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. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: O. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Fire flow requirement shall be 3.000 gallons per minute. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval, For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a 4" and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. CUP 96-27 Com131etion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 5197 Pro}eel No. 3. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 4. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: v' Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. V' California Code Regulations Title 24. 5. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: v' All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. v' Other: See Ordinance 22 6. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed a minimum of 14'6" from ground up so as not to impede fire apparatus. 7. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 8. Plan check fees in the amount of $ 0 have been paid. An additional $ 645.00 shall be paid: Prior to water plan approval. Prior to final plan approval. Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 9. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. P. Special Permits 1. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use, as noted below: a. General Use Permit shall be required for any activity or operation not specifically described below, which in the judgement of the Fire Chief is likely to produce conditions hazardous to life or property. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Q. Security Lighting 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal secudty lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. CUP 96-27 Coml~letion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT June 11, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer Betty Miller, Associate Engineer ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14001 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. - A subdivision of 3.5 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Office Park District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the southwest comer of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 1077-672-32. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related files: CUP 96-27 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Action Requested: Approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map as shown on Exhibit "B". mo C° Parcel Size: Parcel 1 1.31 AC Parcel 2 2.35 AC Total 3.66 AC Existing Zonine: Office Park, Terra Vista Community Plan Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - South - East - West - Vacant, future "Central Park" Multi-family Residences Shopping Center Multi-family Residences E. Surrounding General Plan and Developments Code Designations: North South East West Park Medium Residential (8-14 d.u./ac.) Neighborhood Commercial Medium Residential (8-14 d.u./ac.) Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and slopes to the south at thxee percent. The Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue frontages are fully improved. Perimeter walls for improved Tract 14150 exist along the south and west property lines. ITEM C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PM 14001 June 11, 1997 Page 2 ANALYSIS: The purpose of this parcel map is to separate Parcel 1 for sale to the developer of Conditional Use Permit 96-27, also on tonight's agenda. Parcel 1 will contain a service station with a drive-thru fast food restaurant. Parcel 2 is for future development consistent with the master plan as shown in Cup 96-27. Curb, gutter, sidewalks and street lights already exist on both project frontages. The developer of Parcel 1 will be required to complete the installation of street trees on both parcels and to extend the existing bus turnout on Milliken Avenue as a bus bay/right turn lane combination. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The applicant completed Part I of the Initial Study in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit 96-27. Staff conducted a field investigation and completed Part II of the Initial Study (see Conditional Use Permit 96-27 staff report, Exhibit "H"). No adverse impacts upon the environment are anticipated as a result of this map. Therefore, issuance of a Negative Declaration is appropriate. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Posting at the site has also been completed. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of the Tentative Parcel Map 14001. If after such consideration, the Commission deems appropriate, then the adoption of the attached Resolution would be in order. Respectfully submitted, Senior Civil Engineer DJ:sd Attachments: Vicinity Map (Exhibit "A") Tentative Map (Exhibit "B") Resolution and Recommended Conditions of Approval CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINEERING DIVISION LINE I N ~: '7'PM / ~t ~ I II It ~'C/L BASE LINE ROAD PARCEL 2 .PARCEL I. .~ l ,~c . I-t 14. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINE~ERING DIVISION ITEM: T;~;~ / ~ OO f T1TLFz 7'£N ?/g T/VE EX_~IT: ~ ! I"- /DO N RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 14001, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVENUE AND BASE LINE ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-672-37 WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 14001, submitted by Lewis Development Co., applicant, for the purpose of subdividing into 2 parcels, the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, identified as APN 1077-672-37, located at the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 1997, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above-described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. o That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or public health problems or have adverse effects on abutting propedies. SECTION 2: Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: 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. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will Occur. 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14001 June 11, 1997 Page 2 potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. SECTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map Number 14001 is hereby approved subject to the attached Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: Public improvements for the full length of both parcel frontages shall be completed with the first parcel to develop. Sidewalks shall cross drive approaches at the zero curb face. Provide additional right-of-way as needed where the sidewalk :','raps around the approach. Special pavers shall be located outside the public right-of-way. Revise Drawings 1267 and 1265 or 1447 to reflect construction of the new drive approaches, right turn lane and street trees, with cross references on related drawings to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Existing public improvements not being relocated due to the installation of ddve approaches and the Milliken right turn lane shall be protected in place, including traffic striping and signage. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 1 lth day of June 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Those A. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. items checked are Conditions of Approval. Dedications and Vehicular Access 1. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAND^ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 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. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way for the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): total feet on total feet on total feet on total feet on An irrevocable offer of dedication for roadway purposes shall be made for the private streets. Comer property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for approved openings: 10. 11. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by C C & R's or by deeds and shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the final parcel map. Reciprocal parking agreements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all common roads, drives, or parking areas shall be provided by C C & R's or deeds and shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the final parcel map. All existing easements lying within future right-of-way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the final parcel map per the City o' ' Engineer s requirements. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final parcel map. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right rum lanes, to provide a minimum of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right rum lane, a parallel street tree easement shall be provided. 12. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site propen3, 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 parcel 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 ofthese 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: B. Street Improvements 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. A minimum, of 26-foot wide pavement within a 40- foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be constructed for all half-section streets. 3. Construct the following missing perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Street Name Curb AC Side- Drive Street Street Comm. Median Bike & Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Gutter Other Notes: (a) Median Island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (¢) If so marked, sidewalk will be curvilinear per STD. #114. (d) [fso mmked,'an in-lieu of'construction fee shall be provided for this item. 2 V/ 4. 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 parcel map approval. b. Prior to any work being performed in the 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: (I) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless other,vise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections), or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pullrope 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 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. 5. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all private streets shall be provided for review and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being performed on the private streets, fees shall be paid and construction permits shall be obtained from the City Engineer's office in addition to any other permits required. 6. 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. 7. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger street, 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. 8. A Permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any work within the following right-of-way: 9. All public improvements on the following streets shall be operationally complete prior to the issuance of building permits. 3 Public Maintenance Areas I. 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 parcel map approval. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails, or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: 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 parcel map approval. 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. 4. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautification Master Plan: Drainage and Flood Control 1. The project (or portions thereof) is located within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood protection measures shall be provided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. 2. It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone __ designation removed from the project area. The developer's engineer shall prepare all necessaD, reports, plans, and hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA, prior to final parcel map approval. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first. 3. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final parcel map approval. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 4. Adequate provisions shah be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 5. A permit from the San Bernardino County, Flood Control District is required for work within it's right-of- way. 6. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet ofthe outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. 7. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of blockage in a sump catch basin on a public street. 4 E. Improvement Completion 1. If the required public improvements are not completed prior to approval of the final parcel map, an improvement security accompanied by an agreement executed by the Developer and the City will be required for: 2. If the required public improvements are not completed prior to approval of the final parcel map, an improvement certificate shall be placed upon the final parcel map, stating that they will be completed upon development for: F. Utilities V/ 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. V/ 2. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and conslructed to meet requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from CCWD is required prior to final parcel map approval. 3. 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. V~' 4. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation ofexisting utilities as necessary. G. General Requirements and Approvals ~ 1. The tentative map approval is valid for the 24 month period following the approval date. Time extensions may be granted by the Planning Commission, if requested prior to the expiration date. V/ 2. Final grading plans for each parcel shall be as required by the Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading permits. 3. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (C C & R's) approved by the City Attorney is required prior to approval of the final parcel map. 4. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to final parcel map approval for: 5. Prior to approval of the final parcel map a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District , among the newly created parcels. 6. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first 6 months of operation, prior to final parcel map approval. 5 7. Prior to f'malization 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 Eng'&eer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. 8. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan Drainage Fees shall be paid prior to final parcel map approval. 9. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way. I0. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the La~v Enforcement Community Facilities District shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final parcel map approvak Formation costs shah be home by the developer. II. Prior to recordation of the final parcel map, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment ofa Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such existing district prior to the recordation ofthe final parcel map. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final parcel map for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void. This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts as a result of this project. 12. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District shall apply to this project. 13. Pursuant to provisions of California Resources Code Section 21089(b), this application shall not be operative, vested or final, nor will building permits be issued or a map recorded, until (1) the Notice of Determination (NOD) regarding the associated environmental action in filed and posted with Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino; and (2) any and all required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. The applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a stamped and copy of the NOD together with a receipt showing that all fees have been paid. in the event this application is determined exempt from such filing fees pursuant to the provision of the California Code, or the guidelines promulgated thereunder, except for payment of any required handling charge for filing a Certificate of Fee Exemption, this condition shall be deemed null and void. Rev. 10/14/96 6