Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997/07/09 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY JULY 9, 1997 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California '" ' ' "'"" ' ' ' "'""' ~ ' '' ' "' '"'" "'"'' "' I1' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II II1'1 I. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call Chairman Barker Vice Chairman McNiel Commissioner Bethel ~ Commissioner Macias ~ Commissioner Tolstoy ~ II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 25, 1997, Adjourned Meeting IV. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPM!~NT - 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. (Continued from June 11, 1997). B. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-10 ('DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12659, PHASES 2 THROUGH 5) - CENTEX HOMES - The design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for the development of 92 lots within an approved subdivision (Tentative Tract 12659), which consists of 134 lots on 67.67 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue - APN: 225-111-40 and 42 and 225-341-30 through 37. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are pubtic 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. P/ease sign in after speaking. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 15519 - TEAK WAY ASSOCIATES - A subdivision of 1.6 acres of land into 4 parcels in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and vacation of Jonquil Drive east of Teak Way, located on the east side of Teak Way, south of Mignonette Avenue - APN: 1076-081-05. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15014 - AMIR DEVELOPMENT - A subdivision of 9.5 acres of land into 3 parcels in the General Industrial Distdct of the Industrial Specific Plan, Subarea 8, and vacation of the non-vehicular access restriction on Arrow Route, located on the southwest comer of Arrow Route and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-144-95. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-03 - OLIVAS - A request to construct a new 7,011 square foot Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witness on a 1.13 acre parcel in Subarea 1 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan in the Medium Residential District, located at the southwest corner of San Bernardino Road and Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-123-02 and 03. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Page 2 f. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-!6 - OSF INTERNATIONAL, INC. - A request to construct a 12,664 square foot restaurant with a full bar facility on a 3.16 acre pad located in the Terra Vista Promenade Shopping Center within the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-39. Related file: Tentative Parcel Map 15016. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-15 - (;;LIGNETT - The proposed development of a 2,550 square foot, three-bay, quick-service oil change facility adjacent to the existing Deer Creek Car Wash service facility, located within the Community Commercial land use designation (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, on the east side of Center Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 1077-401-34. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Vl. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS H. TRACT 14534 - WILLIAM LYON HOMES - A request to install above-ground utility boxes within a previously approved 121-1ot subdivision in the Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) designation of the Victoria Community Plan, located at the southeast corner of Victoria Park Lane and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-091-31. VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS I. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE OPERATION OF ALBERTSONS SHOPPING CENTER AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE J. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD ACTIVITY CENTERS K. ELECTION OF pI~ANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS L. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Page 3 IX. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. I, Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on July 2, 1997, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. Page 4 VICINITY MAP CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 9, 1997 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner BY: Thomas Grahn, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT F©R 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. ANALYSIS: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) establishes the requirements and procedures for evaluating the potential environmental impacts resulting from the development of a project. Section 15162 establishes specific procedures when Subsequent Environmental Impact Reports and Negative Declarations are necessary. The following addresses Section 15162 and why no further environmental evaluation is necessary. 15162. (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; There are no changed circumstances with respect to the project which would result in new or more severe environmental impacts that would require major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval. The development consists of the design review of 40 single family homes. (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require revisions of the previous Negative Declaration. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT July 9, 1997 Page 2 (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: There has been no new information of substantial importance which was not known at the time the previous Negative Declaration was adopted. (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; The current application is the design review of 40 single family homes and will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Negative Declaration. (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; The current application is the design review of 40 single family homes and will not have significant effects more severe than shown in the previous Negative Declaration. (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or There are no mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously found not to be feasible that wound in fact be feasible. (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. There are no mitigation measures or alternatives that were considerably different from those previously analyzed. (b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subsection (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, and addendum, or nor further documentation. There are no changed circumstances with respect to the project which would result in new or more severe environmental impacts that would require major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval. The development consists of the design review of 40 single family homes. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT July 9, 1997 Page 3 (c) If the project was approved prior to the occurrence of the conditions described in subsection (a), the subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project. In this situation no other Responsible Agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted. There are no changed circumstances with respect to the project which would result in new or more severe environmental impacts that would require major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval. The development consists of the design review of 40 single family homes. (d) A subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration shall be given the same notice and public review as required under Section 15087 or Section 15072. A subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall state where the previous document is available and can be reviewed. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:TG:taa Attachments: Exhibit "A" - CEQA Section 15162 CEQA: CAIZFORNIA ENVIRO~AJ~ QUALITY ACT Project EIR 15161. The most common type of EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project. This type of FIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project including planning, construction, and operation. Note: Authority cite& Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections 21061, 21100, and 21151, Public Resources Code. Discussion: This section is necessary for the clarity and completeness of this article and to show how this type of EIR differs from the other types discussed in this article. Subsequent 15162. (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR EIRs and shall be pr. epared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in Negative the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: Declarations (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified sig- nificant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIP, or negative declaration; 03) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project propo- nents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. (b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subsection (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an adden- dum, or no further documentation. (c) If the project was approved prior to the occurrence of the conditions described in the subsection (a), the subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project. In tl'fis situation no other Responsible Agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted. (d) A subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration shall be given the same notice and public review as required under Section 15087 or Section 15072. A subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall state where the previous document is available and can be reviewed. Note: Authority cited: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087; Reference: Public Resources Code 21166; Bowman v. City of Petaluma, 185 Cal. App. 3d 1065 (1986); Benton v. Board of Supervisors, 226 Cal. App. 3d 1467 (1991). Discussion: This section implements the requirements in Section 21166 of CEQA which limit preparation of a subsequent EIR to certain situations. This section provides interpretation of the three situations in which the statute requires preparation of a subsequent EIR. These interpretations are necessary to add certainty to the process. This section also clarifies that a subsequent EIR may be prepared where a negative declaration had previously been adopted. Further, a subsequent negative declaration may be adopted where none of the situations described in subsection (a) have occurred. Subsections (b) and (c) explain which agency would have responsibility for preparing a subsequent EIR under different circumstances. A subsequent E1R must, of course, receive the same circulation and review as the previous EIR. 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 June 11, and continued to July 9, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held meetings 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 fodh 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 meetings on June 11, and July 9, 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 improv_ m~y.  e. Based on substantial evidence provided to the Planning Commission it is hereby~ found that none of the criteria found in Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act/) guidelines requiring subsequent environmental review exists or are present. ~----'~ --~ t'~e finding----~ and conclusions set forth in paragraph------'--~ ~ an--"~'; above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set fodh below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: July 9, 1997 TO: Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer ~, ~ SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA, JULY 9, 1997, ITEMS A AND B Upon discussion with the Developers, I have agreed to delete condition no. 1 of Engineering Division for Development Review 97-11, page A72 of the agenda. Also, I have agreed to modify condition no. 10 of Engineering Division for Development Review 97-10, page B39 of the agenda. Please refer to the attached. DJ:sd Attachment PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-11 (TRACT 14771) - LAUREN July 9, 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 wdtten 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. Engineering Division ) Dri)~ways on Corner Lots~.l.5,,and 26 sh~'O~cated at/i~t 50 f~'~ fr,~m Re inters~C'fi~n BCR/or th'~ maxir~m distar~ce all(~wed t~y th~ lot ~ ~:~l~inO~idZreiv~s!s bet .~./Vehicle, ,urNn_.~igh, ar~ose /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. 7... ~) All applicable conditions from Resolution No. 90-137 and 90-138 shall apply. 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman R MA GrOUp GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 10851 EDISON COURT, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730: (909) 989-1751 : FAX (909) 989-4287 July 9, 1997 Lauren Development P.O. Box 790 Agora Hills, CA 91376 Attention: Tom Maran Subject: Stability Analysis Existing and Proposed Retention Berms Tract 14771 Rancho Cucamonga, CA Gentlemen: As per your request we have performed an analysis of the stability of the existing flood control levee and the proposed earthen berm and storm drain channel. Our analysis was performed based on the cross sections developed at locations representing the highest relief in each slope, assumed geotechnical strength parameters, and an assumed water surface at the upslope side of both the levee and the berm. The slopes were analyzed for gross pseudo-static stability using a computer program based on the modified janbu method of slices. This method is based on the static analysis of the mass above any failure arc. The failure mass is broken up into a series of vertical slices and the equilibrium of each of these slices is considered. The force acting along the sides of any slice are assumed to have a zero resultant in the direction normal to the failure arc for that slice. In this method, the stability of the slope is expressed as a safety factor. Safety factor is defined as the relationship of the resisting moments, about the center of the failure arc, divided by the overturning moments, about the center of the failure arc. The seismic analysis is based on the pseudo-static method of slices which includes, in addition to the static forces, the effect of horizontal and vertical inertial forces acting out of the slope and through the center of the failure mass. The computer program uses an iteration process to evaluate many trial failure surfaces and select the arc with the lowest factor of safety. After completion of the calculations the program prints out the characteristics of the critical failure arc. ,,. / R MA Group GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Lauren Development Tract 14771 Rancho Cucamonga, CA July 9, 1997 The results of these analyses indicate that the factor of safety against failure of the proposed storm drain channel is larger than that of the existing levee. The results of our analyses are attached as Appendix A to this report. The increased stability of the proposed slopes and storm drain channel are most likely related to the shallow slope angle and reduced height of the new channel slopes. The existing levee extends to an approximate maximum height of 25 feet at inclinations steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), whereas the proposed slopes do not exceed 10 feet in height and are proposed at inclinations of2:l or flatter. Therefore, based on the results of our analysis it is our professional opinion that, from a geotechnical perspective, the proposed storm drain channel and associated slopes are more stable against gross failure than the existing levee. Respectfully, RMA Group Ed Lyon, PE Vice President GE 2362 Attachments - Slope Stability Calculations x. RMA Job N°: 96-207-01 Page 2 ../ R~MA GrOUp GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS APPENDIX A SLOPE STABILITY CALCULATIONS / aur,e.n ,Deu_,e.19~me,nt 96-207-01 en e~osT C~lTlCaJ, D:LRUREH1,PLT 348 I I I I I I ! 1.14 2 1.14 3 1.15 ,4 1.1,15 3{3{3 5 1.17 6 1.17 7 1.17 f{ 1.17 9 1.18 ~_:~109 10 1. ~-0 26{3 £ ~ ) ! · "?.~.i~- '~ .............. 228 "-. "***'"-'-:~'" ~;;;, ..................... '-..:.'..:.: ... ~. ?,v, .,,,~.,~ .~~*,~!:' 18{3 148 1{3{3 I I I I I I I I 9{3 13{3 17{3 21{3 2Si{3 ;~9{3 33{3 3?{3 41{3 ~ PCSTfiBL4 FS min=1.14 ~-fixis (ft) ** PCSTABL4 ** by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu Method of Slices or Simplified Bishop Method Run Date: 07-08-97 Time of Run: 5:05pm Run By: Input Data Filename: D:LAUREN1.DAT Output Filename: D:LAUREN1.0UT Plotted Output Filename: D:LAUREN1.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Lauren Development 96-207-01 Tract 14771 Case 1 BOUNDARY COORDINATES 12 Top Boundaries 12 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd t 150.00 230.00 200 00 230 00 1 2 200 00 230 00 242 00 235 00 1 3 242 00 235 00 252 00 240 00 1 4 252 00 240 00 262 00 245 00 1 5 262 00 245 00 270 00 250 00 1 6 270 00 250 00 272 00 255 00 1 7 272 00 255 00 310 00 255 00 1 8 310 00 255 00 323 00 250 00 1 9 323 00 250 00 338 00 245 00 1 10 338 00 245 00 351 00 240 00 1 11 351 00 240 00 368 00 235 00 1 12 368 00 235 00 450 00 235 00 1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 1 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 130.0 100.0 34.0 .00 .0 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SLIRFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 5 Coordinate Points Point X-Water Y-Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 200.00 230.00 2 250.00 235.00 3 270.00 240.00 4 310.00 250.00 5 450.00 250.00 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .100 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = .0 psf ................................................................................ A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 50 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 200.00 ft. and X = 225.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 310.00 ft. and X = 335.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 5.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 27 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 206.25 230 74 2 210 33 227 85 3 214 59 225 24 4 219 02 222 91 5 223 59 220 89 6 228 29 219 18 7 233 09 217 78 8 237 97 216 71 9 242 92 215 97 10 247 90 215 57 11 252 90 215 49 12 257 89 215 75 13 262 86 216 35 14 267 77 217 27 15 272 61 218 53 16 277 36 220 10 17 281 99 221 99 18 286.48 224 18 19 290.82 226 67 20 294.98 229 44 21 298.95 232 49 22 302.70 235 79 23 306.22 239 34 24 309.50 243 11 25 312.52 247 10 26 315.27 251 28 27 316.05 252 67 *** 1.139 *** Failure Surface Specified By 28 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 200.00 230.00 2 203.80 226 75 3 207.83 223 79 4 212.05 221 11 5 216.45 218 73 6 221.01 216 67 7 225.70 214 94 8 230.50 213 54 9 235.38 212.48 10 240.33 211.77 11 245.32 211.41 12 250.32 211.41 13 255.31 211.75 14 260.26 212 44 15 265.15 213 49 16 269 95 214 87 17 274 65 216 59 18 279 21 218 63 19 283 62 220 99 20 287 85 223 66 21 291 88 226 61 22 295 70 229 85 23 299 28 233 34 24 302 60 237 08 25 305 65 241 04 26 308 41 245 20 27 310 88 249 55 28 312 94 253 87 *** 1.140 *** Failure Surface Specified By 25 Coordinate Points Point X- Surf Y- Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 212 50 231.49 2 216 31 228.25 3 220 37 225 33 4 224 65 222 75 5 229 13 220 52 6 233 77 218 67 7 238 55 217 19 8 243 43 216 11 9 248 38 215 43 10 253 38 215 15 11 258 37 215 27 12 263 35 215 80 13 268 26 216 74 14 273 08 218 06 15 277.78 219 77 16 282.32 221 86 17 286.68 224 31 18 290 83 227.10 19 294 74 230.22 20 298 38 233.64 21 301 73 237.35 22 304 77 241.32 23 307 48 245.52 24 309 84 249.93 25 311 76 254.32 *** 1.152 *** Failure Surface Specified By 26 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 212 50 231 49 2 216 33 228 27 3 220 39 225 36 4 224 67 222 78 5 229 14 220 54 6 233 78 218 65 7 238 54 217 14 8 243 41 216 00 9 248 35 215 25 10 253 34 214 88 11 258 34 214 91 12 263 32 215 33 13 268 26 216 14 14 273 11 217 33 15 277 86 218 90 16 282 47 220 83 17 286 92 223 12 18 291 17 225 75 19 295 20 228 70 20 298 99 231 96 21 302 52 235 51 22 305 75 239 32 23 308 68 243 38 24 311 28 247 65 25 313 54 252 11 26 314 08 253 43 *** 1.160 *** Failure Surface Specified By 24 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 212.50 231.49 2 217.03 229.37 3 221.67 227.52 4 226.42 225.94 5 231.24 224.63 6 236.14 223 60 7 241.08 222 86 8 246.06 222 40 9 251.06 222 23 10 256.06 222 35 11 261 04 222 76 12 265 99 223 45 13 270 90 224 42 14 275 74 225 68 15 280 49 227 21 16 285 16 229 01 17 289 71 231 08 18 294 13 233 41 19 298.42 235 99 20 302.55 238 81 21 306.51 241 87 22 310.28 245 14 23 313.86 248 63 24 317.17 252 24 *** 1.166 *** Failure Surface Specified By 24 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 218.75 232 23 2 222.54 228 97 3 226.60 226 05 4 230.91 223 51 5 235.42 221 36 6 240.11 219 62 7 244.93 218 30 8 249.85 217 42 9 254.83 216 98 10 259.83 216 98 11 264.81 217 42 12 269.73 218 30 13 274.56 219 62 14 279.24 221 36 15 283.76 223 51 16 288.06 226 06 17 292.13 228 97 18 295.91 232 24 19 299.40 235 82 20 302.55 239 71 21 305.34 243 85 22 307.75 248.23 23 309.77 252.81 24 310.45 254.83 *** 1.167 *** Failure Surface Specified By 27 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 206 25 230 74 2 209 81 227 23 3 213 64 224 02 4 217 72 221 12 5 222 01 218 56 6 226 50 216 35 7 231 14 214 51 8 235 92 213 04 9 240 80 211 96 10 245 76 211 27 11 250 75 210 98 12 255 75 211 09 13 260 72 211 60 14 265 64 212 50 15 270 47 213 80 16 275 18 215 47 17 279 74 217 52 18 284 12 219 93 19 288 30 222 68 20 292 24 225 75 21 295 93 229 13 22 299 33 232 79 23 302.44 236 71 24 305.21 240 87 25 307.65 245 24 26 309.73 249 78 27 311.43 254 45 *** 1.170 *** Failure Surface Specified By 25 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 212.50 231.49 2 217.02 229.35 3 221.66 227.48 4 226.39 225.88 5 231.21 224.54 6 236.10 223.49 7 241 04 222.71 8 246 01 222.21 9 251 01 222.00 10 256 01 222 07 11 261 00 222 43 12 265 96 223 07 13 270 87 223 99 14 275 72 225 19 15 280 50 226 67 16 285 19 228 41 17 289 77 230 42 18 294 22 232 68 19 298 55 235 20 20 302 72 237 96 21 306 73 240 94 22 310 56 244 16 23 314 20 247 58 24 317 64 251 21 25 318 18 251 85 *** 1.172 *** Failure Surface Specified By 29 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 200 00 230 00 2 204 43 227 68 3 208 97 225 58 4 213 60 223 70 5 218 32 222 04 6 223 11 220 62 7 227 97 219 43 8 232 88 218 48 9 237 82 217 76 10 242 80 217 29 11 247 80 217 06 12 252 80 217.07 13 257 79 217.32 14 262 77 217.82 15 267 71 218.55 16 272 62 219.52 17 277 47 220.73 18 282 25 222.18 19 286 97 223.85 20 291 59 225.75 21 296 12 227.87 22 300 54 230.21 23 304 84 232.76 24 309.01 235.51 25 313.05 238.47 26 316.93 241.61 27 320.66 244.94 28 324.23 248.45 29 325.03 249.32 *** 1.180 *** Failure Surface Specified By 25 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 218.75 232.23 2 222 74 229 21 3 226 94 226 51 4 231 33 224 12 5 235 90 222 07 6 240 60 220 37 7 245 42 219 03 8 250 32 218 06 9 255.28 217.46 10 260 28 217 23 11 265 28 217 38 12 270 25 217 91 13 275 17 218 80 14 280 00 220 07 15 284 73 221 70 16 289.32 223 67 17 293 76 225 99 18 298 00 228 63 19 302 03 231 59 20 305 83 234 84 21 309 38 238 37 22 312 64 242 15 23 315 62 246 17 24 318 28 250.40 25 318 90 251.58 *** 1.200 *** Lauren Develop~en% 96-207-01 True% 14771 ¢a~e Ten Mo~ Cri~xcal. D:LAUREH2.PLT 07-08-9? r ~ F-~ 1 i.40 2 i.41 4 X.42 5 1.44 6 1.44 ? 1.44 0 1.45 9 i.45 iO 1.45 290 _~ - ' ......... -W1 __--'. .... ...' ,..::./.,' ;L ~1~ ~ ~ - ' ..'".'~.'~ ~60 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ........ ;;..;: ........ ........... :,..,:~::','. .......... 230 20090 120 150 X80 210 240 2?0 300 330 360 PCSTABL4 FS ~in=i.40 X-Axis (f%) ** PCSTABL4 ** by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu Method of Slices or Simplified Bishop Method Run Date: 07-08-97 Time of Run: 5:01pm Run By: Input Data Filename: D:LAUREN2.DAT Output Filename: D:LAUREN2.0UT Plotted Output Filename: D:LAUREN2.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Lauren Development 96-207-01 Tract 14771 Case 2 BOUNDARY COORDINATES 11 Top Boundaries 11 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type NO. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 100.00 264.00 150.00 264 00 1 2 150.00 264 00 165.00 266 00 1 3 165.00 266 00 178.00 268 00 1 4 178.00 268 00 191.00 270 00 1 5 191.00 270 00 210.00 280 00 1 6 210 00 280 00 244.00 280 00 1 7 244 00 280 00 249.00 276 00 1 8 249 00 276 00 255.00 276 00 1 9 255 00 276 00 264.00 280 00 1 10 264 00 280 00 285.00 270 00 1 11 285 00 270 00 350.00 270 00 1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 1 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface NO. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 130.0 100.0 34.0 .00 .0 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED unit Weight of Water = 62.40 Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 4 Coordinate Points Point X-Water Y-Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 150.00 262.00 2 178.00 265.00 3 244.00 280.00 4 350.00 280.00 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .100 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = .0 psf A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 50 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 150.00 ft. and X = 180.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 256.00 ft. and X = 265.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is y = .00 ft. 5.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 26 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 150 00 264.00 2 154 35 261.54 3 158 84 259.33 4 163 44 257 36 5 168 13 255 65 6 172 92 254 21 7 177 78 253 03 8 182 69 252 11 9 187 65 251 47 10 192 64 251 11 11 197 64 251 01 12 202 64 251 20 13 207 61 251 65 14 212 56 252 39 15 217.46 253 39 16 222.30 254 66 17 227.05 256 19 18 231.72 257 99 19 236 28 260 03 20 240 72 262 33 21 245 03 264 87 22 249 20 267.64 23 253 20 270.63 24 257 03 273.84 25 260 68 277.26 26 262 79 279.46 *** 1.396 *** Failure Surface Specified By 27 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 150.00 264.00 2 154.08 261.10 3 158.32 258.46 4 162.72 256 09 5 167 26 253 99 6 171 91 252 16 7 176 67 250 63 8 181 52 249 39 9 186 43 248 45 10 191 39 247 82 11 196 38 247 49 12 201 38 247 46 13 206 37 247 74 14 211 34 248 32 15 216 26 249 21 16 221 11 250 40 17 225 89 251 88 18 230 56 253 65 19 235 12 255 71 20 239 55 258 04 21 243 82 260 63 22 247 93 263 49 23 251 85 266 58 24 255 58 269 92 25 259 09 273 47 26 262 39 277 24 27 264 38 279 82 *** 1.408 *** Failure Surface Specified By 26 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 150 00 264 00 2 153 81 260 76 3 157 83 257 80 4 162 06 255 12 5 166 46 252 75 6 171 02 250 69 7 175 71 248 95 8 180 51 247 55 9 185 39 246 49 10 190 34 245 78 11 195 33 245 41 12 200 33 245 39 13 205 32 245 73 14 210 27 246 41 15 215 16 247 44 16 219 97 248 81 17 224 67 250 51 18 229 24 252 54 19 233 66 254 89 20 237 90 257 53 21 241 95 260 47 22 245.78 263.69 23 249.37 267.16 24 252.71 270.88 25 255.78 274.83 26 257.25 277.00 *** 1.412 *** Failure Surface Specified By 28 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 150.00 264 00 2 153.90 260 87 3 157.99 258 00 4 162.26 255 39 5 166.69 253 07 6 171.26 251 05 7 175 95 249 32 8 180 74 247 89 9 185 62 246 78 10 190 56 245 99 11 195 53 245 52 12 200 53 245 37 13 205 53 245 54 14 210 50 246 04 15 215 44 246 86 16 220 31 247 99 17 225 09 249 44 18 229 77 251 19 19 234 33 253 25 20 238 75 255 59 21 243 01 258 21 22 247 09 261 11 23 250 97 264.26 24 254 64 267.65 25 258 08 271.28 26 261 28 275.12 27 264 23 279.16 28 264 59 279.72 *** 1.424 *** Failure Surface Specified By 23 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 157 50 265 00 2 162 04 262 91 3 166 69 261 07 4 171 43 259 48 5 176 25 258 14 6 181 13 257 06 7 186 07 256 25 8 191 04 255 71 9 196 03 255 43 10 201 03 255 41 11 206 02 255 67 12 210 99 256 19 13 215 93 256 98 14 220 82 258 03 15 225 64 259 35 16 230 39 260 92 17 235 05 262 74 18 239 60 264 81 19 244 03 267 12 20 248 34 269 66 21 252 50 272 43 22 256 51 27542 23 259 73 278 10 *** 1.437 *** Failure Surface Specified By 23 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf NO. (ft) (ft) 1 157 50 265.00 2 162 04 262.89 3 166 68 261.03 4 171 41 259.43 5 176 22 258 08 6 181 10 256 98 7 186 04 256 16 8 191 00 255 60 9 196 00 255 31 10 201 00 255 28 11 205 99 255 53 12 210 96 256 04 13 215 90 256 82 14 220 79 257 86 15 225 62 259 17 16 230 37 260 73 17 235 03 262 54 18 239 58 264 61 19 244 02 266 91 20 248 33 269.45 21 252 49 272.22 22 256 50 275.21 23 260 27 278.34 *** 1.438 *** Failure Surface Specified By 25 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 157 50 265 00 2 161 74 262 35 3 166 13 259 96 4 170 66 257 85 5 175 31 256 01 6 180 07 254 47 7 184 91 253 22 8 189 82 252 27 9 194 78 251 63 10 199 77 251 29 11 204 77 251 26 12 209 76 251 53 13 214 73 252 11 14 219 65 252 99 15 224 51 254 18 16 229 28 255 66 17 233 96 257 43 18 238 52 259 48 19 242 94 261 81 20 247 21 264 41 21 251 32 267 26 22 255 24 270 36 23 258 97 273 70 24 262 48 277 26 25 264 62 279 71 *** 1.439 *** Failure Surface Specified By 24 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 157.50 265 00 2 161.33 261 79 3 165.39 258 87 4 169.66 256 26 5 174.11 253 98 6 178.72 252 04 7 183.45 250 45 8 188.30 249.21 9 193 2.2 248 35 10 198 20 247 85 11 203 20 247 72 12 208 19 247 97 13 213 15 248 59 14 218 05 249 58 15 222 87 250 94 16 227 57 252 65 17 232 12 254 70 18 236 52 257 09 19 240 72 259 80 20 244 70 262 82 21 248 45 266 13 22 251 94 269 71 23 255 16 273 54 24 257 84 277 26 *** 1.446 *** Failure Surface Specified By 28 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 150 00 264 00 2 153 69 260 62 3 157 60 257 51 4 161 71 254 67 5 166 01 252 12 6 170 48 249 87 7 175 09 247 93 8 179 82 246 32 9 184 65 245 03 10 189 56 244 08 11 194 52 243 47 12 199 52 243 20 13 204 52 243 27 14 209 50 243 69 15 214 44 244 45 16 219 32 245 55 17 224 11 246 98 18 228 79 248 74 19 233 34 250 81 20 237 74 253 19 21 241 96 255 87 22 245 99 258 83 23 249 80 262 06 24 253 39 265 55 25 256 72 269 28 26 259 80 273 22 27 262 59 277 37 28 264 09 279 96 Failure surface Specified By 28 coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 150 00 264 00 2 153 68 260 61 3 157 58 257 49 4 161 69 254 63 5 165 98 252 07 6 170 43 249 80 7 175 03 247 84 8 179 75 246 19 9 184 58 244 88 10 189 48 243 89 11 194 44 243 24 12 199 43 242 93 13 204 ~43 242.96 14 209 41 243 33 15 214 36 244 04 16 219 25 245 08 17 224 06 246 46 18 228 76 248 16 19 233 34 250 17 20 237 77 252 50 21 242 03 255 11 22 246 10 258 02 23 249 96 261 19 24 253 60 264 62 25 257.00 268.29 26 260.13 272.18 27 263.00 276.28 28 264.97 279.54 *** 1.450 *** Steven Fischer 213 254-6~60'-~' 07/09/1997 08:39:06 AM P.1 F.4~\qvIEMO DATE: July 9, 1997 TO: Mayor and City Council Members c/o City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga FROM: Stephen R. Fischer 5711 Beta)' Place Los Angeles, CA 90042 SUBJECT: Stop the Laurm~ Development MESSAGE: Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, It is with much concern for the fate of the natural resources within the "sphere of influence" of the City' of Rancho Cucamonga that I am writing to you today. These resources, including biological, cultural, and, will be diminished if you decide to approve the Lauren Development. I am ~riting to you with special 'knowledge of the biolo~,cal and hydrologic resources o~the Etiwanda area, ,~u-~ter doing my master s thesis on file marsh at Day Canyon in 1995. 'l]~e marsh itself serves mmly purposes in tile web of plant and animal life ofthe whole area, and is a tw'pe of habitat ve~' susceptible to disturbance. The placement ot'more development at its edge will restilt in the degradation of the capacity of the marsh to perform its ecosystem functions in food web that includes numerous resident and ,ni~alory species, and has implications for its role the hydrologic cycle within tile Day Canyon watershed. I have observed a single tbotstep upon the delicate marsh vegetation to cause plant death, thereby increasing erosion and opening tile system up to invasion by xveedy species. It has come to my attention through the Spirit of the Sage Council and Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion (CURE), that inadequate sur~'eys were the basis of the negative declaration; and that the cumulative impacts to the environment were not properly considered. I think you would agree that tiffs development needs further consideration to address the significant obje~ions that have been raised by residents and neighbors of Rancho Cucamonga. Sincerely, Stephen R. Fischer (Consulting Ecologist) END .TUL 08 '~? 23:00 MRRK PETERSEN ?~4 413 9789 ~0: 90~?72847 Mayor & City Council Member~ via fax (909) 477-2847 CITY OF R~J~CHO CUCAMON(iA 10~00 CIVIC ~NTER DRIVE ~ July 8, 1997 Dear Honorable Mayor & 'council Membe~al Today I am a~ktng ~hat you pleaae ~ pot agp~e the Lauren derelict near the North Etiwand~ wildemama p~erve. Riverside Alluvial Fan 8age Scrub natural c~unity is a threatened and "globally i~e~iled" eco- In Calt for~ia~ we are lo~ing so muc~ open space, Coastal 8age Scrub, Oak Woodlands, and De~e~ 8age. Please d~'t approve thi~ plan~ We n~d to aave as much of ~hia type of plant C~munity. Please don't allow the. natural featurea of the place be paved a~d planted ove~ ~o accommodate human ~reation. Please leave it for ~he wild animals in y~ backya~d~ Please vote no~ River~i~ean ~iluvia] Fan 8age Scrub ia ~re threatened than ever before. ete~ men . Ohio ~venue Long Beach, CA 90B04 (714) 413-9789 P.S. Your replY, pleaae. *"globally impe~iled"-U.S. Fish & Wildlif,~ HCP ~ndb~k. ~Toplc Point; 1. .The =.lrcum..sta_nces .surrounding this project have changed significantly, in. errors me C/ty sitou_id require an Environm~tal Impact. Report Instead or a Nega!Jve Declaration. R i__.~EIR I~ the. re, pone,hie_ thin;__.to d_~o. The original project proponent and C!ty did not consider the cumulative Impacts on the environment, Native American cultural resources and residents concerns. The City Council should make their decision based on facts and the total ramifications of the action - not assertions and concepts. There project proponent and City failed to provide adequate surveys and studies to substantiate the assertions that the project wfll have a negative effect on b!ological resources, cultural resources, hydrological .rem~wees,-air quafity;.trafflc, visual impacts arid the existing residential community. Assumptions and assertions are only relevant in a court of law when they are substantiated by scientific evidence, studies and reports that were performed utilizing accepted scientific practices, methods and criteria. c) Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub I~ more threatened than ever before. d) The California Department of Fish & Game and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service have Included the project area in mapping of subregional conservation areas for Coastal Sage Scrub associated habitat. e) The City of Rancho Cucamonga is contracted to a conservation agreement through the San Bernardino Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU). f) State and.Federal Wildlife. Agencies have-notified the City that'there are Si'g~Jfl~t environmental concerns that have not been adequately addressed or mitigated for. The developer has not adequately surveyed g) or rare, threatened and endangered species. h) The developer proposes to remove a levee that currently provides some protection measures to the residential community adjacent to the project. i) New scientific data (Dolan, J.. 1996) in regards to seismic activity in the area indlcgtL~ thnt third_ i) New aclentiflc data (Dolan, J.. 1996) in regarda to aelamic activity in the area indk=ate~ that there is life threatening high hazards of earthquakes that are unmitigatable In building standards. 2) There is significant controversy and objection to the project and Neg Dec. C ityff. dzun.cJl Planning Commission Willia~n J. Alexander E David Barker _ Paul Diane Bill Bethel C~Ty James V. Curatalo Rich Macias Rex Gutierrez Larry McNiel Diane Williams Peter Tolstoy JUL 0 9 ~997 June 2(1, 1997 Re: OPix~sition to Lauren Development Prqject Dear Propert3.' Owners: II'vou did not attend the meetings on June 19 or 22, 1997, we still need your help. Attached are self-addressed envelopes to political representatives. We need vou to write letters prior to the July 9, 1997 Plain'ting Commission Hearint so that our elected officials understand that approval of the I.aurcn Development Prqject will have ixqitical consequences for them. You should touch upon the bullet points on the attached list since these are fl~e legal issues most likely to delEat the project. Without your help, ~e Lauren Development tract hemes will be approved on July 9. 1997 and the satE~' and qualib' of our conununi~' will tbrever change. Get invoh'ed. If you have questions, please call Kathy Wyant at 980-8960. Please include your address and telephone number on each lelter and send a copy to Cucamongans [Jnited lbr Reasonable Expansi~n ("cI.rRE") P.O. Box 1419, Rancho C uca monga, C A 91729-1419. We need copies or' your letters for the administrative record. JUL- 9-97 ~ED 14:25 FISH AND NILDLIFE F~X NO, 76043]9624 ?,02 United States Department of the Interior ' FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Service~ C~rl~b~l Field Offix 2730 Lokcr Avenue West Calls bad. Califbmia ~2008 July 9, 1997 Mr. Tom Crrakn City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Callfomia 91729 Subject: Clarification of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's letter of June 10, 1997, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga (1-6-97-HC-240) Dear Mr. Grahn: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is writing to clarify our letter of June 10, 1997, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga regarding Tract 14771 by Lauren Development, We understand, through Lauren Development's attorney, that the following areas concerning the Service's letter have arisen and need clarification: 1) The Service understands that Lauren Development is not seeking a section 10(a) permit pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as mended (Act). The first paragraph in the letter was merely meant to reiterate the Servicc's letter of April 18, 1997, which stated that the surveys to determine presence/absence for the threatened coa~al California gnatcatcher (Polioplila californica californica) were not sufficient to determine absence of the bird on the project site. Coastal California gnatcatchers are known to occur in the vicinity of the propo~xt project (see attachment). 2) The fifth sentence in the second paragraph should read, "...approved by the Service could result in a violation of the Take prohibition of section 9 of the Endangered Species Act." The Service is hopeful that the above provides clarity to the City and the project proponent regarding the Service's letter of June 10, 1997. We remain available to work with the project proponent and the City to avoid impacts to federally sensitive and listed species. Please contact JUL- 9-9? NED 14;25 FISH ~ND WILDLIFE FRX NO, 7604319624 P, 03 Mr. Tom C_,-rahn 2 Mary Beth Woulfe, Scott Eliason, or Jeff Newman of this office at (760) 431-9440 if you have any questions. Sinnere, ly, Gall C. Koberich Field Supervisor 1-6-97-HC-240 Enclosure cc: CDFG, San Diego, CA (Attn: Bill Tippets) Hewin and McCru/re, LLP, Irvine, CA (Attn: Andrew Hartzell) JUL- 9-97 NED 14:26 FISH RND I,I[LDL]FE FAX NO, 7804319624 P, 04 JUL-09-1997 13:54 FROM TO 4??2847 P.02 ,~~ DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELE6 DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS SEVEN OAKS DAM RESIDENT OFFICE 32330 SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA g2345 ~.v vo !u~y 9, 1997 Office of the Chief Regulatory Branch Mr. Brad. Butler City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Corem, 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Cali~orr~ia 91730 Dear M~:. Butler: It has come to our attention that correspondence fi7om our office to Lauren Development regarding a proposed housing development in your dty (Tentative Tract 1477].; Corps file no. 97-30016-AJ'$) may have been misinterpreted as providing a determination that is beyond the scope of our review under tile Corps of EstgJneers Regulatory Program. This letter is in.tended to clarify our responsibility and involvement with regard to this project. Our Ietter of February 7, 1997 (copy at.12ched), only provided a determination that the proposed proiect would not reqtfire a permit from our office pursuant to Section 404 of the Gean Water Act. Section. 404 regulates the discharge of dredged or fill. materiaJ in.to waters of f'Jle United States. Waf~.s of the United States generally do not include areas that only flow during extreme flood events, 100-year floodplains or areas of sheet flow. The focus of fl~e 404 program is file protection of the physical, chemical and bfoJogical fiLtegrity of the ~af:iorl'S waters. In reviewing the project site we determined titere were no jurisdictional waters of the United States witttin the bom~daries of the proposed tract and fixat the project as proposed would not result in. any disd~arge of fill into waters, therefore no permit would be required from. our office. This was the extent of our determination. Tl~e Corps' Regulatory Branch has not made any assertSons or expressed any opinions as to the adequacy of flood featu.re.~ of the project, including safet7 i~su.es surrotmcting the removal of the existing levee running along the southern boundary of the project site. Our determination relates only to fi~e presence/absence of jurisdictional waters of the United States. JUL-OD-1997 13:54 FROM TO 4772847 P.03 -2- We hope this has da .rifled the mat~.. If you have arty questions, l?lea6e corttac~ Antal S~,ijj of my staff at (909) 794-7704. Please refer to this letter and 97-30016-AJ'S in your reply. Sincerely, Mark Durham Chief, South Coast Section Regulatory Branch Enclosure(s) cf (w/o enclosure): I. Allday, Lauren Development M. McKejtla fUL-09-1997 13:54 FROM TO 47?284? P.04 .~~ DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS SEVEN OAKS DAM RESgDENT OFFICE 323~0 SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA 92345 A ~I"t~;NTION O;: Office of the Chief Regulatory Branch La. ttren Deve/opment Aim.: John Allday 11030 Arrow Route, Suf. te 102 Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia 91730 Dear Mr. Allday: Reference is made to your request (No. 97-30016-AJS) of February 3, 1997 for a Department of the Army Permit to construct tract 14771, a residential ho~ing development near the Deer Canyon Channel in Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. Based on the information furnished t~v our office and a site visit by our staff, we have determined that your proposed project does not discharge &edged or fill material into a water of the United States or an adjacent wetland. Therefore, the project is not subject to our jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and a Section 404 permit is not required from our office. The receipt of your request is appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact Antal Szijj of my staff at (909) 794-7704, S~cerely, Mark Durham Chief, South. Coast Section. .Regulatory Branch CF: File Copy O'ellow) - 97-30016-AI$ j CESrq.-CO-RS Clfpboa~d Cop7 - Los Angele~ Redlands TOTAL P.04 Robert J. Cristiano 9 Aurora Irvine, CA 92612 714.854.2398 ~io0;.~ho~.COo June 26, 1997 ,v Oiv/8;~rOoo,.O Brad Buller City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Lauren Development Design Review Challenge Tentative Tract Map # 14771 Dear Brad, This letter is in response to the letter you received from Malissa McKieth dated June 11'h, 1997 sent to me by Lauren Development. Unfortunately, I did not receive a copy from her, but I have talked with her at length. It was the content of that conversation that disturbs me. As you 'know, I believe anyone has a right to express their opinion about development that may affect them. The city has ample forums for individuals to do just that. What I object to is ulterior motives or hidden agendas. Ms. McKieth informed me quite brazenly that it is the intent of the opposition to "defeat the Lauren proposal and then buy my property for $100,000." Specifically, she mentioned by name a custom home builder who bought a number of lots from Brock and views Lauren as competition. The opposition is quite aware that the map expires in November and stated that they will "do whatever it takes to delay a decision by the city until the map expires", thus rendering the property valueless. Ms. McKeith went on to say that it was her personal opinion that the Havenview property owners should buy my property to keep it from development. I asked her why no one has ever asked me ifI would sell it to them. She had no answer. I am disturbed by the devious nature of their plans as their true intentions are not voiced in the Loeb and Loeb letter sent to the city council and city attorney. Ms. McKeith states a number of facts in her letter that are simply not true. I have attached a point by point response to her letter for your review. As a property owner in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, I am concerned. The parcel has generated property taxes in excess of $100,000 since 1989. Brock, Lauren and myself have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the various reports, studies, improvement, grading, and home plans required to comply with the city's requirements for development. The issues were well researched and publically debated during the tentative map phase. I hope the city will recognize that the time to debate these issues is not at design review. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely~ Robert J. Cristiano for Cristiano Partners I, owner of the property _/. / Response to the June 11th letter from Malissa McKeith 1). Failure of the city_ to provide notice of Design Review Hearing Untrue. I am confident the city did not err in this matter. Based on the number of citizens who were present, it appears that the public was well in.formed. 2) Failure 0fthe city_ to conduct environmental review for over seven year~, Incorrect. Environmental studies are not part of the design review process. The city conducted proper study during the tentative map process. The developer conducted gnatcatcher surveys in January of 1997 and found no birds present. The 25.9 acre property sits immediately adjacent to the 433,664 acre Cleveland National Forest. 3) Most of the homeowners moved into the area after 1990 and had no idea about the project Untrue. The recession of ]990-1996 stopped most development in California and inside Haven~ew. Most homes were actually built before 1990. Since I was contacted in February of 1997 by the homeowners association's management committee and invited to a joint meeting of both boards to discuss the Lauren project, it would be improper to say they "had no idea". 4) The city. has not adequately evaluated safety_ i~sues concerning the removal of a peripheral containment levee. Untrue. The Flood Control District removed their easement on this property in 1988 following completion of the flood control channel to the north and east of the project. They would not have done so if the levee was required. Further, a condition of the final map is the construction of a concrete channel to divert excess water to the east away from the property. 5) The project is situated at habitat that is Category_ $1.1 and G,1 ....... and .... actually constitutes about 1.5% of the total remaining habitat for Gnatcatchers on earth. Untrue. This is an outrageous attempt to make the property something it is not. The categories mentioned are labeled on a 2000 scale map, a line on which would be larger than the property. It is adjacent to the 400,000+. acre national forest which is a permanent reserve. To state this property is 1.5% of the gnatcatchers' remaining habitat on earth is testimony of the author's willingness to use fiction to stop the legitimate process of entitlement. 6) Lauren Development has never provided direct notice to any homeowner in the area. True. But Lauren has had ample communications with the homeowners association as have I dating back to January of 1997. It is the homeowners associations responsibility' to communicate to indi,Adual homeowners. 7) Mrs. Hahn has a conflict of intere~3t. A footnote on page 4 (#5) states that Bill Angel remarked that Ms. Hahn's interest in listing the homes for sale might represent a conflict of interest. Yet, Ms. McKeith is silent on Mr. Angel's intent of buying the property for $100,000 after the defeat of the Lauren project. 8) The extension of the tentative map in 1993 was procedurally defective Untrue. The footnote at the end of page 5 states that my letter to Beverly Nissen clearly establishes that the application was not received in a timely manner. My letter was not an application, rather a request for verification that the Senate Bill 428 granted an automatic extension of the map. 9) Approval of the Design Review Application violates CEO~A Untue. It is the opinion of the city and our environmental consultant, Templeton Plantting Group, that no violation of CEQA rules will occur with Design Review Approval. Opposition revived along with Haven View project Estates resident files lawsuit claiming approved, but only 55 have been lawsuit. withoutopposition,Markmansai,l. built. It accuses city planners of "an The only action left for the Plan- evel igh Brock Homes got approval in ongoing conspiracy" to help devel- ning Commission, he ~aid, is d . opmentis Vio[ation of CiVil r ts 1990 for 40 tract homcs. ButBrock apers complete projects without approving the architecture. declared bankruptcy in 1993 ~vith- public input. He called the civil-rights lawsuit By David Allen The project is already the subject out building anything. Laureu Tract maps usually expire in two a "despicable" attempt to intimi- Daily Bulletin of a lawsuit. It seeks to block con- picked up the project last. fall. years if projects aren't built, but date planners and said it should struction by contending that city Most neighbors only learned of Brock's and Lauren's plans have have no effect on tonight's bear- RAI(~IO CUCAMONGA -- officials tried to sneak the project the plansinlate May, according to remained alive through extensions, ing. After seven years in hibernation, a through. thelawsuit. some granted by Rancho Cuca- Alleging that Rancho Cuca- hmg-dormant plan to build 40 Hogwash, the city attorney It was filed by Malissa Hath- monga, some by actions ofthe state monga, wbich is known for its strict barnes at the base of the foothills responds. away McKeith, an attorney and Legislature. planning standards, would con- recently was revived. Neighbors "got every notice Haven View Estates resident, Markman said the Legislature spire with dcvclopers is "ludicrous," Some neighbors want it put to required by law," City Atton~ey Jim against Rancho Cucamonga and twice extended the life of tract he said. sleep again - permanently. Markman said. two of its planners. maps statewide during the reces- The meeting begins at 7 p.m. in Tonight, the RanchoCucamonga At issue are plans for 40 tract The lawsuit, filed July 2 in fed- sion, when many developments the Rancho Cucamonga Council Planning Commission is set to give homes within Haven View Estates, eral court in Los Angeles, takes an languished. Chambers, 10500 Civic Center final approval to Lauren Develop- a gated community of custom unusual approach to a planning The project was approved in 1990 Drive. ment's plans in the exclusive homes above Ringstem Drive. issue by alleging violations of civil Haven View Estates neighborhood. Plans for 243 homes have bee~ rights. It charges that neighbors' constitutional rights to due process WOLVER/E CENTERfOld ! were quashed because city plan- ...... ners kept them in the dark. "The last public notice relating to DO the project was in 1990," states the Kitchen. Bath · Selection of Workboots QUALITY WOOD CABINE'I ..__.~ oOAKWOOD CABINETS ,r. . · ALDER WOOD CABINETS · HICKORY WOOD CABINETS I ~';'~ ' ~i~i~'~"/ ~ C LE A R AN C ESALE · THIS THURSDAY ONLY ONTARIO AIRPORT HILTON HOTEL · READY-TO-ASSEMBLE / 7:00 P.M. 700 N. Haven Ave (10 Fwy & Haven) I WHITE & OAK STYLES WHITE U308424 $14900 'Ib~:v're the onO, work booL~ OTHER GREAT SAVINGS tl.itb r! fiO-da.), II1011[:}' belt'l,? SHOP ' COMPARE · SAVE = Phen Fen I For 33 YEARS z~-¢.-,..~ .~,.,j,.. ~o,:z,.,,,~. ,,,.z~,,,~ ,,.,.,~,: [r::111~ 'Increuse Your Meluholism Safe, Fosl and Effective [ Buffet "~ ~ · Deoeuse Your Appetite · No Diets or Shots I Mafiacltt FestivaFLus Vegas~ Sept. 12.1 . ~~ T R~Li~~ 1-800-$22- i ommo.rtwrs~oe. Hmet.woorvtm.tmfcu~.saN ~erNarmuo LOCA, ONS Session Chaders (909) 397-5282 RECEIVED JUL 0 7 1997 ,:-~, ~ City of Rancho Cucamonga ~,..z ~ ~,//5 ~7 We are very concerned about a housing development platted for an area right above our home. The developer is Lauren Development who plans to build in the Haven View Estates. As a homeowner we were not notified of any of these plans although we feel that there are serious problems that the developer has not addressed which could effect the safety of our home. The most serious concern we have is that a large levee and sxvale xvill be removed. The developer states that it is no longer needed since a debree basin has been built at the base of the mountJan. The debree basin is effective in catching rain from the mountians, but there are 360 acres below the basin that still drain into that swale and levee. I run along the power line easement trail regularly and in the rainy season there are several streams that catch in the swale above the levee. These streams would then be coming directly into our tract along with all the rest of the runoff from our area. We are so close to the mountians that the rainfall an~ounts are much ~eater than for lower elevations. I have measured rainfall and we usually get three times the amount measured for Rancho Cucamonga. Other factors such as a fire (of which we are long overdue) or an earthquake that could damage the debree basin (which lies right on the cucamonga fault line) could furthur impact our need for that levee. We have also heard from the Friends of the Sage who have informed us that this is an area of extremely sensitive habitat. They have appealed to the planning commission about being in violation of both state and federal law. So far their appeals have fallen on deaf ears. As a resident and tax payer of Rancho Cucamonga ~ve feel that we have a right to a fair and responsible planning staff who will take our safety into account. So far in regards to this project this does not seem to be the case. On numerous occasions I appealed to Tom Grahm, the project coordinator, my concerns and he simply dismissed me saying that ample studies had been done and that this was a shut case, fully approved, and that there was nothing that I could do at this point in time. When [ requested documents pertainning to this development he gave me copies from totally different projects!! Rancho Cucamonga is known for having a very diligent planning staff that will not let the slightest problem pass yet it appears that in regards to this project, the problems seem to go unnoticed. Your prompt consideration and attention to this project would be greatly appreciated, Tim and Kathy Wyant RECEIVED WILLIAM & MARINA HAWKINS 4987 Ginger Ct. JUl 0 7 ~997 Alta Loma, Ca. 91737 CityofRancho Cucamonga July 3, 1997 Ptanning Division E. David Barker 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91729 Dear Mr. Barker, As you know, on July 9, 1997, the City Planning Commission will decide whether or not to permit Lauren Development to build the 40 tract homes accessed through Haven View Estates. I own several businesses which operate or are located in Rancho Cucamonga. Our family has lived in Rancho Cucamonga for the last 12 years, and in Haven View Estates for the last 3 years. I must tell you that I am strongly opposed to the proposed development for many reasons, and I urge you to consider the ramifications of permitting this development to go forward. In addition to currently living in Haven View Estates, I own two adjoining lots on the east side or RC-V. I have plans to build a 7,000 square foot home on the two lots withing the next 18 months. I feel that Haven View Estates is a tremendous community, and my new home will be consistent with the quality of the current and new homes being built, with the exception of the Lauren Development Project! The estimated costs of my new home are approximately 1.2 million dollars. I feel that the homes that currently exist as well as the new ones being built will continue to make Haven View Estates the most desirable community in Rancho Cucamonga. It is my feeling, that if you allow the Lauren Project to be built, many persons including myself will look into the option of building in other local communities. This proposed development will be detrimental to all of Rancho Cucamonga and there could be a tremendous political backlash as well as a significant change i~future city revenues. Aside from the reasons stated above, there remains several safety and environmental issues that need to be addressed. I have an eight year old daughter and a three year old son. The peace and solitude, lack of traffic, and safety of Haven View Estates is what made me choose to live here in the first place. The proposed project could change that forever. Do not ignore the dangers of the increased traffic, the dangers of the removal of the levee, the compromised air quality, and the permanent environmental damage that will result. As a taxpayer and citizen of this wonderful city, I am asking that you act in a responsible manner consistent with what this city has stood for in the past. I am counting on your wisdom to make the right decision on the Lauren Development Project and not allow the homes to be built. Thank you for your time. William, Ma~a, Jennifer, and Daniel Hawkins RECEIVED July 2, 1997 JUL 0 7 1997 Mr. g. David Barker Planning Commission ~'~.3:,~ncho Cucamopga 10500 Civic Center Drive, P.O. Box 807 ~a, tomg Oivision Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Dear Commissioner Barker: This letter is to notify you of our concerns regarding Lauren Development Inc.'s proposed plans to develop and build forty (40) tract homes in Haven View Estates, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. We, Mahlon and Maureen Sampson, residents of and business owners in Rancho Cucamonga, are currently having a home built in Haven View Estates on Lot 50, an approved developed home site. On the June 11, 1997 Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission's agenda, staff had placed the Lauren Development Inc. Project on the Consent Agenda as a "routine and non-controversial" item to be acted on "without discussion". Fortunately, through the diligent efforts of Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion "C.U.R.E.", citizens were able to request the commission to remove the Project from the Consent Agenda, and allowed citizens to voice their concerns. Some of our concerns are: * The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Staff is approving a housing project that places our homes and families at risk of flooding and rock debris. * The Project involves removal of a levee that presently blocks three (3) "blue line" streams. * All of the existing flood control infrastructure (cited by Lauren Development Inc. to justify removel of the levee) is, to our understanding, built on earthquake faults where "new studies" reveal the possibiltiy of a 7.5 earthquake (such a quake, we are told, would be 15 times greater than the Northridge earthquake). If the flood control debris basins are damaged in a quake, there will be flooding and debris flow. There are two (2) designated landslide areas within a mile of our homes. * The planning staff has not conducted any traffic studies. There are many children in our area. The streets are not designed to hold the amount of "new" construction traffic that would be created during the development of the Project. * No air quality studies have been done concerning the health impacts on us and our children, especially during the grading of thousands of tons of soil from the proposed levee removal. * The Project is on sensitive habitat land. There are less than 2,000 acres of this type of habitat in the world. The planning staff did not require any biological studies in violation of state and federal law. * The planning staff has been biased toward the Developer. It is our understanding that the staff has made it difficult for "C.U.R.E." to acquire documents that are a matter of public record. * As residents and taxpayers, we have a right to a fair and responsible planning staff who takes our safety into account. If the Project is approved and there is ever flooding in our area as a result of this Projects approval, we will hold the City of Rancho Cucamonga responsible for damages. Sincefly, ?lahlon and Maureen Sampson P.O. Box i327 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-1327 (909) 944-9955 RECEIVED July 2, 1997 JUL 0 8 1997 City of Rancho Cucamonga E. David Barker Planning Division Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91729 Re: Opposition to Lauren Development Project. My name is Girdhari Lal Jaswal. I own a vacant lot in Haven View Estate where I intend to build my custom house. This has been our family's dream. We are very much concerned about the building of track homes in Haven View Estate. We don not want any track homes to be built there. My family and I work very hard for our money. These lots are very expensive. This is a very sensitive issue for the home owners. Approval of this project means stress to the home owners. Remember that home owners will be suing the city for stress related damages and any other damages. This project will be very expensive for the city. I can not sleep at night and I am filled with night mares due to the fact that my dream house buil't on this lot will not give me a peaceful life. I wake up in the morning worried. There are other reasons for not approving the project. Please read the enclosed insert. Your help will be very much appreciated. Sincerely yours Girdhah Jaswal Inserts for Letters to Political Representatives · The Cucamonga Planning Staff are approving a housing project that place our homes and family at risk of flooding and rock debris. , The Project involves removal of a levee that presentl.~ blocks three "blue line" streams. · All of the existing flood control infrastructure (cited to justify removvJ of the levee) ~z ~,,,,, ci~ ,drmquase faults where new :-- iradies reveal a possible 7.5 quake (15 tintes stronger than the Northridge earthquake). When the flood control debris basins are damaged in a quake, there ~x411 be flooding and debris flow. There are two designated landslide areas within a mile of our homes. · The Planning Staff have not conducted anv traffic studies. There are manv children in our area and the streets are not designed to hold the amount of new traffic that would be created by the project. · No air qualit>.' studies have been done concerning the health impacts on us and our children during grading of thousands of tons of soil from levee removal. · The Project is on sensitive habitat land. There are less than 2,000 acres of this .type of habitat in the world. The Planning Staff did not require any biological studies in violation of state and federal law. · The planning staff ha~ been biased toward the developer. It has refused to produce documents Ihat are a nmtter of public record. · As residents and tax payers, we have a right to fair, responsible planning staff who take our safety into accotrot. If the Project is approved and there is ever flooding in our area, we will sue the City for damages. RECEIVED JUL 0 7 1997 July 3, 1997 Narcie and Mary Ferreira City of Rancho Cucamonga 5009 Bramble Ct. Planning Division Haven View Estates Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737 Mr. E. David Barker Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission PO Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: Opposition to Lauren Development Project - Haven View Estates Dear Sir: We strongly oppose the proposed Lauren Development Project in Haven View Estates because it will have detrimental impact on the quality of life in the area, it is environmentally unsound, and it will destroy the irreplaceable habitat land. We strongly urge you to immediately stop the Lauren Development Project. Details of our opposition are explained below: 1. The Cucamonga Planning Staff are approving this project without conducting detailed studies of risk of flooding and rock debris this project will create in the community. This project involves removal of a levee that presently blocks three "blue line" streams. 2. All the existing flood control infrastructure (cited to justify removal of the levee) is built on earthquake faults where new studies reveal a possible 7.5 quake (much stronger than the Northridge quake). When the flood control debris basins are damaged in a quake, there will be flooding and debris flow. There are two designated landslide areas within a mile of the e~sting homes in the Haven View Estates. 3. The Planning Staff have not conducted any traffic studies. There are many children in our area and the streets are not designed to hold the amount of new traffic that would be created by the project. 4. No air quality studies have been done concerning the health impacts on the existing community during grading of thousands of tons of soil fi-om levee removal. 5. The project is on sensitive habitat land. There are less than 2,000 acres of this type of habitat in the world. The Planning Staff did not requke any biological studies in violation of state and federal laws. 6. The Planning Staff has been biased in favor of the Developer. It has refused to produce documents that are a matter of public record. 7. As resident and tax payers, we have a right to fair and responsible Planning Staff who take community's safety into account. If the Project is approved and there ever is flooding or any unsafe conditions due to the project, we will hold the City liable for damages. Sincerely, Narcie and Mary Ferreira ~_~ RECEIVED July 7, 1997 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division E. Dav±d :Barker, Plann&ng Comm±ss±on 10500 Civ±c (::enter Dr±ve P. O, :Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 R~.: Oppo$±t±on to Lauren Development Dear Mr. Barker: Because of the proposed project of Lauren Development in Haven View Estates we want to voice our concern about this development. This concern stems from the following points and could have legal implications for the City and impacts our safety. 1. The Cucamonga Planning Staff are approving a housing project that places our homes and family at risk of flooding and rock debris. 2. The Project involves removal of a levee that presently blocks three "blue line" streams. 3. All of the existing flood control infrastructure (cited to justify removal of the levee) is built on earthquake faults where new studies reveal a possible 7.5 quake (15 times stonger than the Northridge earthguake). When the flood control debris basins are damaged in a quake, there will be flooding and debris flow. These are two designated landslide areas within a mile of our homes. 4. The Planning Staff have not conducted any traffic studies. There are many children in our area and the streets are not designed to hold the amount of new traffic that would be created by the project. 5. No air quality studies have been done concerning the health impacts on us and our children during grading of thousands of tons of soil from levee removal. 6. The Project is on sensitive habitat land. There are less than 2,000 acres of this type of habitat in the world. The Planning Staff did not require any biological studies in violation of state and federal law. 7. The Planning Staff has been biased toward the developer. It has refused to produce documents that are matter of public record. 8. As residents and tax payers, we have a right to fair, responsible planning staff who take our safety into account. If the Project is approved and there is ever flooding in our area, we will sue the City for damages. After your reviewing the above points we think that you will agree that the proper safety precautions and proper legal steps need to be taken before Lauren Development should proceed. Thg~k you, Home Owner 10978 Carriage Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737 (909) 989-1987 RECEIVED JUL 0 7 1997 July 1, 1997 Hari Gupta City o! Rancho cucamonga 5029 Bramble Ct. Planning Division Haven View Estates Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737 Mr. E. David Barker Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission PO Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: Opposition to Lauren Development Project - Haven View Estates Dear Sir: We strongly oppose the proposed Lauren Development Project in Haven View Estates because it will have detrimental impact on the quality of life in the area, it is environmentally unsound, and it w/11 destroy the irreplaceable habitat land. We stron~y urge you to immediately stop the Lauren Development Project. Details of our opposition are explained below: 1. The Cucamonga Planning Staff are approving this project without conducting detailed studies of risk of flooding and rock debris this project will create in the community. This project involves removal of a levee that presently blocks three "blue line" streams~ 2. All the existing flood control intSastructure (cited to justify removal of the levee) is built on earthquake faults xvhere new studies reveal a possible 7.5 quake (much stronger than the Northridge quake). When the flood control debris basins are damaged in a quake, there will be flooding and debris flow. There are two designated landslide areas ~vithin a mile of the existing homes in the Haven View Estates. 3. The Planning Staff have not conducted any traffic studies. There are many children in our area and the streets are not designed to hold the amount of new traffic that would be created by the project. 4. No air quality studies have been done concerning the health impacts on the existing community during grading of thousands of tons of soil from levee removal. 5. The project is on sensitive habitat land. There are less than 2,000 acres of this type of habitat in the world. The Planning Staff did not require any biological studies in violation of state and federal laws. 6. The Planning Staff has been biased in favor of the Developer. It has refused to produce documents that are a matter of public record. 7. As resident and tax payers, we have a rio~ht to fair and responsible Planning Staff who take community's safety into account. If the Project is approved and there ever is flooding or any unsafe conditions due to the project, we will hold the City liable for damages. Sincerely, Hari Moran Gupta RECEIVED July 1, 1997 JUL 0 ? ]cJ~7 Sneh Gupta 4995 Clover Place ~el~jy~/J~: City of nancho Cuca~a Hav~ View E~ates P~anni~ Divisi~ ~cho Cucamonga, CA 91737 PO ~ox 807 ~cho Cucamo~ga, CA 91729 Subject: ~posk~o~ to ~au[e~ Development ~oject - Have~ Vi~w ~ates D~a~ S~: We strongly oppose the proposed Lauren Development Project in Haven View Estates because it will have detrimental impact on the quality of life in the area, it is environmentally unsound, and it will destroy the irreplaceable habitat land. We strongiy urge you to immediately stop the Lauren Development Project. Details of our opposition are explained below: 1. The Cucamonga Planning Staff are approving this project without conducting detailed studies of risk of flooding and rock debris this project will create in the community. This project involves removal of a levee that presently blocks three "blue line" streams. 2. All the existing flood control infrastructure (cited to justify removal of the levee) is built on earthquake fatfits ~vhere new studies reveal a possible 7.5 quake (much stronger than the Northridge quake). When the flood control debris basins are damaged in a quake, there will be flooding and debris flow. There are two designated landslide areas within a mile of the existing homes in the Haven View Estates. 3. The Planning Staff have not conducted any traffic studies. There are many children in our area and the streets are not designed to hold the amount of new traffic that would be created by the project. 4. No air quality studies have been done concerning the health impacts on the existing community during grading of thousands of tons of soil from levee removal. 5. The project is on sensitive habitat land. There are less than 2,000 acres of this type of habitat in the world. The Planning Staff did not require any biological studies in v/olation of state and federal laws. 6. The Planning Staff has been biased in favor of the Developer. It has refused to produce documents that are a matter of public record. 7. As resident and tax payers, we have a right to fair and responsible Planning Staff who take community's safety into account. If the Project is approved and there ever is flooding or any unsafe conditions due to the project, we will hold the City liable for damages. Sincer~y, ~ Sneh Gupta ~ Protecting and Conserving Biological Diversity, Native Plants, Native Animals and Native Lands Vera Rocha, Co-Founder July 9, 1997 Shoshone-Gabrielino Nation Cultural Affairs Director Mayor & City Council keeona Klippstein, Co-Founder City of Rancho Cucamonga Conservation Programs Oirec¢or City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Douglas Doepke, Treasurer Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91729 Policy Programs Coordinator Janinc Brown, Secretary Delivered by Hand Steven Fisher, Ecologist RE: Lauren Tract 14771 Science Programs Coordinator Daniel Patterson, Ecologist Dese~ Programs Coordinator INTRODUCTION Pa~ick Mitchell, Naturalist Spirit of the Sage Council (Sage Council) is an all volunteer non-profit Peninsular Ranges Coordinator coalition of conservation organizations and Native Americans that are Kathy Knight, Public Affairs dedicated to the protection and preservation of America's Natural and Coastal Wetlands Coordinator Cultural Heritage. Co-founded by Chief Ya'Anna, Vera Rocha of the Shoshone-Gabrielino Nation (California Tribe) and Leeona Klippstein in Elizabeth Francis, Public Affairs 1991, Spirit of the Sage Council represents the cumulative biocentric Arroyo Seco Coordinator interests of approximately 50,000 individual members and coalition AI Kelly, Wildlife Biologist organization members throughout California, the United States, British San Bernardino Valley Coordinator Columbia and Mexico. . ~ Udo Wald, Public Education Interfaith Outreach Coordinator The Sage Council was created to initially protect and preserve the endangered coastal sage scrub associated plant and wildlife communities of ADVISORY MEMBERS Southern California. Additionally, it is because of the cultural/spiritual significance of the natural sage scrub communities that the Shoshone- Jasper Carlton, Director Biodiversity Legal Foundation Gabrielino people and other Native American tribes have taken an active role in conservation. The most threatened of the Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) Lorin Lindner, President subassociations is Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) with less Fund for Wild Nature than 6,000 acres remaining worldwide. This unique natural community is more endangered than tropical rain forests and the ancient forests of the Paul Watson, Director Sea Shepherd Conservation Society Pacific Northwest. The diversity of plants and animals is also unique when considering the influences of three ecoregions (coastal scrub, forest, desert) Kieran Suckling, Director and vegetation types coming together to share their richness on alluvial 5W Center for Biological Diversity fans and washes of the Transverse/San Gabriel Mountain ranges. Dr. £d Crumbinc, Director Sierra Institute BACKGROUND & GENERAL COMMENTS Dr. K. 5hawn Smallwood In 1991, Spirit of the Sage Council made it our goal to protect all of the National Endangered Species Network remaining endangered alluvial washes and fans of the coastal San Gabriel A na~rofi~ ~roj~ of ~o~lsl and ~lro~en~&l En~re~ (~EE, I~.), Mali~, GA. Recycled Paper Mayor & City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga RE: Lauren Tract 14771 Page 2 of Mountains and Transverse Ranges. This was not only because of the needs of wildlife, but also because many of these remaining areas are pre-historic village sites, ceremonial grounds and burials of the Shoshone- Gabrielino Nation. A majority of the plants natural community have medicinal and spiritual significance. In particular the white sage (salvia apiana) is extremely important to indigenous people. This plant is used for medicine and in ceremonies that support the spiritual daily life. All of the plants and animals, including soils and hydroiogy are interconnected to the health of the Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) ecosystem and the Shoshone-Gabrielino people. As you are aware, the Sage Council spear-headed a successful five year campaign to protect and preserve 763 acres of the North Etiwanda/Day Creek - Riversidean Alluvial Fan that has been acquired and is now a Preserve. More recently, the 800 acre inholding at Day Canyon was acquired and returned to the Forest Service for management. The City of Rancho Cucamonga now has the ability to assist in the expansion of the Preserve System rather than contributing to the fragmentation and destruction of an otherwise large contiguous habitat area. There is no more room for "compromises" to RAFSS. Trying to find a "win win" compromise or "middle ground" is simply a disquise for "mediocrady" in government. There is an extraordinary opportunity to create a "world class" wildlife reserve, but to do so it will take the courage of "extraordinary" government leaders to stand up to "corporate dominance." The Sage Council encourages each and everyone of the City Council Members to take the steps that are needed to become true leaders in protecting one of the Earth's most endangered natural communities. If we can't protect what is endangered here in our own backyards how will we ever protect endangered tropical rain forests? POSITION & SUMMARY The Sage Council is opposed to the "Lauren Development Project" and any other project that would deminish the remaining RAFSS habitat and its biological value. The City Council should recirculate the Notice of Preparation and require an Environmental Impact Report. However, we would like the City to take active steps towards acquiring deed and title so that the land can be conserved. The Sage Council believes that this is an economically feasible alternative when considering the foreseeable impacts of flooding events and earthquakes. The proposed project is a "noxious use of land" that not only will cause significant impacts to the environment, but will also threaten the "health, safety and general welfare" of the people living adjacent and near by. 1. The circumstances surrounding this project have changed significantly, therefore the City shouM require an Environmental Impact Report instead of a Negative Declaration. Requiring an EIR is the responsible thing to do. a) The original project proponent and City did not consider the cumulative impacts on the environment, Native American cultural resources and residents concerns. The City Council should make their decision based on facts and the total ramifications of the action -- not assertions and concepts. b) There project proponent and City failed to provide adequate surveys and studies to substantiate the assertions that the project will not have a negative effect on biological resources, cultural resources, Mayor & City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga RE: Lauren Tract 14771 Page 3 of - hydrological resources, air quality, traffic, visual impacts and the existing residential community. Assumptions and assertions are only relevant in a court of law when they are substantiated by scientific evidence, studies and reports that were performed utilizing accepted scientific practices, methods and criteria. c) Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) is more threatened than ever before. The project NOP and Neg Dec is inaccurate and fradulent in denying environmental impacts. The California Natural Diversity Data Base has designated RAFSS a high priority natural community for protection since 1987. The project was proposed as a Neg Dec in 1990. Since that time additional RAFSS has been destroyed by various development, mining and infrastructure activities. d) The California Department of Fish & Game and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service have included the project area in mapping of subregional conservation areas for Coastal Sage Scrub associated habitat. e) The City of Rancho Cucamonga is contracted to a conservation agreement through the San Bernardino Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU). f) State and Federal Wildlife Agencies have notified the City that there are significant environmental concerns that have not been adequately addressed or mitigated for. In particular, the developer has not adequately surveyed the project area for rare, threatened and endangered species. g) The developer proposes to remove a levee that currently provides some protection measures to the residential community adjacent to the project. Obviously the project sit upon the flood plain in the confluence of Deer and Day Canyon Washes. Removing the earthen levee that was build to provide protection to the adjacent neighborhood would place people and property at an increased risk of being harmed. h) New scientific data (Dolan, J. 1996) in regards to seismic activity in the area indicates that there is life threatening high hazards of earthquakes that are unmitigatable in building standards. 2) There is significant controversy and objection to the project and Neg Dec. from adjacent land holders, residents, constituents and members of the public. a) The developer failed to provide adequate notice of the proposed project to adjacent effected residents and land holders, including the U.S. Forest Service Supervisor. According to recent telephone conversations with Steve Loe, Senior Wildlife Biologist, Elliott Graham, District Ranger, and Gary Earney, Lands Manager, the U.S. Forest Service has not been contacted by the project proponent and has not been notified or consulted with regarding the Lauren Project. In addition, Elliott Graham, District Ranger, informed the Sage Council that a similar situation occurred not too long ago, in regards to the Hunter's Ridge Development Project in Fontana, where the project proponent and City clearly violated CEQA and the project was stopped. Mayor & City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga RE: Lauren Tract 14771 Page 4 of 3) Prehistoric Cultural Heritage Site - Cucamonga Village Site 4) Natural Heritage Site - Biologically Diverse by the interchange between three ecoregions- Forest/Cismontane/Desert 5) Endangered Species and Habitats. The City should require that the project proponent perform biological surveys for not just the California gnatcatcher, but for all State Species of Concern, Rare, Candidate, Proposed, Threatened and Endangered Species. In particular, the Sage Council would like surveys to be performed for the endangered Slender horned spine flower, endangered Wooley star, Plummer's Mariposa Lily, endangered arroyo toad, red legged frog, yellow legged frog, coast horned lizard, orange throated whiptail, proposed San Bernardino kangaroo-rat, Los Angeles little pocket mouse, black tailed jackrabbitt, sage sparrow, horned lark, collard lizard, coast whiptail lizard, cactus wren, road runner, mountain lion, bob cat, raptors and snakes Recommendations 1) Pro-Active Land Acquisition through Coordinated FEMA Funding and/or Condemnation. The project applicant/land holder, City of Rancho Cucamonga, State Resources Agency/CDFG and Wildlife Conservation Board, U.S. Department of the Interior/FWS and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should request the assistance of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to fund the acquisition of the Lauren Project site. The historic flooding events and previous disasters are well documented. Coupled with the earthquake faults and related hazards to human life it would make sense to contact FEMA to begin acquisition negotiations. "There is great temporal disparity between the pace at which the mountains behave and the way people think. Exceptional flows have occurred at least once a decade, and lesser ones in greater numbers. Exceptional flows are .fi'equent, in other words, but not frequent enough to deter people from building pantiled mansions in the war zone. dingbats in the line of fire." - dohn McPhee, The Control of Nature, 1989- Flooding/Health, Safety and General Welfare "Southern Cah.'fornia is the land of the freak flood In this semi-and region, it can rain like nowhere else in the America. In fact, it neither rains nor pours: the skies simply open up and dump oceans of water on the land. Pounng down the steel) mountain ranges with the speed and fitry of a mill race. rain waters convert the dry creek be& or arroyos into raging infernos." - Carey McWilliams in his 1946 book, Southern California Country - 1916 - more than 16 inches of rain fell in two days. The San Diego Reservoir overflowed and railroad bridges were washed away. Mayor & City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga ' RE: Lauren Tract 14771 Page 5 of ' 1926 - a rain gauge in the San Gabriels collected more than one inch a minute on April 5th. 1928 - the St. Francis Dam, aka Mullholland Dam broke. 1,240 homes were destroyed and 385 human lives lost. 1934 - a Noah type flooding occurred at the end of 1933 and beginning of 1934, mobilizing on January 1, a number of almost simultaneous debris flows that came out of the mountains. '1938 - 36 inches of rain fell in 6 days. Debris basins did not past the test, but instead filled up and over flowed. During a five day period in March eleven inches of rain fell, flooding over 30,000 sq. miles and taking 81 human lives. The skies opened up and dumped approximately 4,761,548,800,000 pounds of rain. Perch from the ocean could be fished from the streets of Los Angeles and hail the size of hen eggs struck the ground. 1943 - 26 inches fell in 24 hours. 1969 - more than 44 inches in nine days fell in the San Gabriels. 12 inches fell in one night. '19~78 -1 ½ inches of rain fell every 25 mins. In December and January there was an unusual amount of rain, but no flood. By the end of the first week in February, there had been 18 inches in all. Then, in the next 3 days, came enough additional rain to make this winter the greatest rainfall of the 20th century, exceeded only by 1884 and 1890 in the record of Los Angeles County. 3 million tons of water fell in one day. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration selected the word "monstrous" to be fit the culminating February storm, in which almost a foot (12 inches) of rain fell in 24 hours, and, in the greatest all out burst, an 1 ½ in five minutes. This storm throughout the San Gabriels was so powerful that the Zachau Basin overtopped, and corpses buried in the Verdugo Iti!!s went a float. At Big Tujunga Wash, over 600,000 tons of discrete slug (a river rapid of liquid concrete) filled up behind the dam. The County spent more than $2,000,000.00 in removing the dislodged mud, sand and rock. 13 people died in Hidden Valley, roughly a third of the year round community at that time. According to Amos Lewis who witnessed Nature's fury at the wash, the snout of the debris flow was twenty feet high, tapering behind. Debris flows sometimes ooze along, and sometimes move as fast as the fastest river rapids. The huge dark snout was moving nearly five hundred thousand feet a minute and the rest of the flow behind was coming twice as fast, making rolling waves as it piled forward against itself- this great slug, as geologists would describe it, this "discrete slug, this violence of wet cement". All this was spread wide a couple hundred feet. 1980 - There were 6 storms in 9 days. Mayor & City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga RE: Lauren Tract 14771 Page 6 of According to natural historian, John McPhee, his published works and research, The Control of Nature, all along the San Gabriels boulders have been flung from flood storm rapids. There are areas along the foothills of the San Gabriels rocks the size of soccer balls have been thrown as far as eight miles south of the mountain front. "Dr. Barclay Kamb- the tectonophysicist, X-ray crystallographer, and glaciologist who discovered, among other things, the structures of high pressure forms of ice: ice II through ice IX, from the Caltech geology department and described by his colleagues as "the smartest man in the world" has explained that in the San Gabriel's canyons "above the debris basins, there are crib structures. The theory is to prevent sediment from coming out of the mouths of canyons. I think most geologists would say that is ridiculous, because they are not changing the source of the sediment. They are just storing sediment. Those crib works are less strong than Nature's own constructs. The idea that you can prevent the sediment from coming out is meddling with the works of Nature. Sooner or later, a flood will wipe out those small dams and scatter the debris. Everything you store might come out in one event. We're talking human time - not geological time." Another expert was interviewed by John McPhee, Dr. Andrew Ingersoll, the planetary scientist has also made similar comments regarding the Big Santa Anita Canyon and storm events, "The canyon is full of crib structures, arresting debris, an example of bureaucracy doing something for its own sake." In 1969 the storm caused the debris to brake free. "Those little dams must have been nearly insignificant. They were based on the experience of Swiss farmers, and this may have been a totally different situation. It might have been a very poor concept to try to control the San Gabriels." The City and permitting agencies should require the project applicant to provide all the essential information on which to base their final decision. The lead local agency and permitting agencies could be held accountable and liable for such inadequacies in the final documents. The permitting agencies are required to base their decisions on the "worst case scenario" of "high mark" flooding events that are known to occur. Without such data is difficult for the City and public to understand how the project proponent and consultants are basing their conclusions or whether such conclusions are scientifically and biologically sound. 2) Acquisition to Protect and Preserve the Historic, Cultural/Spiritual, Biological, Visual and Educational Resources. The very name "Cucamong(n)a" is of the Shoshone-Gabrielino language and a pre-historic village site. The cultural significance of the project site has not been identified or mitigated for in the proposed project. The NOP and Neg Dec does not even mention the indigenous people of the land or the historic and current significance of the site to the Shoshone Nation. The State of California, Resources Agency, Wildlife Conservation Board and Department of Fish & Game have identified Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub as a high priority habitat for acquisition. The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) also recognizes the need to conserve this ecosystem and is required to do so, pursuant Section 2 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The FWS also has the "duty to conserve", pursuant to ESA section 7(a)(!). The courts have held that the duO' to conserve Mayor & City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga RE: Lauren Tract 14771 Page 7 of requires federal agencies to affirmatively and "actively pursue a species conservation policy" and to dedicate "all means at their disposal" in doing so. (.Carson-Truckee Water Conservancy Dist. v. Clark, 741 F.2nd 257, 262 (9th Cir. 1984); Nat'l Wildlife Federation v. Nat'l Park Service, 669 F. Supp. at 388; see also Defenders of Wildlife v. Andrus,428 F. Supp. 167, 170 (DDC. 1977).). Most federal agency actions or failures to act that result in some harm to, or even prevent the recovery of, listed species are arguably violations of the "duty to conserve".The DOI has released to the State, through Section 6 funding of programs, an initial 6 million dollars for acquisition of Coastal Sage Scrub Communities. Since Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub is the most "threatened", we could assume that there is a probable chance of funding. Additional funding may also be available through Congressional appropriations and DOI National Park Service for acquisition of Pre-historic and Cultural Sites of Native Americans. This appropriation would be sought through the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The site could also be designated as a "Native American Cultural Park", through the National Historic Preservation Act. This has been done by the City of Malibu and Topanga. Combining the Cultural, Biological, Education and Visual significance of preservation is important when considering the funding mechanisms for acquisition or condemnation if the land holder/project proponent is an unwilling seller. It would be beyond foolishness and ignorance if this special land and important resources were "compromised" by a crime of white collar greed. 1) TITLE 16, SUBCHAPTER II - NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION,§ 470.et seq. and § 470-1 (1-6), special notice and emphasis to (4) "contribute to the preservation ofnonfederal owned prehistoric and historic resources and give maximum encouragement to organizations and individuals undertaking preservation by private means; ". 2) Ex. ORD. NO. 11593. PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT (Richard Nixon, May 13, 1971, 36 F.R. 8921). 3) TITLE 16 § 470a.(2)(A-F) and allocation of funds for preservation and acquisition through § 470a (d)(1-3) "(i) for the preservation of National Historic Landmarks which are threatened with demolition or impairment and for the preservation of historic properties of World Heritage significance," (emphasis added). 4) TITLE 16 § 470h-4. et seq. 5) TITLE 16 § 470a-1. WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION. The U.S. Secretary of the Interior may coordinate protection efforts between federal and state historic preservation agencies, Indian tribes, organizations and non-Federal land holders. "No non- Federal property may be nominated by the Secretary of the Interior to the World Heritage Committee for inclusion on the World Heritage List unless the owner of the property concurs in writing to such nomination." Funding for acquisition and preservation is apparently made available through § 470h. Historic Preservation Fund; establishment; appropriations; source of revenue. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (67 Stat. 462, 469), as amended (43 U.S.C 338), and/or under section 7433(b) of title 10 as appropriated through Congress. Mayor & City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga RE: Lauren Tract 14771 Page 8 of The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act provides funding to the Historic Preservation Fund in the Treasury of the United States of" $150,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1982 through 1997." "Any moneys not appropriated shall remain available in the fund until appropriated for said purposes; Provided, That appropriations made pursuant to this paragraph may be made without fiscal year limitation". (As amended Pub. L. 102-575, title XL, § 4011, Oct. 30, 1992, 106 Star. 4760.) The City of Rancho Cucamonga, Project Proponent, CDFG and FWS need to meet with Vera Rocha and Spirit of the Sage Council to personally discuss protection of this Sacred and Cultural Site. "As native seed banks, native plants and native animals become endangered, the native languages, native people and native cultures also become endangered': - Chief Ya91nna, Vera Rocha, Gabrielino-Shoshone Nation - Pursuant CEQA, NEPA, NHPA and other applicable regulations, the project applicant must survey and conduct field studies for the entire project site in consultation with and take oral history from the Native American, Most Likely Descendant (MLD), which is Chief Vera Rocha of the Shoshone-Gabrielino Nation, consult with the Natural History Museum and the Native American Heritage Commission. Furthermore, the State Historic Preservation Officer should be consulted along with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the Western Region. The failure of the project applicant and consultants to take the "oral history" of the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), Chief Ya'Anna, Vera Rocha is of significance. The City Planning Commissioners, Council Members and permitting agencies should require that the project applicant consult with the hereditary Chief Ya'Anna and avoid all impacts to Cultural Resources, including the Sacred Sites and any possible burial remains. The project proponent is required to perform cultural studies and surveys consistent with and pursuant to CEQA, Native American Heritage Act, NEPA and NHPA. Spirit of the Sage Council requests that the agencies and project proponent conduct the required surveys and studies, including meeting with Chief Vera Rocha and her legal counsel. Vera Rocha is a co-founder of Spirit of the Sage Council and may be contacted through our coalition. The project plan fails to identify biological resources of cultural significance and religious value to California Indian tribes, Nations and their members. The plan fails to appropriately identify and mitigate cultural impacts. The plan fails to avoid impacts to cultural resources or provide appropriate alternatives. The project proponent and consultants have failed to contact or consult with the appropriate California Indians who have been recognized by the State of California as the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The conclusions reached by the Project Proponent and City thus far have been "arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion or otherwise (are) not in accordance with the law." (5 U.S.C. [ 706(2)(A).) The City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Commission and Counci! Members have the responsibility and duty to thoroughly investigate the concerns that have been raised regarding "Cultural Resources". The courts have stated that, "An administrative body to which by statute investigative and accusatory duties are delegated may take steps to inform itself as to whether there is a probable violation of the law." (U.S.v. Morton Salt Co., Ill. 1950, 70 S.Ct. 357, 338 U.S. 632, 94 L.Ed. 401.) and £ F.T.C.v. Manager, Retail Credit Co., Miami Beach Branch Office, 1975, 515 F.2nd 988, 169 U.S. App. D.C. 271.) Mayor & City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga RE: Lauren Tract 14771 Page 9 of Because the proposed plan and project site is within the ancestral territory of the Shoshone-Gabrielino Nation and their Inland Tribe, and a major 100 year floodplain, as delineated by FEMA, the project site is under tribal, state and federal jurisdiction. Therefore the project applicant must comply with various regulations and Acts that protect Native American prehistoric sites, religious plants, ceremonial grounds, burials and cultural artifacts. The entire project site is within the Deer/Day/Etiwanda Watershed and floodplain. This site and area was and still is a significant biological, cultural and religious resource to Chief Vera Rocha, their family, clan and Nation. The Shoshone-G/~brielino people have inhabited the area before the Spanish and European occupation. What today is referred to as "Property Rights" developed over a continuum of the Shoshone- Gabrielino genocide based on invasion, lies, theft, rape, murder and slavery. To this day Congress has failed to ratify approximately eighteen treaties made to California Indian Tribes. The Shoshone-Gabrielino are a sovereign Nation. Shoshone-Gabrielino Cultural/Spiritual (Ethnobotanica0 Significance of the "Lauren Development" Project Site Snow covered mountain peaks, headwaters of canyon lands, emergence of underground springs, wetlands, where waters come together to create rivers and then end in the ocean are considered the most sacred and holiest places by the Shoshone-Gabrielino people. This is where life begins and ends. It is also the places where they could find the most nourishment. Hunting was good with an abundant supply of wildlife. The medicinal and ceremonial plants most commonly used by the Shoshone-Gabrielino are found in these areas. The most Sacred and Ceremonial Plants are White Sage, Tobacco, Mugwort, Jimson Weed (Datura) and Chia. The dolphin, whale, salmon, red-legged frog, harvest ant, spider, burrowing bee, horned lizard, woodpecker, raven, bald eagle, golden eagle, hawk, owl, rabbit, bear, bobcat, coyote and deer are all significant participants in Shoshone-Gabrielino religious ceremonies. Other biological resources of cultural significance (ethnobotany) include, Oak trees, California Walnut, Holly leaved cherry trees, California sage, Black sage, Yucca, Cactus, Black berries, wild yam, wild grape, Willow, garlic/onion, Manzanita, Yerba santa, Chapparral, Tule/cat-tails, Soapwort, Nettle, Elderberries, Sedge grasses and other edible plants, roots, seeds and flowers. All of the plants, insects, lizards, fish and mammals keep the Water healthy (well). In turn the water keeps all species well. It is with this understanding and respect that the Shoshone-Gabrielino people live by. The indigenous people lived with the Earth and the hydrological cycles of the Alluvial Washes. The people were and still are in harmony with Natural Forces. The Shoshone-Gabrielino knew where it was safe to build a Wickiup, or a Mission when enslaved, and when it was safe to build. The indigenous people moved and rotated their structures and sites as not to leave a permanent impact on the Earth. That is why to this day that archaeologists and professional bone diggers often use screens to sift through soils in attempts to find any signs of Gabrielino occupation. Small family villages are more difficult to find than village trading centers (milling sites). The Gabrielino tribal people/families occupied and still live in the foothills and inland valleys of San Bernardino, San Gabriel and San Fernando. Enslaved by the Catholic Missionaries and sold to Spanish Ranchers, the Gabrielino people were set free in the mid-1950's. Until that time they were still considered the property of the Catholic Mayor & City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga RE: Lauren Tract 14771 Page 10 of Church who punished and persecuted the Gabrielino people if they spoke their indigenous language or practiced their religious ceremonies. The United States government continued this form of religious persecution until the Carter Administration in the 1980's. The Gabrielino people, language and religious ceremonies have become endangered. Faced with near extinction by genocide, it is estimated by Chief Ya'Anna, Vera Rocha that less than 500 Gabrielino people remain. Approximately 90% of the Shoshone-Gabrielino ancestral lands and territory (habitat) has been taken, destroyed or converted by the American Industrial Society and Progress cult. In the first ten years of Missionization (Churchianity), 1769 through 1779 approximately 23,600 California Indians were killed by 'various diabolical means. "Since Southern California was the area of most intensive Mission activity among Indians, it is interesting to note the consequences of Missionization. From a total of 30,000 in 1879, the number of Indians in Southern Califi~rnia declined to approximately 1,250 by 1910. The seeds of this decline were sown by the Franciscans." "With the best theological intentions in the world, the Franciscan padres eliminated Indians with the effectiveness of Nazi operating concentration camps". "During the entire period of Mission rule, from 1769 to 1834, the Franciscans baptized 53, 600 adult Indians and buried 37,000." - Carey McWilliams in his 1946 book, Southern California Country - Recognized by the State of California, the Shoshone- "Gabrielino" have not been formally recognized by the U.S. and Congress in respect to being awarded a "reservation" or government subsidies, except for health services. The U.S. Department of the Interior has recognized individual tribal members and their descendants as Gabrielino by providing identification papers and roll numbers. The Shoshone-Gabrielino Nation is still to this day "Sovereign" in the truest definition of the word. Pursuant to TITLE 25, SUBCHAPTER XXV- INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA {}651., "Indians of California" defined, "For the purposes of this subchapter the Indians of California shall be defined to be all Indians who are residing in the State of California on June 1, 1852, and their descendants now living in said State." (May 18, 1928, ch. 624, §1, 45 Stat. 602.)(emphasis added). The Project Proponent and City have failed to disclose this significant information or to identify the project site as being an area of cultural and religious significance to the Shoshone-Gabrielino Nation and People. Spirit of the Sage Council and the Council's co-founder, Chief Vera Rocha of the Shoshone-Gabrielino Nation requests that the project applicants and proponents, including the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and permitting agencies, address these concerns appropriately according to the recommendations that should be provided through consultation (§800.4(c).), the section 106 process and plan, pursuant to 36 CFR, National Historic Preservation Act, including sections contained in Subpart C - Special Provisions. The DEIR is not in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), Clean Water Act, Indians Graves and Repatriation Act, Native American Religious Freedom Act and Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations". The intent and requirements of Executive Order 12898 are clearly illustrated in the President's February 11, 1994 Memorandum for the Heads of all departments and Agencies. Mayor & City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga RE: Lauren Tract 14771 Page l~.of ~ TITLE 25, SUBCHAPTER XXV - INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA {}651. "Indians of California" defined, "For the purposes of this subchapter the Indians'of California shall be defined to be all Indians who were residing in the State of California on June 1, 1852, and their descendants now living in said State." (May 18, 1928, ch.624, §1, 45 Stat. 602.) (emphasis added). Vera Rocha was born in the State of California and continues to live in the State of California. Vera Rocha has been able to trace her maternal lineage to the San Gabriel Mission (Gabrielino) and her paternal lineage to Diegan ancestry. TITLE 25 § 657. "Revision of roll of Indians and amendments". The Secretary of the Interior provided Vera Rocha with a roll number identifying her and recognizing her as a "California Indian". The U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Treasury has disbursed funds to Vera Rocha and her descendants. Please be aware that no other "California Indians", Bands or Individual members of Bands have the authority to speak on behalf of Vera Rocha, her family or the Gabrielino's. Any transactions between "California Indian" individuals, tribal members or families were not formally approved by Vera Rocha and do not apply. Vera Rocha has never relinquished her rights as MLD or her ancestral territories. Spirit of the Sage Council and Co-founder, Vera Rocha, recommends that the Service and all Federal agencies base their actions, decisions and responses on factual information and not mere heresy. Due to the lack of the most basic information and misidentification of the cultural prehistoric site/s in the project report. SSC and Vera Rocha of the Shoshone Gabrielino Nation finds that the Lauren Development in violation of applicable regulations, including CEQA, NAHA, NEPA and the NHPA. Spirit of the Sage Council and Shoshone-Gabrielino tribal leaders requests that the applicant and agencies comply with regulations and public resource codes, including such provisions of state legislation and similar programs that have been created for other California Indians. In reference to such programs, the State of California has created a pilot project to reach a mutual agreement with the Covelo Indian Community in regards to natural resources and subsistence fishing. Pursuant to the 1995 California Fish & Game Code, Division 13., State-Tribal Agreements (added by Stats 1986 ch 691), Chapter 1. Legislative Findings § 16000. "It is hoped that this pilot project, if successful, will provide the incentive for enactment of broader legislation that would authorize similar negotiated agreements with other California Indian tribes." The Lauren Development Project proponent and City has failed to provide the public with significant cultural resource information. CEQA requires that all appropriate fact gathering studies and surveys be conducted prior to adoption of a Neg. Dec. or EIR. This ensures that the subject matter has been adequately addressed and mitigated. 36 CFR requires that federal lead agencies, and projects with a federal nexus, prepare a section 106 program in cooperation with Indian Tribes. The State Historic Preservation Act has the same requirements, ensuring that state programs are consistent with federal regulations, providing equal or greater protection. Mayor & City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga RE: Lauren Tract 14771 Page l~9,of Biological Resources - Endangered Species and Habitats "Cal~fornia fioristic province. This familiar Mediterranean chmate domain, stretching from southern Oregon to Baja California and recognized by botanists as a sepatrtte evohttionary center, contains one fourth of all the plant species found in the United States and Canada combined. Half, or 2,140 species, are found nowhere else in the world. Their environment is being rapidly constricted by urban and agricultural development, especially along the central and southern coasts of California." - EO. Wilson. The Diversity of Life.- The diversity of species found in Califomia may be primarily due to its Mediterranean climate influence. Most of California falls within one of eight Mediterranean regions of the Earth. According to U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 161 species in California are presently listed as threatened or endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1994. California is second only to Hawaii (224 listed and 428 candidates) in the number of endangered species. This number represents approximately 15.5 percent of the species listed throughout the country. In addition, there are approximately 1,102 candidate species identified for Federal listing in California. A conservative estimate of species extirpation compared to the numbers that conservation biologists indicate. Double the amount that U.S. Fish & Wildlife reveal, over 6,000 species of plants and animals need immediate protection. The loss of biological diversity is staggering when we take into account the species that have not yet been identified or categorized. At this rate of destruction, it is highly likely that the only mammalian species to survive will be those that the human species choose. "The plain intent of Congress was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost." Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 180, 184 (1973) (emphasis added). The Sage Council is extremely concerned about the "taking" (killing) of endangered species through direct, indirect and cumulative loss of habitat by this project. As you may be aware, the proposed project site does "contain physical and biological features essential to, and that may require special management to provide for, conservation of the species [concerned].". 50 C.F.R. § 424.14(c)(2)(i)., yet the Project Proponent and City have not complied with or taken all of the required administrative steps to ensure the conservation of these species, including their recovery in the wild. The destruction of endangered species habitat is considered to "harm" the species. (Babbitt v. Sweethome.) Spirit of the Sage Council contends that the Lauren Project Propoenent has not performed required surveys and a6>mprehensive biological assessment. "Agency actions" must be consistent with Regulations and Congressional intent. Fish & Wildlife Service has failed to follow administrative procedures, regulations, guidelines and their duty to "conserve" fore mentioned listed and unlisted endangered species. The courts have held that "[c]aution can only be exercised if the agency takes a look at all the possible ramifications of the agency action". North Slope Borough v, Andrus, 642 F.2d 589, 608 d.C. Cir. 1980) (quoting North Slope, 486 F.Supp. at 351). As you may be aware, approximately 6% of natural California riparian communities remain and are threatened daily by water diversion projects, channelization, dams, toxic runoff and resource extractive industries. Water is the life-blood of the Earth and any proposal to change the natural hydrology of riparian Mayor & City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga RE: Lauren Tract 14771 Page 15 of arteries ultimately involves death of some kind. The Lauren Project site is part of an existing natural wildlife movement corridor and is worthy of additional in-depth scientific studies. Mountain lions and Bobcats have been cited within the proposed project area. Please review Marble Mountain Audubon v. Rice in regards to wildlife movement corridors and legal protection. Wildlife movement will also be impaired within the corridor and plant propagation will be impacted from the loss of existing flooding regimes. No mitigation measures have been taken to reduce these impacts to a level of less than significance. A change, reduction in the project size or piece-mealing of the project does not constitute adequate mitigation of negative impacts on the environment. Restricting the movement/propagation and seed dispersal of the species will certainly preclude recovery of the species throughout the West Valley Foothills. Furthermore, the courts have determined that the USFWS and permitting agencies must give "the benefit of doubt to the species" in question and by requiring federal agencies to continue to use "all methods and procedures which are necessary to_prevent the loss of any endangered species, regardless of the cost". Roosevelt Campobello Int'l Park Com'n v. Environmental Protection Agency, 684 F.2d 1041, 1049 (lst Cir. 1982) (quoting TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. at 185, 188 n.34) (emphasis added). The Sage Council contends that FWS has failed to effectively administrate their "duty to conserve" and that their procedures and "agency actions" have permitted incremental "takes" (incidental and direct) to these Endangered Species and cumulatively are "chipping away" of important endangered species habitat restricting the range, distribution and occurrences of listed species. SSC contends that FWS and consultants has not used all "methods" or have dedicated "all means at their disposal" to comprehensively define impacts to listed and unlisted Endangered Species and their habitat. (Nat'l Wildlife Federation v. Nat'l Park Service, 669 F. Supp. at 388; see also Defenders of Wildlife v. Andrus,_428 F. Supp. 167,170 (D.C. 1977)). "Entire ecosystems have evidently been irrevocably lost". - Raven and Axelrod, 1978-. "It is not administrative department's prerogative to disagree with congressional policy and refuse to implement it; an administrative agency is required to effectuate congressional intent whether the agency agrees with Congress or not." (Ross v. Community Services, Inc.~ D.C. Md. 1975, 396 F.Supp. 278, affirmed 544 F.2d 514), and "Federal Agencies have neither the power nor the competence to pass on constitutionality of administrative or legislative action". (Murray v. Vaughn, DC.R.I., 1969, 300 F.Supp. 688.) The CNDDB ranking of S 1.1 "very threatened" with less than 2,000 acres for Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub is the most accurate. The statement from Biodiversity Associates, et. al., 1993, "There are at least eleven known locations of alluvial scrub containing over 59,000 acres.", is an assessment that is three years old and combined all "scrub" types that are found in "alluvial" soil structures. Riversidean Alluvial Sage Scrub refers to a specific vegetation type and community that is associated with alluvial soils distribution (See Attachment - Location of xeric Mediterranean-climate shrub association based on Westman's 1983 analysis). Mayor 8,: City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga RE: Lauren Tract 14771 Page 14- of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub is a more specific natural community that only exists on the Fans of mountain/foothills, usually between canyon washes and in wash floodplains where alluvial soils have coalesced. It is the coalescence of the soils through flooding events and earth quakes building upon each event (usually reverse thrust faults) that create the alluvial fans. The Riversidean Alluvial Fans along the Coastal facing slopes and canyons of the San Gabriel Mountains have been greatly reduced to less than 2,000 acres through Flood Control activities (Dams, Debris Basins and Channelization), sand & gravel Mining, Residential Development, Golf Courses and Off-Highway Vehicles. The significance of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, in comparison with other Coastal Sage Scrub associations, is that this natural community exhibits the species diversity of at least three ecoregions (coastal scrublands, forest and desert). This is a factor that has relatively been ignored by most biologists, including the applicants consultants. The coalescence of mountain/canyon top soils, including seed banks, and their retention on alluvial fans over millions of years has created a richness that cannot be recreated by restoration ecologists. There are no documented or published reports to date of successful vegetation or restoration of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. (See attached copy of a 1996 report by the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) regarding Coastal Sage Scrub and Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub.) Next to South Africa, California certainly qualifies as one of the world's most biotically diverse areas. The desert, mountain and coastal influences converging with the Transverse Mountain Ranges have created a most unique island of biological diversity. In his studies of Mediterranean Climate Regions, Harold A. Mooney, Stanford University, identified more than 5,046 vascular plant species within California's political boundaries, 30 percent of these species are found nowhere else. In comparison, there are about 20,000 vascular plant species in the continental United States. About one-tenth of Califomia's flora has recently become extinct or endangered. Mooney studies then reveal to us that, this represents 25 percent of all the known extinct and endangered species in the United States as a whole. Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub is a natural community that is not only State "very threatened" but that is also "Globally Imperiled". Substantial scientific biological data that is not included in the EIR/Appedices, presently indicates how imperiled southern California ecosystems are, simply review the California Department of Fish 8: Game, Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB). In southwestern California where development pressures are the greatest, NDDB identifies 26, S1. "threatened" Natural Communities. ELEMENT RANKING Global Ranking - The global rank (G-rank) is a reflection of the overall condition of an element throughout its global range. Species Level - G 1 = Less than 6 viable EOs or less than 1000 individuals or less than 2,000 acres. G2 = 6 - 20 EOs or 1000-3000 individuals or 2000-10,000 acres. G3 = 21 - 100 EOs or 3000 - 10.000 individuals or 10,000 - 50,000 acres. Mayor & City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga RE: Lauren Tract 14771 Page 15 of , State Ranking. The state rank is assigned much the same way as the global rank, except state ranks in California often also contain a threat number attached to the S-rank SI = Less than 6 EOs or less than 1000 individuals or less than 2000 acres. SI.1 = very threatened S1.2 = threatened S1.3 = no current threat known Natural Diversity Data Base Rare Communities R-5 Feb. 1992 TOP PRIORITY RARE NATURAL COMMUNITIES (Region 5) Code Number Location Name SI. 1 Rank 21330 Cismontane Southern Dune Scrub 31200 Cismontane Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub 32400 Cismontane Maritime Succulent Scrub 32720 Cismontane Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Once found throughout the coastal facing slopes of t he San Gabriel Mountain Range, the Natural Diversity Data Base indicates that as of 1992, there is less than 6,000 acres worldwide and less than 2,000 acres remaining in the United States, where as recently as 50 years ago there were 150,000 to 200,000 acres. Within one generation, Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Natural Communities have become endangered(Paragraph emphasis added by SSC) The Project Proponent and City have failed to recognize the changed circumstances in regards to regional biological threats, cumulative and collateral losses of RAFFS. 1) Removal of occurrence at Cucamonga Canyon Wash, San Bernardino County by Cucamonga County Water District for the construction of two debris basins and water conveyance system in the mouth of the canyon. Destroying natural hydrology and sheet flow to the natural community downstream. 2) Removal of occurrence in the City of Fontaria/San Bernardino County for phased development of "Hunter's Ridge". 3) Removal of occurrence by State Rt. 30 expansion, San Bernardino Count),. Mayor & City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga RE: Lauren Tract 14771 ... Page 16 of 4) Approval of the San Sevaine Flood Control Project and levees, San Bernardino County. ~) Approval of development (Paradise Hills) at Badger Canyon, San Bernardino County. 6) Proposed Lytle Creek Land & Water Development Project, San Bernardino County 7) Proposed Ling Yen Buddhist Mountain Retreat Center, County of San Bernardino 8) Proposed Sunwest Mining Expansion Project at Lytle Creel, County of San Bernardino 9) Proposed Calmat Mining Expansion Projects at Cajon Wash, County of San Bernardino 1 O) Proposed Sunwest/Pharris Mining Project at Santa Ana River, City of Highland It is our intent of the Sage Council to find resolve of the following concerns and issues in a timely manner that will eliminate any and all possibilities of "harming" endangered species, the public and "California Indians".The endangerment and extinction of native flora and fauna, biological and hydrological resources is an indication of a depleted and unhealthy environment for all species, including the human species. The native and natural biological resources are of cultural significance and value to California Indians and California's Natural Heritage. The rapid destruction and sprawling urban blight of wild Southern California has not only had a detrimental effect on wildlife and the natural environment, but on the people of California. First the indigenous people, then all of us now living, including the remaining Shoshone who survived the genocide, but will effect more than anyone else our children. We, Americans, can not afford to leave a legacy of golf courses, trash dumps, pink stucco houses on every ridge line and in every canyon, to our future generations. Less than 200 years ago there were California grizzly bears that could eat the fish from mountain streams and throughout the natural course of the Los Angeles River to the Pacific Ocean. Compromise after compromise to the developers of Los Angeles and corporations without accountability have taken our Natural Heritage for private profit. Piece by piece our California "Golden State" has been bulldozed and lost forever. Southern California is at the epicenter of species extinction and needs to be turned around. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has the opportunity to make the changes that are necessary. We may not ever be able to bring back the California grizzly or salmon runs to Los Angeles, but the City can take the measures needed to preserve and recover endangered Riversidean Alluvial Sage Scrub, the endangered Slender-horned spine flower, cactus wren, least Bell's vireo, coast horned lizard and other species that are threatened by the development. We thank you for your sincere reconsideration of the Lauren Development Project. Mayor & City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga RE: Lauren Tract 14771 Page 17 of Please include this comment letter with attachments in the Administrative Record for the Lauren Project. If you have any questions, or the Sage Council is need for conservation assistance, please do not hesitate in contacting our Conservation Director, Leeona Klippstein (909) 422-1637. Please keep the Sage Council on your notification and mailing list. Thank you. Attachments. Sincerely, CL4~/ona Klippstem, Co-founder Chief Ya'Anna, Vera Rocha Spirit of the Sage Council Shoshone Gabrielino Nation Leeona Klippstein, San Bernardino Sage Friends 1382 Wesley Avenue Pasadena, CA 91104 (818) 398-4962 March 24, 1992 Brad Buller, City Planner Community Development Department Planning Division City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P O Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP), Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub and C-2 Threatened and Endangered Species Dear Mr. Buller, I would like to thank you for your letter of response to the aforementioned issues of concern involving the proposed approximately 6,900 acre "Etiwanda North Specific Plan" (ENSP). As you are aware, the "ENSP" project has not been mitigated to levels less than significant, biologically, and is of great concern to our coalition. According to the City "ENSP" vegetation map and my own personal surveys, it is obvious that the alluvial coastal and Riversidean sage scrub that is within the City "Sphere of Influence" is significant. North Etiwanda is a unique alluvial fan eco-system with significant biological LIFE, so much in areas that it is difficult to see the ground. I recommend that you and your planning team re-survey this area personally. Within the past month I have been in contact with Debra Elliott Fisk, President of the University of California Natural Reserve System, and in our phone conversations discussed the proposed "University Crest" project within the ENSP project site and its biological impact on approximately 426 acres of sage scrub, which have not been mitigated for. President Fisk agreed that the biological assessments of this project are minimal and warrants further study and surveys. President Fisk gave me the name of a consulting firm and their biologist, Barbara Carlson, who is to perform this survey, who will be contacting me. I believe this helps state my case that the whole "ENSP" project site warrants re-survey. Biological surveys attained in the project area are incomplete and do not disclose "substantial evidence" regarding biological and cultural impacts. The incompleteness and/or inaccuracy of these surveys may be due to the dates, seasons, weather conditions and condition of the plant and wildlife community at time of survey. As you are aware, the "ENSP" project site and region have experienced fires. It is my understanding, through conversation with City Assoc. Planner, Miki Bratt, on 3-19-92, that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, "Eftwanda North Specific Plan" Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared by Michael Branden Associates (MBA), who did not survey the proposed project site, but obtained the biological data assessments from Data Base, and the previous biological survey assessment was performed by LSA, because the City was unable to afford new biological surveys. I presume this information is correct and that Miki Bratt would not want to mislead. I believe that if the City, County or developers are unable to afford accurate biological surveys and assessments required by CEQA, that they are also unable to afford proposed projects. In reviewing the LSA Biological Survey and assessments for portions of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, which were prepared for the Land/Plan/Design Group, March 1, 1989, I call your attention to pages 5 and 6. On page 6, Vegetation, you will see reference to: "The Texas Fire in August of 1988 burned 50-75 percent of the chaparral and alluvial fan scrub vegetation on the property, exposing large expanses of bare ground". Now please refer to page 5, Methods (second paragraph) "The project site was surveyed February 9-11, 1989". This survey was performed only 6 months after the Texas Fire. It appears that this would indicate that there were no means of performing and "accurate" biological survey at this time. Returning to the Vegetation section on page 6, paragraph 3, "Riversidean alluvial fan scrub, which predominates on the plain, was reduced in the fire by roughly 50%". For your information, sage scrubs, in addition to being drought tolerant, are also fire-adapted, quite accustomed to burning every half century or so and then vigorously growing back from their roots. The areas of the ENSP project site that were reduced in the Texas Fire of 1988, have now, three and one half years later, grown back stronger and more dense than ever before. The final draft EIR for the ENSP is biologically inaccurate, with failure to disclose "substantial evidence" of biological impacts. I highly recommend that all of the ENSP project site be re-surveyed in order to obtain accurate biological information, within the City Sphere of Influence including the County, with their assistance. Enclosed you will find a letter of reply to 1560 Army Corps of Engineers concerning the San Bernardino County Flood Control District's public notice of Permit Application No. 91-100-RS, from the US Department of Agriculture, San Bernardino County National Forest Service for Elliott L. Graham, signed by Cindy L. Oswald. In the second paragraph you will find that the San Bernardino Forest Service recommends surveys for the California gnatcatcher. As you are aware, the San Diego horned lizard, the California gnatcatcher and the orange- throated whiptail are all Federal Candidate-2 species. All three species are expected to occur on the ENSP project site and have history of being observed. The California gnatcatchers, little gray song birds, are currently being considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for listing as threatened or endangered species. In my review of the 1989 LSA biological survey (page iv) "The California black-tailed gnatcatcher, was observed during the surveys for this study in a low area of chaparral..." The California gnatcatcher was also observed in 1991 near the confluence of Cajon Wash and Lytle Creek in similar habitat. The City of Rancho Cucamonga's Environmental Impact Reports, in reference to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan by MBA, fails to disclose this pertinent and "substantial evidence" in regards to impacts on C-2 species and sensitive wildlife. There is a relevant difference between "was observed on site" and "may occur on site" and may be considered misleading. On February 14, 1992, San Bernardino Sage Friends, in conjunction with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, presented an Educational Forum addressing the significance of the ~Alluvial Fan F_co-System" at the City of Rancho Cucamonga with the City Planning Department's assistance at our request. We commend the Planning Department for their assistance and are pleased that you found this information of such significance that you video-taped the program and entered it into the City of Rancho Cucamonga archives. As you know, this program was well attended and directed towards preservation measures of this unique eco-system. The State Resources Agency in concurrence with AB2172 of October 1991 "Natural Communities Conservation Plan" (NCCP) has addressed coastal sage scrub as critical habitat and is working towards its preservation. The NCCP Scientific Review Panel (SRP) is mapping significant areas of concern and has included San Bernardino County and Rancho Cucamonga. I received this substantial information on 3-20-92 by phone from the Natural Heritage Division of California Department of Fish and Game. Three of the four indicator species of concern to the NCCP/SRP are found in this region and on the ENSP project site (LSA, MBA and California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB)); the California gnatcatcher, orange-throated whiptail and San Diego horned lizard. The lizards apparently prefer sand or .fine soil which are included in lower portions of the ENSP site provide in streambed and wash areas. Again, I emphasize that all of the ENSP project site and region are of significance, with biological impacts that have not been mitigated to levels less than significant. The proposed ENSP project fails to mitigate for the loss of alluvial fan, coastal and Riversidean sage scrub, as does the County, the University Crest project and 4th Street Rock. The Rancho Cucamonga ENSP, the County, "West Valley Foothill Plan~, the "University Crest" project and the "4th Street Rock" all fail to mitigate for the significant impact to sensitive, threatened or endangered species of plant and wildlife and all fail to disclose "substantial evidence" regarding these impacts. According to CEQA and case law, the courts have held that a public agency cannot "hide behind it's failure to" study and provide data on an environmental impact. The City, County and developers have failed to study the hydrology of the 11 acre peat bog in the northern region of the ENSP project site. CEQA case law requires hydrology studies to be done prior to certification of Environmental Impact Reports, addressing that "further study" or "future study" is not a mitigation measure. The City and County EIR's regarding the ENSP project site fail to address and disclose the "cumulative impacts" on alluvial fan, coastal and Riversidean sage scrub and wildlife to include the Federal C-2 species aforementioned. Please refer to and review the enclosed U.S. Fish and Wildlife letter to County Supervisor Jori Mikels, addressing the significance of this critical habitat. The whole ENSP project site within the City "Sphere of Influence" and the County is biologically significant. In reference to the California gnatcatcher, recent survey data being performed in San Diego, Orange and Riverside Counties, have observed California gnatcatchers in disturbed and undisturbed habitat, with nesting ranges approximately 22-35 acres. The ENSP project site and region warrant new biological in-depth surveys to concur with the NCCP/SRP survey guidelines. The 485 acres of proposed aggregate mining by 4th Street Rock, or it's successors, are not exempt of the aforementioned biological surveys, or unmitigated losses of sage scrub and species communities. The biological "cumulative impacts" have not been disclosed, and I remind the City and County that "piece-mealing" their projects is clearly illegal. Through my communications with Mike Guisti, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and Robert Smith, the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), no further agreements or permits will be issued until the City and County have a comprehensive project plan that provides a conservation plan for sage scrub and sensitive species. Robert Smith, ACOE, attended the educational forum 'Alluvial Fan Eco Systems" and is aware of the dangers of proposed residential zoning in flood plains as well as potential ground water pollution. As you are also aware, the ENSP project site is within a major flood plain and water recharge basin that present and proposed channelization cannot adequately or safely protect proposed future residents in 100 year floods. Not only does this proposed ENSP project endanger future residents of flooding but of earthquakes also. Dan Koning made recorded comment, explaining the dangers of vertical impacts resulting from the seismic activity of earthquake faults within the ENSP project site before the Planning Commission, and should be reviewed prior to final decisions on pre-zoning, zoning and certificatitn of the ENSP EIR. San Bernardino Sage Friends and I are quite aware of the power struggle between the City and County over control of the aforementioned critical habitat of a bio-regionally unique and diverse eco-system that is within the ENSP project site. San Bernardino Sage Friends and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concur that the "Etiwanda North Specific Plan" does not go far enough in protection of alluvial fan scrub and its communities. (As my grandmother taught me, "Two wrongs don't make a right"). I am aware that the "Etiwanda North Specific Plan" is only a pre-zoning document. I am also aware that City and County Planning Departments, Commission, Councils and Supervisors are expected to abide by the law as Public Servants and adequately serve all public interests and not just those individuals who are landowners, developers, corporations and campaign contributors. The present planning system of pre-zoning and EIR certification prior to a Resource Management Plan (RMP) is backwards and not in the best interest of the public and the environment. San Bernardino Sage Friends and I do not concur with this present system and challenge it. We believe in long-range planning in order to prevent environmental degradation and species extinction. Long-range planning, "Habitat Conservation Plans" (HCP's) and "Natural Communities Conservation Planning" (NCCP) are viable means of sustaining bio- diversity. The City of Rancho Cucamonga and San Bernardino County have none of the aforementioned and are required by law to do so. The alluvial fan, coastal and Riversidean sage scrub communities would not now be considered "critical" if "cumulative impacts" had been disclosed and adequately addressed and if there had been proper "land use" and not "land abuse". The ENSP project appears to be inconsistent with the general plan in zoning of hillside residential and residential within earthquake fault zones to include the Alquist-Priolo special study zones. As you may be aware, there was an earthquake in 1990 that was centered in Upland which shares the fault zones of Rancho Cucamonga. As of January 1, 1990, 116 special study zones were revised, Rancho Cucamonga being one of the 84. cities and San Bernardino County being one of the 33 counties that have been addressed by the Division of Mines and Geology as fault-rupture hazard zones in California. Again, the current EIR's and City and County General Plans "fail to disclose" accurate information concerning seismic activity and fault zones in the ENSP project site. San Bernardino Sage Friends request further studies and corrections entered in regard to solid waste and landfills. In our research we found that the Millikin Landfill is expected to close at a much earlier date than what is given in the ENSP EIR, which gives a ten year difference. Perhaps you failed to look at the "cumulative impact" of other projects in your region. As the ENSP EIR currently states "solid waste" is inaccurate and fails to disclose substantial evidence, which is misleading. I question the validity of the proposed ENSP EIR and whether it is consistent with your General Plan and Open Space element. We request that the ENSP EIR be revised and amended to accurately address all mentioned issues of concern, including that Open Space be zoned as Natural Open Space in City and County plans, in administrative record of any and all proceedings relating to this project or it's successors. We encourage the City and County to work with and seek assistance from California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. You may also request that CDFG and USFWS assist you in Land Banking and/or Land Exchange. I also request that you contact Robin Cox Smith at the Nature Conservancy, Jeff Wilson at Inland Empire West Conservation, Trust for Public Land, and encourage your State Representative/Assembly member to endorse AB72 "California Heritage Lands Bond Act of 1992" which would assist in funding for acquisition of the North Etiwanda alluvial fan and wet- lands. San Bernardino Sage Friends and I request that the City and County work together on a feasibility study for acquisition of land within the ENSP project site. I am aware that the City may not be able to offer adequate "land exchange" for landowners and developers, so again we request that the City and County work together in preservation and put aside your current "control struggle" aimed at destruction. It is San Bernardino Sage Friends intent that this information, suggestions and requests will be fulfilled and adequately addressed by means of "amendments" and "revisions" by City and County Planning Departments, Commissioners, Council Members and County Supervisors. We hope that all of the aforementioned helps to clarify our concerns and ethical expectations from local government agencies. San Bernardino Sage Friends and I request that the administrative record of any and all proceedings relating to this project or it's successors contain this letter, enclosed letters and documents, including the information contained on the video-taped educational forum "Alluvial Fan Eco-Systems" of 2-14-92 which is presently in the City of Rancho Cucamonga archives. In closing, I would also like to make comment that John Muir, on several trips in the 1890's explored the San Gabriels and frequently visited the Eftwanda area. I believe this to be of Historic significance and should also be entered into the EIR concerning History and Culture. The ENSP EIR does contain information that a large metate was found on the ENSP project site, that now sits at a nearby school. Mortar and pestles were also found in the northeast region by the four oak trees. Mt. Baldy and Cucamonga Peak are sacred areas of the Gabrielino People who do exist in 1992 and still make pilgrimages to this region, including North Etiwanda and the ENSP project site. The ENSP EIR fails to address the significance of the cultural and religious impact on the Gabfielino People, who still gather sacred healing plants from the project site for their religious ceremonies. San Bernardino Sage Friends and I look forward to our continued work together on preserving the San Gabriel alluvial fan eco-systems, and if you should have any further questions, please contact me or a Sage Friend near you. Kind regards. Sincerely San Bernardino Sage Friends Leeona Klippstein, Coordinator cc: The Honorable Jon Mikels, San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors Timothy L. Johnson, San Bernardino County Department of Agriculture Valerie Pilmer, San Bernardino County Planning Department Ina Petokis, San Bernardino County Planning Department .Lewis Neeb, San Bernardino County Flood Control Bob Michelson, Planning Consultants, Inc. Mayor and Members of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council Chairman and Members of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Rick Gomez, Rancho Cucamonga community Development Director Dr. Dan Silver, Endangered Habitats League Dr. Dennis D. Murphy, NCCP/SRP California Department of Fish and Game/Natural Heritage Division U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Gabrielino Tribal Council and Nation (Attn: S. Thompson) The Green Party of California The Sierra Club (Attn: T. Buchanan) San Bernardino Sage Friends 1382 Wesley Avenue Pasadena, CA 91104 (818) 398-4962 Commissioners Chitiea February 26, 1992 Commissioner McNiel Commissioner Melcher Commissioner Tolstoy Commissioner Vallette Rancho Cucamonga City Planning Commission Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA RE: Etiwanda North Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 90-01 and General Plan Amendment 90-03B- City of Rancho Cucamonga Envirnonmental Assessment and Specific Plan 90-01- City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 90-03B- City of Rancho Cucamonga INTRODUCTION San Bernardino Sage Friends is a Grassroots Conservation Group with several hundred individual supporters as well as endorsements by the Endangered Habitats League (a coaltion of over 30 conservation organizations), the Green Party of California, The Gabriellino Nation, The Gabriellino Tribal Council, and the John Muir Center for Regional Studies. We are a member of the advisory committee of the Resources Agency of California "Natural Communities Conservation Planning on Coastal Sage Scrub" that was enacted by AB 2172. We would like to furnish these comments and recommendations in opposition to the presently proposed Specific Plan and General Plan for the record. We recommend that all land immediately north of the northern utility corridors be zoned as Resource Conservation (RC) and that all areas south of the northern utility corridors be zoned as Natural Open Space (Natural OS) to exclude agricultural,' and urban developments on top of, or north of, the Water Recharge Basins and Riparian Habitat. We recommend that the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the County of San Bernardino develop a comprehensive "Habitat Conservation Plan" and until that time place an Interim Control Ordinance on the "Etiwanda NSP" project site, prohibiting removal and Grading of Coastal Sage Scrub and its related communities. This is to include all proposed developments in the Rancho Cucamonga, incorporated city limits, Alta Loma, Cucamonga and Etiwanda. 2 We recommend and encourage The City of Rancho Cucamonga and San Bernardino County to become active participants in the State of California NCCP program on coastal sage scrub. The "Etiwanda North Specific Plan" Final Draft EIR has not mitigated Biological Impacts to a level that is less than significant. Current Studies estimate that there is less than 5% left of coastal sage scrub in California. This is a extremely significant amount of Natural Resources that has been destroyed. Not only does the Coastal Sage Scrub of Northern Etiwanda support biological life, it supports cultural and spiritual life. Within the past 4 months the City of Rancho Cucamonga has approved Grading Permits to Developers who in turn have removed approx. 150 acres of coastal sage scrub. According to the Memorandum of Understanding by and between the California State Department of Fish & Game and the United States Fish & Wildlife Service regarding coastal sage scrub NCCP in southern California, December 4, 1992: "2. There are 13 species of animals and plants associated with CSS that are on either State or Federal lists of endangered, threatened, or rare species". " 3. The USFWS has proposed the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) for Federal listing as an Endangered Species". According to Atwood's Status Review on the California gnatcatcher, there have been sightings historically and currently in wash basins of the Alluvial fan, coastal sage scrub in San Bernardino County. According to a letter by the U.S. Forest Service, of the San Bernardino National Forest, dated September 27, 1991, by Cindy L. Oswald for Elliott L. Graham to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concerning the impacts of the proposed Damming & Debris basins of the San Sevain Wash and Etiwanda Creek..."California gnatcatchers are currently being considered by the USFWS for listing as an endangered species. The species was found in 1991 near the confluence of Cajon wash & Lytle Creek in similar habitat; a survey for the gnatcatcher in the project area is recommended,,. 3 San Bernardino Sage Friends opposses the City of Rancho Cucamonga's "Etiwanda North Specific Plan" based on these facts: 1. ENSP Final Draft EIR fails to mitigate Natural Resources/Biology to a level less than significant. 2. ENSP Biological surveys are minimal and inadequate, based on the fact that the City of Rancho Cucamonga & the County of San Bernardino have not funded an in-depth Biological Survey that is presently being requested by the State of California's "Natural Communities Conservation Planning on Coastal Sage Scrub/Scientific Review Panel" guidelines under AB 2172. 3. The City of Rancho Cucamonga and County of San Bernardino do not have a comprehensive "Habitat Conservation Plan". 4. Loss of Habitat and Natural Resources (see page 2). 5. Non-existent Hydrology Studies of Wetlands (11 Acre Sedge Bog/Fen) or their protection. 6. Development on top of "Water Recharge Basins" does not comply with the "Clean Water Act". 7. Loss of Cultural Resources. 8. Religious Freedom for Native Americans (Destruction of plant species (Salvia apiana), and other species. 9. Increased Taxes. 10. Increased Traffic. 11. Increased air and groundwater pollution. 12. Open pit mining. 13. Increased Flash Flooding. 14. Overcrowded Schools. 15. Increased Crime. Sincerely: '~ '! 7' ' Leeona Klippstein, San Bernardino Sage Friends t::CeSls Ecesis \l-$e-iOs, ~-ke-$us\ noun ~om Greek olkezis meaning inhabitation]: the establishment of an animal or plant in a new habitat THE C~UARTERLY NEWSL.ET~R OF THE SOCIETY' FOR ECOLOGICAL R,F.,,TI'ORATlOFL CALIFORNIA CH,AP'1'E!~ Restoration of Coastal Sage Scrub Recentefforts zt conservation l~ut there n~ some general issues system. Pnt~ntial fnr .,mcn~hdly .planttin& in southern Cali- we can discuss. We focus on five restoring a habitat increases when forhis have included proposals for isSUeS rega'rdh,8 fi~e m=ds~u~iu, of these components are present. testoration of coastal safe scrub as restoratiot~ initial siee conditions, Thus, small patches and narrow mitigation for habitat loss. While use of local genetic material for strips of removed or de$raded man), of us have participated in planting, maintenance, goals, vaseration wttb~ an otheswise discussions on the subject of, monitoring. We end with a discus- intact ecoystem stand a much testoration as mitigation. there has sion on realities of attempting ~-eater chance for restoration been little irdormation published coastal sage scrub testoration in a success than sims located within which addresses present state-of- · largely urbanized setting. Much of matrix of urban development. the-art coastal sage scrub restors- what we discuss is not unique to Without a nearby ecosystem to tion. We hope this short article will coastal sage scrub restoration, but provide a ftesk source of genetic serve to stimulate further, open we believe the discussion will material sites that are islands discussion of the subject. Specifi- benefit those who axe new to the coastal sage scrub within an urban call¥ we ask the question: given the practice, or who are w~estlinff with 'setting carmot become mote than realit3, that infinite amounts of their own resolution of these issues. skeletons of their less isolated dollars and time are never available Them is o~e common theme in counterparts. Sites surrounded by for any project can we realistically habitat restoratiot~ pgtential for weedy vesetation are perhaps just expect to go beyond just racisms- restoration success depends on as forsaken because exotic seeds ate tion, to restore a coastal sage scrub what you start with, both in terms continually invadin$. Such sites community with all of its lifeforms of the project site itseft and the almost always requite long-term and diversity? adjacent lancL Coastal sage scrub huma~ intervention in the form of Our short answer is, we don't testoration, like restoration of other weed abatement. It would be know, because to our knowledge ecosystems, cannot be teated optimistic to think that such isolated long-term success has not been simply as though it were a land- plantinss constitute true habitat quantified. The. long answer is the soaping project. An ecosystem is testoration, subject of this article. Every project mote than a landscape m specific Physical factors are ~ critical has its unique problems, everyone organisms, from soil ftmgi to These include soil properties ., has a slightly different story to tell. pollinators, are integx~ parts of the (alkalinity, text-ate, rock, ess, be a fascinating mix of technical information and lively discussions a~"~' ~'~', · · "~ ' a~ut incorporating restoration ecolog,/into the economy. In addition to the keynote speaker, phno~opher Paul Hawken, we have pulled together to be the best D~'RCAL conference yet! . ~.~ ..-. ......,., ... -~,-~ Registration and lodging forms, and .further information on the conterence can ~ ...... ~:~ :ompacfion), soft dept~ site aspect. ment stage o{ a planting, proper may invade from adjacent l~nbitat. ~radient, and hydrolo~y. These maintmxance can sign///cantly or the diversity of nat/ve herbaceou~ raaors comprise the foundat/on on unprove the biolo~k~l valuct. Even ~,eima may Imcom~ f/rearer than which the biol~ depend. HydroloW ram/me] e/fort~ can dramatically expece~. In tlxis rose, depending ts one of the most complex/actors influence short-term and long-.Mem on the goals o/the project, allowing ~ecause different types of coastal success. This aspect requires a change in .qpecies density nuy be (' sage scrub and hydrological condi- recognition and full integration into more desirable than repiecing the rions require different restoration the restorat/on process at the project dead plants. . approaches. l:or example, in the case plann/n~, implementation, and Wlxat are appropriate goals/or a ' of a ]xilhide prc~ect alonE the iraroe- management stages. coastal sage sc3'ub restoration d/ate coast, minimizing problems of l~niJe the overall goal of restore- project, and how much deviation severe eros/on and ~ig~ runoil need t/on/s to establisl~ a community that /TOm these goals wm be acceptable? I to be addressed in the resWration will eventually persist on its own, Answers to these questions vary plan. l:or other pro)ects, such as the establisi~ment phase is the most with every project- Success/ul those in the interior valleys with sensit/re stage in the process. A coastal sage scrub restoration alluvial/an systems, eros/on must young restorat/on site is vulnerable requites full under, tending of be accommodated in the restotat/on to problems that can appear ins/g- starting condit/ons and, g/yen these plan because it keeps the vegetation nificant at the beginning but, if conditions, understanding the community renewed. Coastal sage neglected, become more di/ficult to system well enough to set real/stic scrub in alluvial, rivefine systems is solve as time goes on. These standards tot what can be achieved. anything but static. Its diversit), o/ . problems may include invasion by These standards need to acceptable spedes and stages of vegetation weeds, unwanted human intrusion, not only biologically; but also maturity re/lea flooding l-tistor~,, just and damage/tom rodents or other placed in the context of political and as ~ ~story siteors the diversity o/ creatures that consume young financ/al real/ties. Regulatot~ upland coasta~ scrub and chaparral seedlings. Another problem may be require defin/tiorts of success communities. 'it-r/gat/on wh/c~ if used, must be standards so they know what a In addit/on to select/rig a site with mon/wrec~ to ensure that the system restoration project will biotic znd pl~ysical conditions that is operating property.'?eriocL/c People pay/n§ the bill/or a restore- favor restorat/on success, it makes irrigation/s typically necessat~ in ~on ptc~ect want site-spec/fic sense to plan on using nearest- situations w~e constraints oi standarcL~ stated dearly because nei§1~bor or a site-specific source/or proiect plannins ~ave led to plant- they want to know what criteria will seed. Some spedes in the coastal. ing out of season, or natural rain/all be used to judge success, and whe~ · sage scrub com-munitT, such as is inadequate/or plant establish- their obli~tion is over. Cal//omia buckwl~eat (~riog0~m ment. Irrigation shouki not be used Coastal sage scrub reswrat/on .f~sc/c~iat'.~m ), l~ave taxonomically indefin/tely because the goal ot a goals can be defined in the broad recognized subspecies within their coastal sage scrub restorat/on pto}ect sense: ptociuce a self-sustaining broad distribution, indicat/nE gene- is for the community to/unction coremunitT that looks and/unctions based adaptations in different independently of human interyen- ~ike coastal sage scrab. Tiffs means portions of the species range. In tion. that a/ter a certain period of estab- some plant groups which are wind Adaptive management ot a iishmenL the community should pollinated, such as needlegrass testoration ~ite is as important as persist on its own without human (~asseIl,~ spp.), complete fidelity to maintenance. Restoration involves intervention, ]~ave a suite of organ- nearest neighbor source material living organisms in settings that can isms and biotic interactions may not be as important as in other be counted on to change. l~ver~ the teristic of coastal sage scrub, resist groups. Research in this area most detailed and well planned invasion by exotic spedes, and spedtic to coastal sage scrub species project requires tlexibfiity during the retain nutrients. AU of these/actors is ongoing, but in the interim it . dL/le~ent.staies of testoration woti~ can be addressed by a variety of makes ~nse to use local material 'most importantly ctuttng the irapie- methods/amiliar to ecolog/sts: when ave/]able, and when the mentat/on and maintenance stages. identi/y spedes, measure canopy amount of seed collection required Adaptive management, in w~ch cover, test the soil/or microbes and will not itself adversely affect the original plans or schedules are ~asic nutrients, measure seed source l~a~itat. changed it~ response to unexpected productimp. However, in reality, An essential but o/ten overlooked events, can enhance potentia]/or wh/le these goals are desirable and component of the restoration process suceess. For example, unexpectedly measureable, they have rarely been is the'maintenance and management h/gh morality me), occur in one discussed directly in the environ- of a site. During the early establi~l'~- shrub species, but atmther spedes mental review ?toce~ or in restore- latnd attorod sp~ci-}~'_~l c~-~'n~. need to be realistic about wlxat a site only do we expect t~mt ~smrntion such ~ ~b~ for a p~ ~ ~ ~p~le of ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d~ ~ ~ ~t ~s ~ ~le as 'urn- ~ ~nd~. ~t ~e si~ ~ ~ ~~tly b~lla' ~ mmmp~g ~e We t~& ~ briefly on ~t ~e ~ff~t g ~i~y ~ o~er or~ ~at a~ ~ su~ ~a ~ ~ula~ a ~ml ~ ~b In ~s ~se, u~s ~ c~ ~ ~e s~s ~ ~me way. s~b ~opi~ w~ ~ u~ by are ~ advised, what began ~ ~ ~s ~p~, is ~ p~ a Ca~a ~at~t~m, m~s ~storagon ~ n~ally end up as f~u~? ~ie ~ple ~ at lea~t ~, ~d o~er ~d~e i~ds~ping for one or a few ~me ~owi~ of what ~ p~f~ mid- ~ lat~fi~ ~e c~ ~idlffe speees. sage s~b is su~sM to l~k like ~ty s~. ~ ~ M d~ Apart ~m poli~l ~d ~dal ~n ~e a ~mple~y d~s- by various ta~ ~t ~dude ~nce~, a k~ Bsue ~ how ~ ~us p~ wh~ ~ey ~ one ~d a~ m~dat~ to p~e~e ~in ~fi~ st~da~s are quanfifi~ A say ~, ~ g a f~u~," m~y wii~ffe ~ ~ well as ~ wor~ble approa~ for qu~ing p~ ~ not d~r sum~es or ~ide~go~ But a ~y ~e ~t si~pedfic ~torafi~ s~dards g I~lu~. d~, ~la~, biolo~ ~ id~ a "~f~n~ ~w', or an ~e ~t ~ ~da~on &at ~ ~ragon pra~go~ n~ ~ea of un~sm~ coastal ~ge .a~epmble, ~d for w~t ~e~ mumSly ~e ~ ~at s~b to wM~ ~ r~to~d si~ wRl (e.g-, ~v~, dive~i~) n~s ~ be sage s~ ~mg~ pm~ be compared. F~qu~ ~ ~~ at ~e ~ng of a not ~la~ ~a~y what w~ 1~ at reteren~ si~ is ~e hab~t ~at was ~t~aHon p~je~ b~u~ it not a p~i~ gme ~d.p~. lost ~d surveyed p~or to ~v~ of o~y aE~ h~ ~e m~s of a (wh~ ~used by fl~d or · e bulldozer, or is adiacent to ~e p~je~ is ~luate~ but how as mu~ pan oI ~e ~ sa~ proposed reswra~ siteJ ~e~on p~s is mo~. For ~ose s~b e~~ ~ ~ ~1~ ~d of a reference site also n~ ~ mmpon~ of a commu~ ~t planre. ~ wh~ ~ say ~at cm~ ~mider ~e potenti~ for substan~M can be quan~e~ ~ ~ vegeX- sa~ s~b kego~g~ ~ pos~bl~ v~iab~9, in ~ of co~t~ sa~ ~on cove, m~s~ ~ ~ us~ ~ we m ~ly sa.~g ~t it s~b at ve~ io~ s~l~, ~d ~e ~mpa~ ~m and r~fi~ s~le ~r ~e ~to~2o~st ta~ ~t ~as~l sage s~b ~ not a ~ a~g m p~mblish~ ~ a p~ s~ ~ a m~u- s~gc en~ ~ (s~ ~ dg~si~ of · tol~an~ l~eh of ~a~ but ~W ~at g ~p~!e of ~n~g m~l sage s~b e~lo~, ~ ~l~m le~ls n~ ~ be ~ i~ ~ ~de, ~d ~t na~l Fre~n~, v. ~(4), O~ober, 1995). ~ in ad~n~ ~ o~ to ~s~an~ ii~ fl~ or ~o~agon born g~~d op~ ~e mo~fing pm~. . p~ of ~nt ~de. ~ ~s s~se, v~e~ maps and ~ lis~ ~e~s~ ~o mu~ effort may ~ ~tora~on g not ~st ~e ~pomi- ~i~l of m~t env~~! sp~t me~ p~metm ~t biBW of a sin~e ~up. We ~ a do~en~ is usury ~fi~t tor ~1 nev~ be s~fi~Hy ~mpa- ~y m~t ~1~ ~ ~ · e level of devil ne~sao' in a ~ble an~ay. For ~ple, ~a~- ~at a~ ~ for ~torafion pl~ ~c~fo~, dam fi~ ~~ ~g ~i~y ~ewai of ~e m~ sa~ ~m · reference sits wRl um~y b~ ~p~ds an at~mpfi~ a~ut a ~mm~. ~e~ ~s nec~sa~ before ~torn~on stun- 'no~" di~6~ ~eH~haped fi~ ~ pra~l for ~bi~t dards can be quagfed. m~e). ~ an~ysis is urnally not w~ a~ ~a~t~ ~ to!iwn~ Wi~ in~ing dist~ ~d pm~ ~r ~pafing ~fe~ ~d housing ~a~ ~ gme be~n ~e r~oraflon ~d ~d ~toragon ~t~ ~ ~ of ~en~ si~ ~e re~rence "si~" u~o~on ~, or ~ ~t ~ ~ ~ to t~ D. b~m~ mo~ of a ~~ai m ~y v~able in ~eir ~u- ~d 5.D. ~i~r ~r ~m~ on model bued ~ w~t g ~o~ b~. ~e la~e s~ple ~e n~- ~ e~rly about ~asO] ~a~ u~ in $~n~. s~ for v~d sta~6~l a~ys~ in - Dr. ~di~ ~s la~ of a real mf~ site g ~ sima~ is ~ly b~d ~e P~ ~ not u~que to coaml sage s~b budge~ o(most pm)~ -M~A~ g~, ~rafio~ but it rai~ ~e issue of R~!~ of fine po~ re~d- M~ B~t ~ w~t ~ me~t by ~e~ ~bon ing s~, we c~not meu~ - Dr. P~ or "indig~o~' habi~L ~ ~sue ~ p~ of an e~tem. We ~ D~i ~~ ~t ~ g~erated much ~ehat~ in l~k at ~i~, ~, ~ ~ ~lug~ Biolo~, ~w~;~ 5~. But at ~me po~t, debate o~r ~at ~n be me~, and ho~ ~t . what od~!y ~d on a site ~, ade~a~ly r~t o~ ALLUVIAL SCRUB VEGETATION IN COASTAL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Ted L. Hanes. Richard D. Friesen. and Kathy Keane2 Abstract: Certain floodplain systems in southern Cali- channels exhibit different phases of alluvial scrub vege- fornia sustain a unique scrub vegetation rather than ri- tation. These phases are related to the amount of time parian woodlands due to a lack of perennial water. Allu- that has elapsed since the most recent flood at each vial scrub occurs on outwash fans and rivefine deposits level. Three types of alluvial scrub have been recog- along the coastal side of major mountains of southern nized and are related to such factors as the scouring California. This vegetation type is adapted to severe action of flood channels, distance from the flood chan- floods and erosion, nutrient-poor substrates, and the nel, time since the last catastrophic flood, and substrate presence of subsurface moisture. Ten major stands were features such as texture and moisture content (Smith sampled by line intercepts to determine their species 1980). The three types can be referred to as: pioneer composition, community structure, and successional sta- - vegetation is sparse and of low species diversity and tus. Plant ecology and successional dynamics of these stature, and is found within active stream chaanels or stands are compared. Loss of this unique floodplain veg- recently scoured streambeds; intermediate - vegetation etation type in the past, and current urban pressures is rather dense and is composed mainly of subshrubs; from mining and flood control practices are discussed. and mature - vegetation is composed of fully developed subshrubs and woody shrubs. Mature alluvial scrub is distinguished by its vege- Scrub vegetation in California is extensive and di- tatire composition, which contrasts in several respects verse, occupying coastal and desert dunes, coastal val- with that of coastal sage scrub as described by Axelrod leys and foothills, interior mountains and desert fiats. (1978), Cooper (1922), Epling and Lewis (1942), Kirk- Holland (1986), in the State's Preliminary Descriptions patrick and Hutchinson (1977), Mooney (1988), Smith of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California, (1980), and Westman (1981a,b). Specifically, (1) allu- recognizes 73 different scrub types endemic to Califor- vial scrub has more roesic species than most coastal nia. However, one scrub type not included in these de- scriptions is the unique and threatened vegetation called sage scrub stands; (2) alluvial scrub consists of nu- merous evergreen shrubs, a diverse assemblage of sub- alluvial scrui~. This vegetation is considered a unique shrubs, and a springtime ground cover of annual wild- habitat with a high priority for preservation by the Cal- flowers, whereas coastal sage scrub vegetation is com- ifornia Natur~! Diversity Data Base (1987). posed primarily of drought-deciduous subshrubs with Alluvial scrub is an open vegetation adapted to sparse, if any, annual wildflowers; (3) scalebroom (Lep- the harsh conditions of the outwash environment. It idospartum, quamaturn), a shrub with high fidelity to grows on sandy, rocky alluvia deposited by streams that alluvial substrates, is found throughout alluvial scrub experience infrequent episodes of severe flooding. This communities, but seldom in coastal sage scrub vegeta- vegetation dominates major outwash fans at the mouths tion; (4) species commonly found in chaparral or desert of canyons along the coastal side of the San Gabriel, plant assemblages, such as California redberry (Rharn- San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains and lesser nus crocea), lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), sugar- floodplain and rivefine locations of southern California. bush (Rhus ovata), mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus Some alluvial scrub species occur also in sandy washes betuloides), holly-leaved cherry (Prunus ilicifolia), Call- of coastal southern California apart from alluvial fans forniajuniper (Juniperus califoruica), and yucca (Yucca and large rivers. whipplei) are also common in the alluvial scrub com- munity, but not in coastal sage scrub vegetation; and Alluvialscrub is composed of an assortment of drought- (5) small-statured riparian woodland species, such as deciduous subshrubs and large evergreen woody shrubs California sycamore (Platanus racemosa) and mulefat that are adapted to the porous, low fertility substrate as (Bacchariz glutinosa) are laced through alluvial scrub well as to survival of intense, periodic flooding and ero- stands along major drainages, but are not present in sion. Step-like shrub covered terraces above the wash stands of coastal sage scrub. Presented at the California Ripaxiaa Systems Conference; September 22-24,~19~8~.~?.'.D&vis, Californi&. Professor of Bot~.ny, California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, Calif.; Senior Ecologist ~nd St.~ff Ecologist respectively, Michael Bran~hn~n Associates (MBA), Saetia Aria, C~lif. USDA Forest Service Gert. Tech. Rep. PSW-110. 1989. 187 8, u, v^u.E','. rl eriEMET I ~' IETIWAHDAID~.Y ITISAN GAB RIEL. RIVER [~1CAJON/LYTLE CREEK8 -:' '.. _.__=.___ 1~'~SAN ANTONIO CREEK ~'~¥ENTONE AREA OF SANTA ANA -' ~'~CUCAUONGA CREEK ~'~SAN JACINTO RIVER ESCOND~DO Figure 1- Distribution of major stands of alluvial scrub vegetation in southern California, U.S.A. subshrubs and evergreen woody shrubs were measured. Methods Plants that were bisected by the intercept line (as projected vertically) were identified by species. Their intercept lengths (to the nearest 5 cm) were recorded, Ten stands of alluvial scrub vegetation were studied, and the number of dead and live individuals of each comprising the largest, intact stands in southern Califor- species was counted along each 20 m intercept. Any nia. These stands are associated with the Big Tujunga intercept length not containing shrub cover was recorded' Wash and San Gabriel River (Los Angeles County); Cu- as 'bare ground." Intercept data were grouped by carnonga, Day, Etiwanda, San Sevaine, Lytle, and Cajon development stage of alluvial scrub vegetation (pioneer, Creeks and the San Antonio and Santa Ana Rivers (San intermediate, or mature) for each site. The values Bernardino County); and the San 3acinto River (River- derived were used to describe and quantify the structural side County), (fig. 1). and successional composition and status of each alluvial Each stand was sampled by a series of 20 m line ·scrub site. intercepts. Several 'lines of march" along a compass line perpendicular to the associated stream channel were P hys|cal Setting established within each of the alluvial scrub study sites, : beginning at the edge of the stream channel in most cases and progressively moving up onto the higher stream terraces until reaching the site boundary. At 30 m intervals (50 m intervals in degraded alluvial scrub), a Soils 20 m hne intercept, perpendicular to the line of march, was established. The intercepts alternated at each The floodplain soils upon which alluvial scrub oc- interval from right to left of the line of march. Only curs is of two types. Riverwash Association soils are 188 USDA Forest Service Ge~. Tech. Pep. PSW-110. 1989. found along the main river channels and consist of river- Site Conditions deposited sands, gravels, cobbles and stones. Inunda- tion occurs each year and is accompanied by scouring, The s~mple sites exhibit many similar conditions as deposition, and removal depending upon the intensity well as a few distinctive features. Table ! summarizes and number of rainstorms each winter. All vegeta- the various site conditions and features. tion is scoured from the main channel during peak flow episodes. Soboba Association soils ate located along the ter- raced banks of the river and are formed of alluvium Results on the outwash of the rivers. Soboba soils have a cob- bly, coarse loamy sand surface underlain by pale brown, A total of 237 plant species was encountered on single-grain, loosely stratified very gravelly and cobbly the I0 study sites. To facilitate comparison of species sand or loamy sand subsoils. These soils are excessively composition between the sites, importance values were drained and exhibit very high permeability, very slow calculated for each species. Table 2 lists those species runoff, low water-holding capacity and low fertility. with importance values greater than 5.0 for each site. Er~ogo~um fasciculaturn was an important compo- Climate nent of all 10 sites. Lepidospartum squarnatum occurred The climate of the study area is Mediterranean, with on 9 of the 10 sites. Salvia apiana and Lotu~ scopar- an annual rainfall of approximately 460 ram, most of ~us were next in importance, occurring in § of the 10 which falls during a few heavy winter storms. Once every sites. Artemis,& californica occurred on 4 of the 10 sites. 10 to 20 years, rainfall far exceeds the norm, resulting in Longer-lived, woody species that characterized mature catastrophic floods, such as 1938 and 1969. During such stands (see fig. 2) often had importance values less than past floods, the rivers have carried debris eroded from 5.0 and are not shown in Table 2. upstream slopes and riverbeds, forming broad rocky al- Most (6) of the sites were composed of all three luvial outwash fans nearly 600 m thick. The river chan- successional stages, but a few sites had two or only one nels within the fans are subject to frequent scouring and stage. Lytle Creek lacked mature alluvial scrub, whereas flooding resulting in a barren state. The most signifi- San Sevaine lacked intermediate scrub, and Etiwanda c~nt recent floods in the study area occurred in 1938 and lacked both pioneer and mature stages. Presence and 19§9. These and previous major floods produced flood- absence of developmental stages reflected various factors plain terraces bordering the main channels and upon such as upstream damming or channelization, time which the three recognizable phases of alluvial scrub veg- since the last major flood, human disturbances, or soil etation have developed. moisture. Table I - S~ of the Alluv~l Scrub S~nple Site Conditions and Features (nmterial ~pted from Michael Brandman Associate~ x9ss) Site Acreage L~w.~tion Conditions ~nd Features San Jacinto 2,677 Uppez' San ]:~el~tively undisturbed except for small s~nd and gravel operation, golf course Ja~nto River downstream; limited water consecration dil~,.~, diversion channels, and percolorlon basins. Mentone 11,440 Upper Santa Vaxiously disturbed by rock and sand quarries,aqu~luctoand railways; industrial, ]~iver commercial, and residential developmen$s; extensive flood control and water conser~tion f~ciUties Cajon/ 17,347 C&jon and Lyric Crossed by 2 r~cl tracks, old P. oute 66, ~nd (combined) Inter~t~es 15 ~nd Lyric Creeks Creeks 215. Residential and commercial developments ~1ong P~oute 66 and portions of (Combined) Cajon and and Cable Canyons. Quarrying operations in lower Lytle Creek San Sevnine/ 12,531 S~n Sevalne/ Lm-ge I~teral flood control dikes, diversion e. muds, and percol~tion basin. Major Etiwanda/Day Day Canyon electric trmmmission corridor and water treatmens planS. New extensive residen- Canyons outw~sh tial developments south and we~t. Cucaxaonga 3,091 Cucmx~onga Flood cor~rol structures and percol~ion b~n; ~ rock qu~Ty. Surrounded by C~myon outwash residential developments. San Antonio 2,318 San Antonio Stremn/iow controlled outw~mh by dam and lm'ge lateral d~m. Two highways Canyon outwash cross the site. QumTy operation, ~ airport and co~e~-cial buildings primera San Gabriel 300 San Gabriel Streamflow controlled outwash by danre, n~jor l~ter~l elile~, drop structtu~s, and C~nyon outwash percol-,tion b~sins. Crossed by Route 66 and ~nterst~te 210. Paved bikeway on east dike. Major quarrying operntions. Dam, recreation are~, and cou.,~y n~ural m'~& downstreazn. Big Tujunga 1,587 Big Tujunga Natural br~dded floodplain iimtked by hi!l~. Bisected by Interstate 210. Dam, C~nyon recreation m~e&, and qum-rying operation downstream. outwash USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-110. 1989. 189 Table 2 - Comicrison of Specie, Comp~tion of Ten AUuvisl Scrub Stands Using Importance Value~ Than 5.0' Importance Vai~es by De~.lopm~t Stage Site Dominant Species Pioneer Interretaliate Mature San Ja~into .A r~em/sle ,Irec*s~c~slvs 7.74 18.7Y 4.13 B4ccA4~s ~hr~noaG 16.10 0.82 Croton c~li]or~ca 7.13 8.02 £~c~mer~s pslme~ 4.96 4.25 £~o,~ic~o~ crsmsi]oK~m 1.75 11.61 £r~ogo~m/ssc~c~l~gum 10.59 31.54 41.17 Lcp~dospsrhsm sq~sm4tum 35.86 2~.84 12.11 £lrcimm smd~'so~ii 0.94 7.76 ?.48 Op~tlid p,,~'yi 0.82 7.38 J~sGmR~s CrOCga 9.51 Mentone Adenostom~ ]~scic~lat~m 28.~ BaccA4~s I~ti~osa 8.24 ~c~m~4 p4~gH 19.50 3.91 E~od~c~o~ ~cAocal~ I7.43 3.~ ~o~o~m J~cic~la~m ~.35 ~.93 16.~ ~epidosps~m sq~GmGg~m 7.40 ~scc4 ~&~ppi~ 6.~ 1.23 Cajon E~odicl~o~ t~chocaI~ 18.20 18.79 12.~ E~o~o~sm ]~ciculal~m 51.18 18.87 8.76 ~epidospa~m s~emei~m 5.98 8.~ ~o~s* ~cop~s* 13.10 12~ 7.51 Op~is ~tomlis 4.~ 4.69 7.~ Sai~ sp~a~s 5.05 12.18 To~code~droa d~ve~s~lob~m 3.95 8.42 Y~c~ ~&~pp]g~ 4.~ 12.46 16.74 Lytle C~k A~em~s~g d~c~c~lus 2.25 16.25 E~od~cg~os t~c~ocM~z 8.~ E~oyossm ]asc~c~la~m ~.20 ~.98 ~ep~dospa~m sq~amat~m ~.19 5.43 Lo~s s~pe~s 1.10 5.19 Op~tia ht~o~lis 1.~ 5.48 Sal~a spisn~ 1.~ 6.10 S~ Seine Adelestems ]ucic~lal~m 9.12 A ~em~ia ca~]e~ica 6.28 1~.~ ~e~o~ bet~ioldes 15.05 15.70 E~oto~m ~escic~ls~m 37.35 25.~ ~epidosps~mm sqzamag~m 15.~ 7.32 Lot~s s~p~s 10.~ 1.~ $al~e apisaa 19.40 14.~ ~tiw~da ~o~ ~li~o~ics 7.54 E~ogos~m ~sscic~lat~ ~.48 Lot~s scop~ss 9.~ 5si~e spis~e 43,70 Cu~onga Adenostoms Jsscic~iat~m 6.~ A~emisis csli]o~ica 22.69 12.~ 23.70 E~odict~o~ t~cAocsly~ ~.70 11.91 E~olo~m J~c~c~lat~m 37.54 21.~ 23.19 Lepidospe~m sq~am~tum ~.46 16.~ 11.73 Lo~s s~pa~ 7.47 1.~ ~emn~ ~ces 6.54 S~ ~ro~o AcAillea milleJoli~m g.~ 8.13 A~emisie celi]o~ic4 ~.67 41.25 E~c,m~4 p~i~oli~ 10.67 E~o~ou~m ],cicsiat~m 10.~ 14.51 ~epidospe~m sq~ema~m 4.91 15.94 Lot~ scope~s 6.69 Sal~a meiKJz~ 12.~ 2.22 S~ Gab~ d~isis ~li]o~ica 2.12 11.79 B~ckellia csli]o~ics 8.10 L~idospe~m s~smet~m 31.43 22.~ 13.02 Op~ti~ fittedils 17.~ 22.07 ~ in~Jolia. 7.76 Big T~ga B&ccAI~s I~tinosa 29.29 EH~m~ line~]oiia 8.37 5.18 E~c~m~s pi~i]oli~ 2.41 E~o~o~m ]ascic~ls~m ~.56 ~.39 ~7 Lzpidospe~mm ~q~smst~m 13.~ 15.25 9.72 Optaris peri 5~1 2.21 ~bes s~m I.~ 1~5 5.97 5~1~ sp. 4.53 9.85 Y~c~ wkippiei 3.35 10.48 12.71 * S~ ~o~ce ~u~ we~ u~zed ~d ~vided ~ 3 to ~ th~ ~ a ~ of 1~ for ~n~. USDA Forest S~-~ce O,,,,. Tech. P,~. PSW-110. 1989. INCREASING FLOOD EVENT PROBABILITY ,, MATU~IE PHAS~ INTERMEDIATE PHA~ IqONEER PHASE ,- ..... ~.~°~-,'~',j..,~"~L SUBSTRATUM FROM PREVIOUS F-- F 000,. ^.00 POS,UO. ' '"" /EvE"'s "~,,.. ,.~..~ ~*,~LEN~ NO horizontal ~,~1® F|gure 2- Profile diagram of alluvial scrub vegetation, showing representation of the three phases of development and their representative species. In order to quantify compositional and structural lea- eat structural diversity of 8 sites with Etiwanda showing tures of the 3 phases of alluvial scrub at each sample site the lowest structural diversity. and to compare the 10 stands, various indices were used: native plant species diversity , percent dominance of the shrub component; and structural diversity of the shrub Current Status component (Table 3). These indices were standardized to values between 0.0 and 1.0 against an ideal condition The distinctive character of alluvial scrub vegetation in a manner similar to the Habitat Evaluation Proce- dure (HEP) developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife as it relates to flood-deposited alluvia, makes it one of Service (USFWS 1980j. The procedure for establish- California's unique riparian systems (fig. 2). The inten- ing and standardizing these indices are currently being sity and magnitude of episodic floods cremtes recogniz- documented in a manuscript in preparation by Friesen, able vegetation phases that are related to both the age of the stand and to the site conditions of substrate and Jones, and Keane, and are being referred to as a Habitat Quality Assessment (HQA). soil moisture. As a stand develops along a time gradi- ent from pioneer to mature, there is a general trend in San Jacinto, Cajon, and Big Tujunga sites exhibited species composition replacement from short-lived sub- the greatest species diversity of 8 sites. Etiwandashowed shrubs to long-lived woody shrubs. Severe flooding as the smallest species diversity, having neither pioneer nor well as fire and man-caused disturbances can eliminate mature stages. existing stands of alluvial scrub, and thus initiate new pioneer stands. In contrast, a lack of sufficient soil mois- Cajon and Cucamonga sites had the highest shrub ture can prevent an intermediate stage stand from pro- component of 8 sites with San ~lacinto and Big Tujung greasing to the mature stage. This condition is best illus- a sites nearly as high. As with species diversity, the trated in the Etiwanda stand. Such intermediate stands Etiwanda site showed the lowest shrub component. may be old in years, but not fully mature in species The Gajon and San Gabriel sites exhibited the great- composition and stature. USDA Forest Service Gert. Tech. Rep. PSW-110. 1989. 191 Table 3 - S~ Vegetation P&r~meter~ of Ten AHuv~l ~ 5it~ ~ Upon ~ S~ of ~e~lopm~ Site S~e of S~ S~b S~ ~pmem Di~ty~ Do~ Di~t~ S~ J~to P~n~r 1.0 1.0 1.0 ~ate 0.8 0.8 0.2 M~ 0.9 0.8 0.4 ~ne Pi~ 0.2 1.0 0.0 ~ate 1.0 0.8 0~ M~ 1.0 0.5 1.0 Cajon Pi~r 1.0 1.0 1.0 ~e~ate 0.9 1.0 0.8 M~ 0.9 1.0 0.4 Lytle C~k P/~r 0.5 1.0 0.1 ~ate 0.8 0.7 0.3 ~e NP' NP NP S~ Sere Pion~r 1.0 0.8 0.8 ~e~ate NP NP NP Mat~ 0.9 1.0 0.4 Etiw~ Pion~ NP NP NP ~ate 0.5 0.7 0~ M~ NP NP NP Cu~nga Piou~ 0.9 1.0 0.3 ~e~ate 0.7 1.0 0.2 M~ 1.0 1.0 0~ S~ ~to~o Pion~ NP NP ~e~ate 0.9 1.0 0.6 M~ 0.8 0.6 S~ Gab~ Pi~ NP NP NP ~ate 1.0 0.7 1.0 M~ 1.0 0.8 1.0 Big Tuj~ga Pioa~ 1.0 1.0 0.4 ~ate 0.8 1.0 0.3 Mat~ 1.0 0.7 0.2 ~ S~d~ Div~ty = D = pi 1og~ ~ whe~: pi = d~ fr~ of to~ ~&vid~ ~on~g to the/th spe~ ~ S~b Do~ = tot~ ~ne int~ep~ of a sh~b ~i~ x tot~ len~h of ~ ~ p~ z St~ct~ Di~ty = ratio of s~ (~t~ the 1.0 m t~) (1~ t~ 1.0 m ~) * NP = not p~ Alluvial scrub vegetation once was more widely dis- Historically, rock and sand mining operations have tributed along the coastal washes and rivers emanating quarried large pits within the floodplain alluvium upon from the Transverse and Peninsular Ranges of south- which alluvial scrub vegetation depends. As these build- ern California, where coalescing bajadas formed exten- ing materials become scarce in the southland, alluvial sire, and in places nearly continuous, skirts along these scrub resources ..become more threatened. Proposed ranges. Agricultural and urban developments in the flood control projects further threaten the integrity and past century have resulted in its elimination from most long-term vitality of this unique floodplain scrub type. of its former range. As a consequence, alluvial scrub is isolated to stands along unaltered streams and out- washes on major alluvial fans. Industrial and residen- Endangered Species tial developments and flood control projects continue to invade these remaining stands. A number of large projects, including a professional football stadium and Two alluvial scrub species are listed as endangered an interu&tional-class golf course, are proposed for de- by both the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Califor- velopment' within some of the premier examples of this nia Department of Fish and Game (State of California vegetation. 1988): Santa Ann P, Jver woolly-star (Eriasi~'~m densi- 192 USDA For~t Service Ge~. T~.~h. Hep. PSW-110. 1909. folium ssp. sanctorum) is a much-branched subshrub Epling, C. and H. Lewis. 1942. The centers of distribution now restricted to sandy soils on river floodplains or ter- of the chaparral and coastal s~e associations. American raced alluvial deposits of the upper Santa Ann l~ver Midland Naturalist 27:445-462. drainage, San Bernardino County. These sites mostly Hanes, T. L.. 1976. Vegetation types of the San Gabriel are on privately owned ~nd Bureau of Land Management Mountains. In: J. Latting, ed., Plant communities of lands. The Corps of Engineers currently is supporting southern California. Berkeley, C~i;f.: California Naive Plant Society, Special Publication No. 2. research on the ecology of the woolly-star. Hanes, T. L. 1971. Succession ~fter tire in the chaparral of Slender-horned spineflower (Centrostegia leptoceras) southern California. Ecological Monographs 41:27-52. is a delicate prostrate annual found on fine-textured, Hanes, T. L. 1984. Vegetation of the Santa Ann River flood deposited river terraces and washes in Los An- some flood control implications. In: Warner, R. and Hen- geles, l~iverside and San Bernardino counties. Extant drix, K., eds. California riparian systems-ecology, con- populations are small and seriously threatened. Most servation and productive management. Berkeley, CaliL: occurrences are on private land and are unprotected. University of California Press, 882-888 pp. Hanes, T. L. 1973. The S~n Gabriel River floodplain, pp 369- 372. In: Stebhins, G. L. and Taylor, D. W. ,eds., A Survey of the natural history of the south pacific border region, Future Prospects California- -Biotic themes. Prep&red for the National Park Service, U.S. Dept.of Interior, Washington, D.C. Holland, P~. F. 1986. Preliminary description of the ter- At present there is no program of conservation that restrial naturai communities of California. Sacramento, will ensure the future existence of alluvial scrub vege- Calif.: State of California, The Resources Agency, De- tation. However, the designation of this vegetation by partment of Fish and Game. 156 p., miraco. the California Natural Diversity Data Baze (1987) ~s Kirkpatrick, J. B. and C. F. Hutchinson. 1977. The a unique habitat with a high priority for preservation community composition of California coaztal sage scrnb. is a worthy first step. Yet, this designation lacks legal Vegetation 35:21-33. power. The presence of the two rare and endangered Michael Brandman Associates, Inc. 1986. Final suite- plant species in some of the alluvial scrub stands brings quent environmental impact report: Day Creek land both state and federal agencies into action in the protec- and gravel mining operatiou and reclamation plan. San tion and management of these alluvial scrub endemics. Bernardino County, Environmental Public Works Agency. To a limited extent some alluvial scrub stands are the San Bernardino, Calif. beneficiary of these agencies' actions. Michacl Brandman Associates, Inc. 1987. Church Street sand and gravel mining environmental assessment. Pre- Urban development pressures and flood control struc- pared for C. L. Ph~rris Sand and Gravel, Inc., Highland, tures and practices increasingly will threaten ~11uvial Caiif. scrub by direct removal or indirectly by altering the dy- Michael Brandma~t Associates, Inc. 1988. Preliminary drdt namics of its hydrology. Only through the acquisition report, Biological Resources Assessment for l~aiders Sta- and management of major stands of alluvial scrub can dium Project, environmental impact statement/report. its future be secured. Prepared for Lockman and Associates, Monterey Park, Cal. and Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. Lo~ Angeles, Calif. References Mooney, H. A. 1988. Southern coastal scrub. In: M. G. Barbour and J. Major, eds., Terrestrial vegetation of California. California Native Plant Society, Speciai Axelrod, D. I. 1978. Th~ origin of co~stai sage vegetation, Publication No. 9. Sacramento, Calif. 471-489p. Alta and Baja California. America~ Journal of Botany Smith, R. L. 1980. Alluvial scrub vegetation of the San 65(10):U17-1131. Barbour, M. G. and $. Major, eds. 1988. Terrestrial Gabriel River fioodplain, California. Madrono 27:126-138. vegetation of California. 2nd Edition. Sacramento, Calif.: State of California. 1988. 1987 Annual report of the status of California Native Plant Society, Special Publication No. California's state listed threatened and endangered plants and animals. The Resources Agency, Dept. of Fish 'and 9. 1030 p. California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). 1987. Game, Sacramento, Caiif. 109 pp. miraco. Data base record search for information on threatened, USFWS. 1980. Ecological services manual - 101 ESM - endangered, rare or otherwise sensitive species and corn- habitat as a basis for environmental assessment. Division munities in the vicinity of the rivers and streams in this of Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, study. California Department of Fish and Game, State of Dept. of Interior, Washington, D.C. California Resources Agency, Sacramento, Calif. Westman, W. E. 1981~. Factors influencing the distribution Cooper,W. S. 1922. The broad-sderophyil vegetation of of species of California coutal s~e scrub. Ecology California. An ecological study of chaparral and its 62(2)L:439-455. related communities. Carnegie Institute of Washington Westman, W. E. 1981b. Diversity relations and succession Publication 319. 124 p. in California coastal sa~e scrub. Ecology 62(1):170-184. , USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. l~ep. PSW*110. 1989. 193 re North Etiwanda University Crest Project. Dear Sharon Hightower; I am writing to comment on biological aspects of the University Crest Project in North Etiwanda. The impact that this project will have on the Alluvial Fan Scrub community is described as incremental and not mitigatable. As long as the project is considered in isolation from other proposals in the area that might be true, however that claim simply overlooks the fact that there is an ongoin~ effort to consider the problem for the entire North Rtiwanda area. Loss of the Alluvial Fan Bcrub community can, and should be mitigated by consideration of habitat preserves that reflect the combined potential impact of all of the proposals in the area. This broader view is particularly reasonable considering the threatened status of the plant community, (Natural Diversity Database, Natural Communities). Preservation of substantial areas of intact examples of this community would be possible by considering setting aside areas of high community diversity north of the power line easement including other threatened, or otherwise valuable areas. San Saysine, East Etiwanda, Day and Deer Canyon washes, The Day Canyon Sedge Bog combined with the surrounding Alluvial Fan Scrub community together represent a fine area well worth preserving. This area would also enclose the California Walnut woodland remnants that can be found within this contiguous area. A larger coherent preserve of this kind would also minimize wildlife loss that is always associated with small habitat remnants (Diamond, 1988; Bolger, st. al., 1991). In closing I encourage you to argue against the approval of the University Crest project. The associated habitat and wildlife l~sses can and should be mitigated by considering this project along with the other ones in the area. References. Bolger, D.T., Allison C. Alberts and Michael E. Souls. 1991. Occurrence patterns of bird species in habitat fragments: sampling, extinction, and nested species subsets. American Naturalist. 157(2): 155-166. Diamond, Jared. 1988. Urban extinction of birds. Nature 333: 393. Sincerely, James des Lauriers, Professor. cc. Gretchen Stangl 15 May 1991. CALIFORNIA INDIAN LEGAL SERVICES 120 WEST GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 204 ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA 92025 (619) 746-8'941 TELECOPIER (619) 746-1815 JAMES E. COHEN DIRECTING ATTORNEY CYNTNIA A. STAFF July 18, 1994 Tina Twing Planning Department San Bernardino County 385 North Arrowhead Avenue San Bernar.~ino, CA 92415-0182 ' Dear Ms. T~ing: I Thank you ~or the opportunity to write to you about the proposed Oak Summit dev¢lopm~-nt. As you are aware, we represent Vera Rocha, chief of the Gabri¢lino-$h0.shon¢ Indian Nation. Our client, along..' with many other members of the community, is very opposed. to this project.. Specifically, I am writing to stress the importance of the video tape that Leeona Klippstein provided to,the Planning Commission. We are very pleased that you are taking the opportunity to view this document. For several reasons, I believe it to be essential that the commissioners also view this video tape prior to maidrig a decision about the proposed development. For an EIR to be complete it must contain a discussion of the cultural and archaeo!ogical resources present on, and how they will be affected by, the proposed development. Cal.~ Public Resources Code § 21060.5, § 21083.2; Cal. Admin. Code tit. 14, § 15000 Appendices G (j), K. The EIR prepared by the Landmark Corporation, in both its draft and f'mal versions, has been severely lacking in its attention to these requirements, Specifically, the EIR makes two important flaws in its discussion of historic and cultural resources affected, and in its responses to public comments about the same. The final EIR does not meet the minimum requirements of CEQA, and any development based upon the EIR as it now stands would be illegal. If the Commission views the video tape I believe that the weakness of the EIR will become apparent. First, the developer wrongfully implies that CEQA only affords protection to prehistoric archaeological sites, those with ancient remains or artifacts. In fact, CEQA's drafters clearly intended that historical sites of all sorts be protected, and be treated as part of the environment, worthy of consideration. Cal. Admin. Code tit. 14, § 15000 Appendix (3 (j),(w). An ancient, time- honored Native American practice continues to the presem day on the Etiwanda Creek sage fields. Tina Twing, Page 2 July 18, 1994 Not only have ceremonies been performed on this field since prehistoric times, and sage gathered from the field for use around the Southwest, but these rituals are still going on today, in much the same way that they have for over a thousand years. The second flaw of the EIR which I will address here is the developer's continued insistence that the historic and sacred use of this land has been undocumented, and therefore deserves no protection. This is demonstrably untrue, as several letters have been written, many comments made, and books and museums cited, evidencing the use of this site. The developer has ignored the most excellent type of documentation of sacred ritual available: a telling of the practices by the people who participate. Vera Rocha and other members of the Native American community have offered to explain to the developers the details of their sacred use of the sage field, and been continually ignored. Rather than seeking out information about this site, Landmark has turned a blind eye to the legitimate concerns of the Native American community, and to their willingness. to work with the developers for the protection of this natural res9urce. It is this issue that makes it vital for the Planning Commission to view the videotape of a ritual being. done on the sacred Etiwanda site. We have offered the explicit documentation requested by the developer and the County, in the form of a video tape. Rather than relying upon a non- Indian archaeologist to speculate about his or her interpretation of an archaic use of the fields, we are able to provide a living document, an oral and pictorial histoff. It is important that the commission "read" this document in order to better understand the resources at stake. My office will further address the issue of adequate documentation at the hearing on July 28th. We look forward to an opportunity to clarify the legal issues for the Planning Commission. Thank you very much for ~)nsidering these commen~s as you prepare' your report to the Commission about the content of the video tape. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Attorney SACRED HERBS he Smudging Ceremony by Adrienne Borden and Steve Co3 ote Wldte 5age Wa;ul ~ Our Native elders have taug. ht us ni'~ to drive out bad spirits, feelings, west Indian r~tiorts. In the Pacific that before a person on be healed or or influences, anti also to keep bad Northwest, the People burn cedar for hcnl another, one must be cleansed of spirits from entefin~ the area where pufifi~tion In ~ch the same way any bad ft~lings, negative thoughts, a ceremony tak~ ~inc~ In Plai:~s ha- as ~ng~it drives out negative ener- bad spirits or nt~ativc energy- tkn~, the fitmr o~ the sweatlodge is gv; but it a~o brings in good infiu- cleansed both physically and spifitu- f~luently covered with ~nge, and e~ccs. ~e spirit o/cedar B comid- ally. ~L~ helps the healing o)me participanc~ ~b the it~v~ on their cred ve~ ancient and wBe by Pacific through in a clear ~v, without bodi~ while in the sweat. Sage L~ ai- No~hw~t t~b~,and old, downed ce- being dBlo~ or sidet~ckc~ by neg- so commonly spread on the ground in dar t~ a~ hono~d with offerings afire 'stuf~ in either Ihc healer or a k~tge or on an a!~r where the pipe and p~yers. the patient. The eide~ ~y that all toucht~ the earth. ~me ceremoni~, tribal'or private, must be wrap their pipt~ in ~age when they Sweetgross entered into with a good heart so am plac~ in pipe-bundlt~, ~ ~age that we on pray, sing and walk in a pufifi~ obj~kq wmp~ in it. ~ge One of ~e most sa~ed plan~ for ~cred manner, and be het~t by the wreat~ a~ also plac~ around ~e the Phai~ Indians, sweetgins m a spir~k~ to e:~ter the Sa~d tealax .... head and wris~ of 5undancm. tall wild gra~ with a r~dish base Native ~ple throughout ti',e ....... '-'-;7 ............. '-m~' ~rfum~Iike, musty ~qr-.-. world use h~ lo ac~mplish fi~is. Cedar grows ~inly on the e~tem-side One common ceremony g to bum cer- the R~ in Monta~ and addcent rain he~s, take the ~oke in one's ~ is ,ome pomn~al cmffusion Albe~, ~, and a~o in hands and n~b or brash it over the hem t~ about the tem~ to name small are~ of Wvom~g ~d body. T~ay this is commonly ~11cxl plan~, ~inly ~e in ~me ar~, Dakota. 1~ botanical ~me ~ h'ier- 'smudging', and in W~ten~ North junipem are known ~ '~ar'~as in ~hl~ ~omta; ~me ~mmon name~ Ame~ the thrc~ plank~ mt~t frc~ the ~ of ~ert White Cc~ar (Jun- am ~ne~ gross, holy ~ss and van- quentlyuscq insmudgingam~age, cc~ i!a.rus mon~t~nmt). Thk~ d~n't ilia gm~. We have been told that darandsw~tgra~. mean that ]. num~l~nna ~sn't variety of vanilla gins grows ir .s~;~ a cleansing h[~, thoug); in No~h~en~l Califomia~ut how the ~tem U~., i~ m~ ~st- ~ilar it ~ to ~e Ph~ variety wc ~ ~ R~ C~ar (]md~nts ui~hffa), don't~ow. ~ere ~-nmny~fi~li~'o/-~e, z~s ue~ ~onia!!y. Fiowev~, in On the Plai~, sweetgrass ~ ~al- ~;and~mti~qve~tmus'~mss~u;~g~g. [he smudging ce~moni~ we ~ve ly bmid~ together in bun~ as ~,e,~tani~%~i~':f6~-~2'~~ ~n or ~nduct~ ou~elv~, Wmte,~ ~n's Mair ~ ~miaed, althougt ,~lvm~e.g. ~zlum ~ffi~naIis, Gain R~t C~ar ~:uja c~d~Ial~) and friends have ~id they ~ve seen i ~a~e;~r~ivfi~ai~azt~White.,~g~).' ~lifom~ In~e C~ar (h"~cdrus ~ simply b~ched and ~pp~ ir ~1~ i~l-~ ~'.~note'~l~at~h'i~ d~u~s)we~ ~ed-not.v~tim cloth. ffith~ way, it ~ ~uall~ "~: g ' ' bum~ by s~vh~g little bits over ho .i~h~h-~m~'l~'~iff~V:~~fir~ C~ar L~ ~m~ while praying ~ or lighting the ~d and wa~n[ ~variefim :of ~ge ~~" citijet akmd or silentiv. ~e pmy~ it amuM, letting the smoke s~'r:~k~mte' from ~d~a=R~- ~se on the ~r smo~ and are ~r- t~ugh the air. Ting latter me~oc misia. ,indud~ ~::a.~3g~b~h ~ ~ the. ~tor. C~ar ~ a~o ~ how we we~ taught to bum sweet. (h'~,,n~ mlifa~:ica) and mug- sp~d along ~4~ ~ge on ~e fi~r g~ ~ ~e swea~odg~aRowin~ · ,. . .' -"-:~ ' ' the pu~ing smoke to get to al dar bmnch~ am b~ in the air ~ both s~u;~msmu~gmg. Io ~ea~e a home dung ~ H~ We we~ ~ught that it ~ gooc ~age~s~m~insmudgingce~ Bl~ing C~ny of ~ny No~ ~sw~tg~aft~the~georce - l'~.~,tcrn R,',I Cedar %Junil~¢r [¥hite Ccd;~r ~ dar had driven out the bad influ- group ofp~ple, using hands or more w~t CoasL We've been doing this encl. Sw~lgm,s brings in the gm,d often a feather to lightly brash the type of house denming for ten years, ~pirits and the g{~tl inguenc~. As ~moke over the other pemon(~). We and it never fails to "clear the air", willa c~tar, bunling sxv~tgmss were ~oght to hmk for dark st~*Lq in at lcmqt~mewhat. ,~hiic proving ~.nds prayera up to a ~)n's spirit-body. As one Call- One more note about smudging. It the Creato} in the smoke. !-tigh !-iof fomin Indian wonran told tts, she ~ ve~ popular among New Age hay ~lt)rn ~n),s in The Sm'r~l Pi!~ 's~s" a ~,~n's spirit-~dy glowing groups to use abalonc shells in smud- Whis smoke from the sweet gross arnorid them, and t~'hcm them are diag. ~crc are many Native elde~ x~'ho am pIt'~M to see so many will risc up to You, and will spread "dark or foggy D~rm5 she throughoot the univemc; its feaR- the smoke into thee hol~ in fi~cir ~mdging the~elves, but some are mace will t~ knoxx'll by the xvingeds, spirit-body'. Th~ .h~.ips to heal Um conc~ that abalone shells are be the Iour-leggeds, and tim tw~l~- split and to"cl~eup th~ehol~. ing m~ when burning the geds, for xx.¢ undcmtand tlmt we are R~cnUv we did a light house herbs. On the Pacifig Nor~w~t all r~latives; may nil our bn~the~ L~ cleansing 'for n friend. We use the Cmnst, for example, some holy tame and not fear us? 5wcetgm~s ~ tcm~ 'light", for th~ is a relatively have ~id timt abalone sheIN repr~ also put in pipe bundles and m~i~ne simplc ce~monv as opposed to some sent Grandmother Oc~ and that bundles along with sage to purify that am more lengthy and m~mpli- they should be ~ed in ceremonies and protect ~ncrtM objects. ~ted. ~r friend had had some scri- with watcr, not burning. We Sweetgrass is vc~ rare today, its ous cmotio;ml and ~latim~hip pm~ ~ough Native elde~ in the North- tcmito~ severely ~t by develo;~ imray, and he felt they lind left a xx-est, the Plaim and C~fomia ~x'ho meat, ~ttlt~grazing and' whmt htmx,y dark attar,phew. ~t we don't use abalone shells-but imtcad fields. and traditional Indin~ in the pmy~ together to the Creator and choy or stone bowN-that we don'~ northern Plai~m ar6 t~ing to prot~t to the spld~ for help. -We tho) pe~onally leel comfortable ~ing a the lmst-rcmaining fields. The ~t bumt~ m~ge. pudfi~ ou~elv~, and shell. way for most R)lkq to get s,v~tgm~s tm~k the ~ge to all comere, civets, In any case, ~mudging is a cercm~ is to boy it at Native Areeden ~ and r~n~ oI the house, pushing the ny that must ~ done with care. tail outlek~, which giv~ sup}m~ to smo~ wiO~ our hands to deane are ente~ng into a mN~onship with indians who ~n help the fields from eve~ bit of s~Iingering over the um~mn ~we~ of fi~e ' dark t~r ~ld s~ tlmt "f~t" unrra- and with the splits o~ ~e ce~mony; being depleted. .foreable. and, ~ ~th all g~d rehtio~hi=s, 5mudding We m~ ~ge flint in order to the~ ~ve to ~ r~pe~ and bono} drive out the bad infiuen~ ~en ~e ~omhip ~ to To do a smudging cer~nony, bunx we pudfi~ ou~l~ with c~ar Adrienne Bord~, of Wintun and the clipping~ of th~ herbs {driP), and, with it, m~att~, the clintming ~ip~a hefih~g~. ~ a ~um~elor and rub your hands in the ~mok~, and ~ throughout the hour. ~mn he~al m~ultanL Steve Coyot~ then gather the smoke and b~g it. sweetgins was ~ in the ~me ~n- em ~ey.e~e ~ ~ck~mund, ~ ~ into your ~v~r rob' it onto n~ to b~ng in g~ in~uen~. All ~r, ~ng m~e~ and ~ha~mc ~n~ youm~!f, ~11y onto any n~ the time, we pmyt~ for help in th~ nklu~. nnd a pn~!~iona~ w~ter. you f~l' ntis zpiNtual healing. deam~ing. ~lly, we t~k a ~ndle live in Rod~. ~1ifo~a and ~n be k~p praying aH the while tlmt t~ over the whole ho~ and pmh~ i~ m~ u~n ~w~ of the p~nt will lisht in~ eve~ mme. ~ ~i~t- - clea~ your spirit. ~metim~ one ing-up' of a ho~ ~s taught to m ~,~n will smudge anoth~, ~ a by ~e P~ple of the Padfie S~MA~ DRUM / ~ffiN~ 1~ American Indians and consql.rvatiOn i i~ American Indians and wildlife conservation Brian Czech American Indian tribes control a vast cross-section of the American landscape and have retained enough political sovereignty to qualify as semi-autonomous wildlife managers. Can wildlife professionals assist tribes, and vice versa, in reclaiming the ecological integrity that nurtures tribal cu]tures? When we think of all that is wrong with the Amer- There are alternative views. Martin (1967) hypoth- ican environment, we often look to conditions at the esized that extensive hunting by Asian nomads that dawn of American history to get some idea of what is crossed the Bering land bridge were the driving force "right," "good," or "natural." We consider the writ- behind the late Pleistocene extinctions of large mam- ings of early explorers, such as the journals of Lewis mals in the Americas, and Allen (1962) said, "the In- and Clark, to paint for us a picture of ecological in- dian was no conservationist, except by his limita- tegrity. Accounts of bison (Bison bison) herds that tions", citing the practice of buffalo jump hunting, numbered in the millions, elk (Cervus elaphus) where buffalo were driven over cliffs. However, Mar- roaming the Great Plains, and wolves (Canis spp.) tin's overkill hypothesis acknowledged rapid climatic trailing the great herds by the pack (DeVoto 1953) change as an important pressure on human and non- tell us what we have destroyed in the last 2 centuries. human fauna, and, in either view, the Indian is seen Similar long-gone scenarios are available in the his- as an unwitting participant in the evolution of an torical literature for ecosystems from the Florida ecosystem. Conversely, Pyne (1982) viewed the Everglades to the Sonoran Desert, from the Ohio American natives as active land managers, using bum- hardwoods to the Olympic Rainforest. ing as a tool with some degree of mastery. Inevitably, Euro-American investigators are faced Despite the unclear status of the prehistoric Indian with a humbling reality: It wasn't mankind that de- as conservationist, 2 things are obvious. First, Indian stroyed so many of these ecosystems, but the Euro- tribes as a whole had great respect for wildlife, as ev- pean lineage of our species· These ecosystems had idenced by the preponderance of wildlife symbolism been inhabited for thousands of years; 20,000 years in their religious practices and kinship systems· Sec- in some areas (Wunder 1994)· Asian progenitors that ond, Indians had, wittingly or not, lived in a way that traversed Beringia during the Pleistocene provided promoted the ecological integrity that we now turn North America with a hardy stock of people that to historical journals to describe. evolved into the myriad cultures adapted to all the Today, American Indians (excluding Alaskan na- unique ecosystems of the continent. Indians by the tives) reside on about 21.5 million ha of lands re- second millennia BC were part and parcel to the served for them by the U.S. government. Their land- primitive vignette that our Park Service is mandated holdings are thus of the magnitude of a major land- to emulate (National Park Service Organic Act, 39 managing agency, and are managed by tribes and by Stat. 535). In fact, George Catlin (1841) expressed the federal government in varying combinations. his vision of the Indians as a prominent component Tribal natural resources are even more heteroge- to a national park system. neous than those of national forest or Bureau of Land Author address: School of Renewable Natural Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA. Key words: American Indian, ecosystem management, tribal land, wildlife conservation, wildlife jurisdiction, wildlife management ~: l&eAIdii~e ~5o~,<. ~Ai~u~!~ ~i~-199~23(4);~fiS-573~, ,/~ ~ ~/i, ~;'~',;~ '.Peeredi~.d : ~ .~'~',~ ~;~i~ni lndia~lh~ ~bnservation ° Czech 569 Management lands, in that the designation of reserva- Marshall Trilogy, domestic tions was often not based on the presence or absence dependence, and treaties of timber, range, or other natural characteristics. John Marshall's Supreme Court played an impor- Therefore, tribal lands represent a fairly comprehen- tant role in defining the nebulous tribal cntity, and sive cross-section of American ecosystems. the standard for high bench political jurisprudence Can Indians reclaim ecosystem quality that has was set in the Marshall Trilogy. In Johnson versus been lost? Would they care to? What can we in the Mcintosh (1823) and Cherokee Nation versus Geor- American wildlife professions do to help them to- gia (1831), Marshall reduced Indian status. appeasing proponents of states rights and Andrew Jackson's ad- ward that end? If we ask what a federal agency can do to assist in ministration. Then in Worcester versus Georgia the recovery of healthy ecosystems, we must con- (1832), Marshall indicated that the Indian's status had sider its administrative culture: its ()rigins, its man- been lowered far enough and that tribal sovereignD' dates, its capacity to act, etc. Likewise, we can con- would be compromised no further. sider the same aspects of the collective American As of the Cherokee Nation decision, tribes were tribal body, which are determined to a great extent "domestic dependent nations" (30 U.S.C. (5 Pet.) 1). by the political relationship of the tribes to the The Commerce Clause had come back to haunt the United States of America. I will sketch the historical tribes, but Marshall said in Worcester that "a weaker context of that relatio~ship, discuss tribal wildlife ju- power does not surrender its independence--its right risdiction, and recommend ways to empower and en- to serf government" (31 U.S.C. (6 Pet.) 1). The trilogy', courage tribes to reclaim the ecological integrity that with vague rhetoric, produced a great many state- was the basis of their cultural heritage. merits for future lawmakers and judges to contem- plate and interpret. Two things were clear, though: tribes were sovereign to a measured extent, and the Tribes and the United States---a federal government, not the states, was their superior. Federalist perspective For the next 100 years, tribes were to become more domestic and dependent and less nationalistic, During earliest colonial days international law by view or by force of the American system. Presi- guided the Spanish, French, British, and Dutch in dents signed many treaties with tribes during the mid dealing with its newfound "Indians". The advice of 1800's, but this de facto recognition of sovereignty theologian Francisco de Vitoria (1493-1546), in caused a Congressional backlash, and the signing of particular, influenced the political respect that the treaties was banned in 1871. A new policy was Europeans gave the tribal peoples of North Amer- formed: assimilation, whereby tribal culture was to ica. Vitoria suggested that Indians were the true enter the American melting pot. owners of the land, and that the Europeans could not claim title to lands without a just war (with very Assimilation strict criteria) or voluntary consent. Vitoria's phi- Pursuant to assimilation, Congress passed the Ma- 1osophy was adhered to, but only to a limited ex- jor Crimes Act in 1885 (23 U.S.C. 385), giving the tent (Deloria 1983). United States jurisdiction over major crimes com- By the time the U.S. declared independence in mittedbylndians oragainst Indians on °r°ffa reser- 1776, European political and economic interests vation. This was a wide inroad into tribal affairs, overshadowed the principled teachings of Vitoria. from which a path of federal wildlife jurisdiction During the framing of the Constitution, tribes were could have easily been paved. Then the economic generally viewed as threats, and Hamilton's Federalist hammer of assimilation came down with passage of Paper No. 80 proposed that Indians be viewed as the the Dawes Act in 1887 (24 Stat. 388). The executive natural enemies of the new union. A common theme branch was authorized to survey and parcel out In- of inconsistency was already obvious in Indian affairs. dian lands, including '~surplus". This act did more The U.S. in fact treated some tribes as enemies, but damage to the Indian land base than any other others as allies, as in the War of 1812, whcn the U.S. event. sought the support of several tribes, but treated other During assimilation, the Supreme (~ourt acted as a tribes as enemies. The (~onstitution made scarce deferent legitimator (rationalized, justified, sane- mention ()f the tribes. but the (~ommcrcc el:ruse do- rioned, and supported policies designed to assimilate clarcd commerce with the "lndi;m trihcs" (;is ¢listi~¥ Incliar,s into American culture) l'or l]ongress (Wilkins guishcd from "l'oreig~ n:uions") ;i national al'f;tir to hc 1993). The Major (~rimes Act w';is Icgitimized almost regulated by the I'cdcral government. immediately in //..$'. t,ersl. ls Ka,gama (1886), when 570 Wildlife Society Bulletin 1995, 23(4):568-573 Kagama was found to be under the jurisdiction of the tion of the New Deal pertaining to Indians). Tcrmi- federal courts for the murder of Iyouse on the Hoopa nation lasted 20 years, and in that time, less than a Valley Reservation. But Kagama went further in dozen tribes were officially terminated, only to be re- claiming that Congress' power over the tribes origi- established later. Richard Nixon was perhaps the hated because the tribes lived witlain the geographi- greatest post-termination champion of tribal rights, cal limits of the U.S. The Dawes Act was legitimized and Wunder (1994) speculated that Nixon had per- in an overwhelming way with Lone Wolf versus sonal motives because some people who were very Hitchcock (1903). The Court established the con- important in his development as a youth were lndi- cept of Congressional "plenary power" over tribes to ans. The record is clear, though. Nixon wanted Con- legitimize a land grab in Oklahoma that Bureau of In- gress to pursue "the Indian's sense of autonomy with- dian Affairs (BIA) officials admitted was fraudulent. out threatening his sense of community" CWunder Lone Wo/fthus opened the door to wholesale treaty 1994:160), and he called this new policy "serf-deter- abrogation and also is the explicit origin of the "trust mination." doctrine", with tribes classified as "wards" of the fed- Nixoh's ideas and efforts culminated in the .Indian eral government (187 U.S.C. 553). Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 450), which was signed by Gerald Reorganization and termination Ford. Self-determination basically picked up where Assimilation came to an end with the New Deal, but the Indian New Deal left off, except the Indians not before it had devastated tribal cultures and were to be weaned from direct federal bureaucracy economies. Subsequently, the tribes rebuilt pursuant via contracts between the tribes and the BIA that to the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934 (48 Stat. would evolve into tribally managed and funded pro° 984). Rebuilding, IRA style, would necessarily make grams. These "638~ contracts (after Public Law 638) them more conversant with American government. were instrumental in building tribal wildlife pro- Indian affairs were shelved during World War II, grams in an Americanized manner, but with tribal along with just about everything else on the national values attached. agenda. After the war, there was a concerted effort to end tribal sovereignty. Wunder (1994) attributes The status quo this to the general hysteria relating to Communist fer- We are still in the era of Indian self-determina- reting, but it may have resulted from the post-war tion, and there appears to be no imminent execu- economic boom, when Indians got in the way of en- tive or legislative movement to repeal seif-deter- trepreneurs who wanted tribal timber, minerals, and mination. However, the bargaining power of lndi- water. Accordingly, this was a critical period for ans has steadily declined in the past 10 years. wildlife conservation on tribal lands. Ronald Reagan was the most successful federal In 1953, 2 Congressional actions devastated In- court-packing president since Franklin Roosevelt, dian political status. First, Joint Resolution 108 or- appointing almost half of all lower court judges, dered wardship of Indian tribes by the U.S. govern- and the Rehnquist Court aptly carries on the Rea- ment to cease, and began the federal policy of termi- gan legacy of states rights (O'Brien 1993). History nation (originally termed liquidation by the BIA). shows that states rights occur at the expense of Termination meant that tribes would no longer be tribes. recognized as .distinct political entities. Second, In sum, the relationship of the American Indian Public Law 280 authorized states to take criminal tribes to the United States is characterized by in- and civil jurisdiction on reservations, in rapid pursuit consistency, confusion, and novelty. This charac- of termination. terization obviously stems from the large number From a wildlife conservation perspective, 2 things of tribes and the cultural distinctiveness of the are germane to the legislation of 1953. First, termina- various tribes. A more subtle factor is the ecolog- tion was not to occur immediately nor across the ical distinctiveness of the tribes. Dealing with a board. Tribes were to be selected group by group and non-migratory agricultural society is different than federal trust denied in increments. Second, Public dealing with semi-nomadic fishermen and far dif- Law 280 was quickly amended to exclude hunting and ferent from dealing with a nomadic hunting cul- fishing regulations, at least while tribes still existed. ture. However, this very recognition lends cre- dence to the view that Indians were in the best Self-determination position to continue living with ecological in- Termination was as short lived and received as lit- tegrity, having adapted to the numerous ecosys- tie support as the Indian New Deal (Roosevelt's por- terns they inhabited. Wildlife jurisdiction on amendments pertaining to Public Law 280 wcrc cited tribal lands in the opinion, echoing the unique aspect of wildlife resonrces m the federal-Indian relationship. Legislation and executive action have addressed the broader issues of social welfare and general soy- The Northwest and the spirit of ereignty among Indian tribes. More specific issues Winans such as taxation, water rights, and wildlife jurisdic- In the 1970's, in the spirit of U.S. versus Winans, tion, have been left to the judiciary. the Pacific Northwest was established as the geopo- litical bastion of tribal wildlife jurisdiction. In the Equal footing versus reserved rights Boldt decision (U.S. versus Washington, 1974) Dis- One of the earliest cases was Ward t,ersus Race- trict Judge George Boldt verified that the North- horse (1896). Racehorse was prosecuted for killing west treaty tribes retained their off-reservation fish- elk off the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, which was ing rights and allowed for 50%.of the harvest to go formed pursuant to tile Shoshone-Bannock treaty of to the Indians. In the closely-related Washington 1868. The treaty also had protected the Indians' versus Washington State Commercial Passenger hunting rights on "unoccupied lands." The Fishing Vessel Association (1979), the Supreme Supreme Court went beyond treaty issues and of- Court upheld an Indian monofilament gillnet fish- feted the ()pinion tilat Wyolning had a right to rcgu- ery.. This set the important precedent that tribes late hunting on tribal lands due to the equal footing could use modern methods in the pursuit of treaty' doctrine of statehood. Racehorse must have harvesting rights. loomed ominous to the treaty' tribes of the West, es- pecially those in territories that had not yet reached Self-determination in wildlife statehood. conservation Reflecting the inconsistency exhibited by the Perhaps the strongest case for tribal wildlife juris- other 2 branches of federal government, U.S. yet- diction came in 1983, when the Supreme Court de- sus Winans (1905) gave an entirely' different roes- cided Neu' Mexico versus Mescalero Apache Tribe. sage less than 10 years later, and only 2 years after The Court unanimously held that state wildlife juris- the Lone Wolf decision. Commercial fishermen in diction and hunting license fees could not be applied Washington were using huge fish wheels, pre- on a reservation with an active tribal wildlife man- venting Yakima Indians from fishing in their agement program. Furthermore, the language in "usual and accustomed places," violating an 1859 Mescalero reflected a strong sense of federal-Indian treaty. The Court ruled in favor of the Yakimas cooperation in wildlife management. and introduced the "reserved rights" doctrine: a This is logically interpreted as upholding tribal treaty "was not a grant of rights to Indians, but a wildlife jurisdiction, but it also could be interpreted grant of rights from them..." Perhaps the distinc- to support an increased role of the federal govern° tion from Racehorse stems from the nomadic ment in wildlife management. Regarding Mescalero, ways of the Bannocks, although it also is interest- Ball (1987) even thought that, "Instead of protecting ing that the Bannocks provided the last major up- the tribe. the Court protects 2 federal bureaus from rising of Indians in the Northwest (Brimlow state interference". This assessment seems hypercri~- 1938). ical, however. "Terminated" tribes? Not according to The course of wildlife jurisdiction their hunting rights Tribal wildlife jurisdiction has been addressed pri- . During the mid-1900's, broader issues took front marily by the judicial branch of federal government. stage. The New Deal, World War I!, and terminaiion Tribal sovereignty has consistently fared better in nat- amounted to a full agenda for the federal govern- ural resource disputes than in any other arena. Ac- ' ment, while tribes worked on rebuilding pursuant to cording to Wilkins (1993), there are 3 reasons for that the Indian Reorganization Act. then rebounding from pattern: termination. It wasn't until 1968 that a truly land- · the importance of natural resonrces to basic mark ruling in wildlife jurisdiction was handed down tribal survival; from the Supreme Court. In Meuomt'nee 'l'rit)e uer- · the general clarity in which resource rigIlls sus I/.5. (19(~H). tilt: Court upheld the Menomint:es' appear in legal documents; and, trcaty hunting and fishing rightsdcspitcthc Mcnomi- · a federal reluctance to relinquish powers to n¢'c Tt:rminalion Act of 19%-'! (6H Slat 250) The the states. 572 Wildlife $ociet), Bulletin 1995, 23(4):568-573 Tribes as wildlife managers Apache Reservation, less than half of tile big game animals barvested each year are allocated to n~)n- The relationship of American Indians to the United tribal hunters, despite the annually alluring effect of States has been turbulent, and Congressional plenary. >$1 million dollars for non-tribal license lees. In- power hangs threateningly over the tribes. So far, deed, tile fact that man), of tile western tribes arc however, the status of tribes as wildlife managers has well known for producing extremely large speci- been largely determined in the courts. Ball (1987) mens of deer (Odocoileus spp.), elk, bighorn sheep thought the courts had established a pattern that up- (Ovis canadensis), pronghorn (Antilocapra ameri- holds tribal wildlife jurisdiction, but tends to keep cana), bear (Ursus spp.), and mountain lion (b~lis the tribes operating at a level of basic subsistence. concolor), in the 1990's attests that they have not Regardless of the motives of the Court and Con- over-exploited these resources. There are excep- gressional trends, the 1990's situation is clear: tribes tions, almost all of which occur on small reserva- have ample legal capacity to function as wildlife man- tions or reservations with a checkerboard pattern of agers. The biggest question, then, is what motivation ownership. do tribes have to conserve wildlife and promote eco- logical integrity? Conclusion In 1986, in United States versus Dion, the Supreme Court ruled that the Endangered Species Tribes should be encouraged to manage their Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544) and the Eagle Protection wildlife resources. Intentionally or not, Indians lived Act CU.S.C. 668-668d) supersede the Yankton Sioux in a way that promoted ecological integrity. Today, Treaty of 1858. Although the legal precedent was Indian tribes retain significant landholdings that rep- good news to many conservationists, it also estab- resent a cross-section of American ecosystems. The lished the ironic political precedent of conflict be- political and legal capacity for tribes to protect or re- tween tribal interests and conservation interests. claim the quality of tribal ecosystems is rooted in the However, it is only 1 case, just as Racehorse was 1 historical relationship between the United States and case, and it doesn't negate the great capacity of the the tribes. Tribal sovereignty has fluctuated wildly, tribes to manage ecosystems over millions of but in the 1990's, tribes have ample legal capacity to hectare~ in the U.S. function as wildlife managers. Many of the tribes have become active resource It appears that some Indian tribes have gladly ac- managers, especially in the West. Western reserva- cepted the role of wildlife champion. After all, they tions are large and were often created in wilderness have shown great respect for wildlife on a specimen, areas that have functioned as de facto wildlife species, and ecosystem level, and quite probably in refuges. Tribal lands produce many trophy-class big ways that non-Indians cannot comprehend. In a so- game animals. In particular, the, the Hualapai reser- ciety where Indians have been left behind in other vation in Arizona, the Ute reservations in Utah and aspects, Indians could attain leadership status in the Colorado, the Yakama Indian Reservation in Wash- promotion of ecological quality. And, all else equal, 'ington, and 4 large Apache reservations in the South- no one makes a better wildlife conservationist west are reputed for big game hunts that are sought (whether it be in the form of a technician, biologist, after by some of the world's most wealthy trophy or concerned citizen) than one who was born and hunters. raised on the land they- will manage. Ball (1987:95) warned that ."present policies sup- What can non-Indian conservationists do to assist porting self-determination may favor a capitalistic ex- the tribes in wildlife conservation? First, by express~ ploitation of wildlife that conflicts with indigenous ing the value we place on ecological integrity and by practices." Most tribes suffer from disintegrated acknowledging traditional Indian culture as an inte- economies, and their natural resource base is often gral component of North American ecosystems, we the primary source of subsistence and employment. engender tribal pride and ownership in wildlife con- In that respect, Ball has a valid point. However, servation. Second, we should initiate an open ex- tribes have shown a strong priority of conserving change of information with the tribes. This informa- their wildlife resource§ despite the potentials of hunt- tion should obviously include ecological data, but derived income. also practical administrative tips such as the availabil- On the Yakama Indian Reservation, with its enor- ity of grants, hunting economics data, and even the mous elk resource and the potential to sell tags for nature of pending legislation. The Native American thousands of dollars each, the confederated tribes Fish and Wildlife Society (Broomfield, Colo.) is a well- refuse to sell any elk tags at all. On the San Carlos established forum for this type of exchange. American Indians and conservation · Czech $73 ()tit proactivity sht)tlld ])c IllCaStlrcd alld prtldt2ilt. .klx~(,~x I'. s 196w Prehistoric overkill I'agc~-% 120 nt P ~ Mar however. After all, just as Euro-Amcrican activities till 1111d H E. Wright, Jr.. cds. Pictstot'one cxlinCllOllS the in nature have often proved destrtlctivc. Euro- ()'Bm~. I) M 1993 Stormccntcr: theSupremc(7ou~ in Amcr~ American involvement ill tribal affairs has often can politics. Norton. New York. NY. 479pp come at tribal expense. Much of our assistance will I,~ xL s. J 1982. Fire in Americana culttmtl histoU, of wildland have to come in the passive form of respecting and rural fire. Pnnceton Univ. Press, Pnnccton, N.J. 654pp. W~,K~s. I). E 1993 Transfo~ations in Supreme Court thoughl: tribal rights, understanding that we cannot expect the irresistible force meets the movable object Social Sci. J the various tribes to act with the consistency of a 30:(2)181-207 single federal agency. We should consciously avoid w~ N~)~u. J R 1994. Retained by the people: a hislou of Amen- a paternalistic approach to tribal consedation af- can Indians and the Bill of ~ghts Oxfi)rd 1Jniv Press, fairs and take a serious look at the traditional val- York. N.Y 278pp. UCS, cultures, anti ecological t~attlrcs that enabled Brian Czech ~s a Graduate Re- Indians to be participants, rather than polluters, of search Associate at the Univer- pristine America. sity of Arizona (UA). He has a B.S. in Wildlife Ecology from the University of Wisconsin Ac~nou,ler~menls. Author would like to ac- (Madison) and an M.S. ~n knowledge' Dr. William W. Shaw, Dr. l)avid E. Wildlife Science from the versity of Washington (Seattle). kX;ilkins, and Dr. David A. King for their suggcslions He is a Certified Wildlife and review, gisl with over 12 years ol expe- rience in the West and Alaska He has worked for 4 federal, state, and 2 lribal agencies, pri- Literature cited ~,v with large mammals and ALLE~,I) L 1962. Our~ildlifelcgacy. Funk andWagnalls. Nc~ program development H~s most recent positions include York. NY. 422pp. Director of Recreation and B~.M.S. 1987 Constitution, court and Indianlriht's Am Bar Wildlife for the San Carlos Found RcscarchJ. 19~-:1-159 Apache Tribe (Arizona), and Wildlife Biologist for the Council B~u~Lo~, G F 1958. The Bannock Indmn war of 18~8 The Cax- Athabascan Tribal Governments (Alaska). His Ph.D. program at ton Primers. Ltd., Caldwell. Id. 2.i lpp UA brid~es Renewable Natural Resources Sludies and Political CA'ruN, G. 18~ 1. L~tters and holes on tl]c mann~rs. customs, and Science, for work in conserving ecological integrily. He has condition of th~ American Indians. Vol. 1. Crown Publ. Ncnb' lhored or co-authored works on ecosystem conservation, endan- York, NY. 566pp. ~ered species on weslern rangelands, ecotourism, witdli(e litiga- D~Lou~,~, V. 198~. treerican Indians, American justice. Um~. lion, and large mammal management. Texas Press. Austin. 161pp. D~Vo'ro. B.. ~m'ro~. 1955. Th~ journals of L~wis and Clark Houghton, Mifflin, and Co., Boston, Mass. 504pp THURSDAY, SE~EMBER I, 1~4 ~ CIRCULATION: ~PYRI~ 1994/~ETIM~ MIRROR~MPANY/~t/I~ PAG~ I,I~SI DAILY/I,~2,1~ SUNDAY Land Deal Puts Competin Federal issues at Stake · San Bernardino: ~n~ ~ys it n~ to ~t ~ pri~. Othe~ cla~ RTC should ~nsider environmen~l matte~. By M!~!AELA. HILTZIK' American groups regard J[ as TIMES STAFF WRITER eted land. "it would be a great l~s to SAN BgRNARD]NO--At first Southern California if this parcel glance, the proposal ~o put 620 were bulldozed," ~id one govern- e~ensive homes and an ]8-hole men: environmentalist familiar golf course on a large ~rce]' of with the place. foo:~ii] land l~ks like a loser. ~ut buUdo~ed it ma~ be, if the The 7~2 acres on the e~e of the p~perty'a owner has its wa~. The San Bernardino National forest owner, as it happens, is the f~erai are in a flood plain and b~sh-fire 8overnment, whose Resolution ~one at the confluence of three Trust Corp. acquired control of Oak reverse-thrust faults similar to the Summit with the 1~ fai!~e of a one that caused Januaty'a Noah- . ~utsiana sa~ngs and ]oan. ridge earthquake. Despite the parcei's ecological The property, known as Oak significance, the R~C is pressing 5~mmit, includes one of the state's ahead with effor~ to win San last stands of a unique and threat- Bernardino Count~ soyeminent ened wild plant community and approval to build ~e golf course may support at least two endan- and homes. Already, those efforts gered animal species. L~al Native Please s~ RTC, A~ [~t20 THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1994 * , RTC: Project's Handling Questioned ~ ~t~Continued from AI to RTC conservatorship when ', ~have cost federal taxpayers more CO~ct~ M~SS~Og~ Landmark's own savings and loan · ,,:~than $250,000 in planning fees paid became insolvent in 1991. The RTC cby the RTC's designated managers The Resolution Trust Corp. is aci:used Landmark in court of har- t,of the property. seeking approval for an ing "shamelessly looted" the New { ....The idea is to increase the mon- exclusive golf course project Orleans S & L of $900 million, caus- .,~ ey that the RTC will receive from on the edge of a national ing its collapse· 'bidders at a public auction of the forest. Critics say the project Up to that point, Landmark prin- land Sept. 13. If the RTC wins the could undermine efforts to cipa!ly. had been known as the ~"'[01anning approval that it seeks, preserve the land. developer of a number of cham- 2'Oak Summit's value probably ~"would soar well beyond the $7 pionship golf courses in California · 'million at which it is now assessed. and elsewhere, including La Quinta ~" . In theory, that would be a boon and PGA West near Palm Springs. · ~ for federal taxpayers. But at the But with the failure of its savings same time it could price the prop- and loan, Landmark came into · ~ erty well out of the range of direct conflict with the RTC. In ~, several public agencies interested 1991, its executives 'attempted to ~,.in buying the land for use as a shield the firm's properties from ,~permanentecologicalpreserve. RTC control by placing them in bankruptcy. The next year, a fed- · ~" I~'r~he conflict over Oak Summit '~ ~'~'. [ is more than a garden variety eral judge awarded the agency .1. controversy over whether to power over the properties, and the build on ecologically sensitive land. RTC sold the desert golf courses ' ~' The involvement of the RTC--es- and other valuable Landmark proJ- . - tablished in 1989 to sell the assets ects to outside investors. ' of failed.savings and loans, thereby ' derraying the costs of the federal .:0atsdo N'evertheless, the RTC has S& L boilout--raises important left several Landmark offi- questions about how such land is LosAo~gelesTlmes cials from that era in con- managed. trol of Oak Summit. Landmark RTC officials argue that the agen- project as proposed are private official Andrew R. Vossler, the cy's legislative mandate is to en- environmental groups, the Califor- project manager, refused to com- hance the price of its properties in nia Department of Fish and Game, merit on the project, referring all whatever way possible. They say U.S. Department of the Interior,. questions to the RTC. federal law allows them to make local school and fire officials, who Also energetically supporting virtually no provision for counter- say they do not have the facilities the project is Jori D. MikeIs, chair- vailing public interests, such as to serve the new home buyers, and man of the San Bernardino County environmental preservation. San Bernardino area tribal groups. Board of Supervisors, in whose "This is a business too, and we Moreover, county planners re- district the property lies. ~ ~ ~have to try to get what we can" for gard the developers' economic as- In an interview, Mikeis--the re- if' ~'i~he property, said RTC spokesman sumptions about Oak Summit's po- cipient of a $1,000 campaign contri- '!.~ ..~teven Katsanos. i~.~ But in this case, developers tential value as inflated. State and bution from Landmark and another federal agencies label the environ- $1,000 from a company executive in ~?~'Working under the RTC's supervi- mental impact study done for the his 1990 supervisorial race--said ~./zion have moved with extraordi- project inaccurate and inadequate. he regards the project as a "net d ~nary aggressiveness to push the They question the developers' plus" for the county. ~ 'project through the county plan- ~i~,~ing process by cutting procedural contention that homes on the prop- Mikeis--who has reported no $.~$orners. erty would sell in the $700,000 additional donations from the firm P? On at least one occasion, sources ' range. A more likely estimate is in his reelection campaign this ~isay, the developers--Landmark $330,000, the planners say--a level year--flatly dismissed claims of LandCo. of Carmel--threatened a at which the development would the land's ecologicalsignificance. g/:,',top Interior Department official represent ~ drain on county re- . "There's nothing special about the ~.~.with legal action if he testified in sources rather than a net producer property," he said. "It's 762 acres out ~'favor of protecting the parcel as an of revenue. of 7,000 acres of the same stuff. ecological preserve. As a result, As for the environmental study, the official--Allen McReynolds, officials contend that--among oth- There are no endangered species." special assistant to Interior Secre-. er shortcomings--its survey of Environmental studies have tary Bruce Babbitt--decided not to ~ rare flowering plants was conduct- identified as many as seven species testify. : ed before the blooming season. on the site that are eligible for Landmark officials declined to State officials say the survey listing as endangered. Surveys comment on the incident, and Kat- missed at least six species of en- have also confirmed a sighting of sanos said he was unaware of it. dangered flora thought to be on the the California gnatcatcher, a small The !and at the center of the site. songbird listed as threatened, and dispute is a parcel that builders in On the other side of the battle two sightings of the least Bell's San Bernardino ~ounty have been are the developers--represents- vireo, an endangered species, near trying without success to develop tives of Landmark; which acquired enough to its boundaries for any for years. Lined up against the the property in the 1980s but lost it Please see RTC, ! LOS ANGF~ .F-q TIMES Department of Transportation. "When we have a plan before us, so because he was on vacation last RTC ~ law requires Caltrans to it sets out exactly what's going to Tuesday when the appeal would , mitigate any environmental dam- happen" on the land, Commissioner otherwise have been heard. "It's ~ontinued from A26 age that its projects cause by Sheryl Brown said. "That's not the not our practice to delay appeals, ~onstruction on Oak Summit to acquiring and preserving parcels of case with this project. It wasn't a but to get them heard as expedi- .represent a potential negative im- equivalent ecological value along plan, just a concept." tiousiy as possible," MikeIs said. pact, according to the U.S. Fish & the route--in this case the F'oothill Fearing that approval of such a The intensity of Landmark's ef- Freeway extension. vague proposal would give the de- forts perplex planning experts. Wildlife Service. "Oak Summit provides an in- velopers too much leeway, Brown-- Even with county permits, they ~ Environmentalists say the site is note, construction of a project on ~ combination of several rare plant credible opportunity for [Cal- along with a majority of the com- ,communities whos.e p .r~imity to trans]," said James Burns of the mission--voted to send it back to the Oak Summit's scale will face tre- one another makes It unique. These U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, planning staff for more specifics. mendous legal obstacles. ~)lant communities include 352 which has joined the state agency Anything else, she said, "would set a "There are a lot of issues that. i~cres of Riversidean alluvial fan and the San Bernardino Assn. of precedent that would say to others would be very difficult for a devel- ~age scrub, which the state De- Governments in trying to negotiate that we would OK a concept." oper to resolve," Burns said. partmerit of Fish and Game de- a purchaseofthepropertyfromthe But Landmark appealed that Among the 400 environmental /~:ribes as "one of the most threat- RTC. "It would be 90% of their ruling to the Board of Supervisors, and other restrictions proposed by ~ned rare natural communities left mitigation requirements." the eounty's ultimate authority, county planners, environmental But the RTC has pressed ahead and MikeIs obliged the developers agencies and other official bodies !n Southern California." with the sale. "We were hoping the by setting a hearing and vote on are many that cannot be reconciled Often found at the feet of can- with one another. ];,ons, where regular floods wash RTC would be more helpful," the matter for Tuesday. t)ut into a fan shape and deposit Burns said, "but it isn't making The date raised eyebrows be- Regional fire officials insist that ~ch soils, only 14,000 acres of things any easier." cause it is the day after Labor Day, sage scrub in the development be iilluvial fan sage scrub remain in Meanwhile, Vossler and other and the board's bylaws state that it thinned out by as much as 80% to ~outhern California, where as re- Landmark managers are pushing does not meet on the day after .a prevent forest fires from crossing ~ently as 50 years ago there were for county approval of their project national holiday. Tuesday also is the klevelopment and reaching with what planning sources say is one week before the RTC auction, neighboring Rancho Cucamonga. !.50,000 to 200,000 acres. so Much of what remains is slated unusual vigor. On July 28, they the meeting leaves open the But that would violate environ- ]For development or mining, and brought it before the county Plan- possibility that the project could mental requirements that the ~ome is likely to be destroyed by ning Commission, even though win some form of official approval scrub be preserved. the planned extension of the Foot- they had no specific plot maps before the sale. Native Americans, who say their hill Freeway into San Bernardino. showing how the homes and golf MikeIs acknowledged that he tradition of collecting rare white " ~ That road project has inspired one course would be situated. called the special meeting and that sage on the property makes it a ~_ _~rvation strategy: the purchase The planning commissioners Landmark's appeal will be the only cultural legacy, also have vowed to of Oak- Summit by the California balked. item on the agenda. He said he did sue to halt development. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1994 ' Agency officials said they had no U S Accepts, · · to get the most numey _po~__'ble for the land. Environmentalists want- Offer for 'home to serenil ~.ies o! endan- ~. gered plants and animals and is one 762 Acres as tat known as Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub. Preserve property ended Tuesday and the RTC notified the nssoeiation of governments of its tentative vieto- By ~!ICTIAEL A. HILTZIK ry Priday. sotttc~ told The Times. TIM~:S STAFF WRITER RTC officials were unavailable for (~onservation fo~ce~ emerged the eomment. apl~rent vict0. rs Friday in a battle The as .$oeintion of governments over the fate of ?62 environmen- was intent on buying the land to taRy sensitive ~cre~ on the edge of fulffil environmental zequirements thd San Bernn~ino National For° for the extennion of the Foothill est~ as federal officials notified a Freeway across San Bernardino San Bernardino government group County. Federal and state rules th~ Its ~ for' the land would be requi~ that the environmental ira- accepted. .4~he price offered by the San prcb~ts be Bernardino Assn. of Governments tton of similar hnbitats i~ the wa/~ not made public, but the land region. has been appraised at more than One association of governments · $?.$ ~million. The umbrella group official h~d called the purchase of for~ 'ai'ea municipalities intends to Oak SumroreR "a unique, once-in- turh the parcel, known as Oak a-lifetime opportunity" to mitigate Su~amit, over to a government or damage caused by the freeway private conservation agency for project. use~ as a nature preserve. The assoctation's apparent victo- r'he properry's owner, the [eder- ry leaves op~ the question of why al Resolution Trust Corp., had been the RTC pressed so vigorously for pressing for county approval of a 'approval o[ the Oak Summit golf golf course and 620-home luxury co ursedevelopmenL development on the parcel even as As recently ~s Wednesday, RTC federal and state wildlife agencies representatives met with San Ber- were attempting to purchase the nardino county planners to push property to forestall construction.. *he development ahead. Land apparently spared from development By Lee Peterson the mouth of Day Canyon, j~t north of paved by t~e planned construction of Daily Bulletin Rancho Cucamonga. the Foothill Freeway, which will run The announcement delighted envi- east to west within 3 miles of the RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Devel- ronmen*_~li~ and wildlife biologists, preserve. · .... opment will never come to Oak Sum- who have..been figb_tlnE the develop- ~ne San Bernardino Associated Gov- mir, the most environmentally sensi- ment proposal as it wound through San ernmenta agency was notified by tele- tive ch~,nk of nol~h Rtiwstlldl~, du~ ill Berlll!l~o Coullt~'s' p]~nnin_~ pl'o4~ phone Friday ?.h~ the owner of the the apparent success of a transports- over the past several months. property, the Resolution Trust Corp., tion agency's efforts to buy it for a land ~hat's wonderful. We were all won- . was accepting the SANBAG bid. preserve. dering when we would hear,' said Mary The county transportation agency is The purchase, informally -nnounced Meyer, a wildlife biologist with the Cal- buying the property to offset the uncle- Friday, will trill an elaborate plan to tfornia Deoartment of Fish and Came. veloped acreage that will be consumed build 620 pricey homes and a Ironically, the path to preservation of b~ the 28-mile stretch of freeway. regulation-size golf course in and near the 762-acre Oak Snmmlt area was · ' See OAK/A8 Oak/from shape had we not gotten it," said that is working to preserve the Gary Moon, program manager north Eftwanda area, said news Plan~i~~~!:! i'.. tbr SANBAG. 'Being able to find of the successful SANBAG bid a suitable package of replace- 'was 'great," but unexpected. ment acreage would have been 'I'm just surprised. We very difficult." thought the purchase price However, Moon said 'the would be too high,' Trunell said. ' ...... ~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' agency does not yet have the The appraised value of the completed paperwork on the land is $7 million. The SANBAG t '~'"~- ========================== land purchase. bid was not disclosed. Foo~l Blvi A Resolution Trust spokes- The' Oak Summit property, woman would not comment on with , fresh water bog, alluvial . ' the auction, in which bidders sage scrub and Day Creek, is ' the agency by Sept. 13. tion or north Etiwanda - 7,000 'The RTC is not in a position acres of undeveloped, ,-incorpo- to conrum a wi--ins bidder rated county land between Ran- until the contract is closed, 60 to cho Cucamonga and the San 90 days from now,' said spokes- Bernardino National Forest. Oally Bulle~ wom-nFelisaNeuringer. According to maps of the Landmark Land Co., onetime county's North Etiwanda Open With those two together that's owner of the property, has been Space and Habitat Preservation really a treasure," said Jim Des in charge of creating the devel- Program, the Oak Summit area Lauriers, a Chaffey College biol- opment plan. Landmark Vice is among the most biologically ogy professor. President Andy Vossler said he sensitive territory in Eftwanda. SANBAG's Moon said the had no information on the 'mar- 'From my personal point of agency will take title of the keting effort" and referred ques- view, the pristine nature of that property in its own name, and !ions back to Resolution Trust. canyon is at least as valuable as will find an appropriate steward Marlene ~runell, of the Spirit the alluvial sage at the mouth. for the land at a later date. LETTER 7 STATE O~2 CALIFORNIA--THE RESOURCES AGSNC¥ DEPARTMENT OF FISH A.ND GAME 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 '" r:'% ~ -. Long Beach, California 90802 213) 590-5113 June 26, 1991 City of Rancho Cucamonga Attention: Miki Bratt 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0807 Dear Ms. Bratt: Department personnel have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, San Bernardino County, SCH 89012314. The project is a general plan amendment and prezoning for approximately 6840 acres prior to annexation of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga Sphere of Influence and provides for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and to preserve 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (SR 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the city of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. Approximately one-half (over 3,000 acres) of the specific plan area is a gently sloping alluvial fan. This alluvial fan inclu ~d~ the Day Creek Wash, Etiwanda Creek Wash, and San Sevaine Wash areas and contains the~Riversidian alluvial fan sa~ ~crub vegetation and riparian habitat. The a'~vlafTa~ ~ge scrub habitat was once widely distributed along the southern outwashes of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains but has now become confined to remnant patches along unaltered streams and outwashes, as residential and flood control projects have eliminated it from most of its former range. The Department has the following concerns regarding this project. Streambed Alteration - Department personnel have been working with your city and the County flood control agency to develop a streambed alteration agreement for the proposed channelization of Etiwanda and San Sevaine wash areas. Fill or channelization of these washes is unacceptable to the Department and any proposed debris dams must allow the storm events to pass througk the dams without reducing the volume and velocity of the water below the dams. Agreement has not been reached as to specific width of the channels with the streambed alteration aspects. Ms. Miki Bratt June 26, 1991 Page Two Hydraulic Condition - The final DEIR should allow for the -~[~of the hydraulic nature of the fan saqe scrub cent to Day Creek. This would ~nclude the reworking of Day Creek Basin and elimination of the existing cross channel. These measures could serve somewhat as mitigation for the loss of habitat associated with development. The Department concurs with the city's decision to avoi a~eserve the drainages. Th~e areas should remain a~natural~open s~a~e to provide continued use as wildlife corridors and v~luabie rapto~--r foraging areas while providing a buffer from the developed areas. Buffer Zones - The buffer zones presented in the DEIR are in adequate for the continued use of open spaces by fish and wildlife that currently exists in the region. The proposed development design will result in fragmentation of the wildlife populations and cause disruption of the movement corridors, thereby reducing the resource value of the region. We have specific recommendations for the following areas: Streambeds - All development and resultant activity must be prohibited within 100 feet of the high water mark of any streambed with an additional 50 foot transitional zone. Peat Bog - The DEIR provides unclear information and proposed activity regarding the peat bog area that resides in the upper northwestern corner of the specific plan area. The document does not delineate the precise boundaries of this unique and highly sensitive bog area making the proposed 200 foot buffer zone of questionable value to its preservation. To preserve the proper amount of buffer around the bog area, no development should occur north of the utility corridor. This would preclude any alteration of drainages that occur north or northeast of the bog and eliminate any potential for upstream interference of the bog's delicate ecological balance. Natural Springs - The DEIR identifies the need for the preservation of the natural springs that occur on the proposed ro~~q~site using an "adequate" yet undetermined buffer zone of at~U~O~ space for continued wildlife access. These springs all--~u~ no~-f~5 of-the utility corridor and are essential for use by fish and wildlife on site and on adjacent National Forest lands. Development proximal to the springs and the bog will reduce their resource value and will greatly degrade the existing wildlife access. Prohibition of development north of the utility corridor will accomplish the preservation and continued value of the habitat. Ms. Miki Bratt June 26, 1991 Page Three B~~orn Shee~ - The DEIR identifies two bighorn sheep winter ranges that within the National Forest and adjacent to the specific plan area and one that lies within the northwest corner of the area. The bighorn sheep is State-listed Threatened and fully protected by the State. Considerable development is proposed adjacent to the Forest Service boundary and its -influence will adversely impact the wintering areas. Again. th9 solutes, ~,~d~s in the prohibition of development north of the u~i ' 'or. - ' All buffer zones and open spaces shall retain native species indigenous to the region and all revegetation palettes should also reflect these native species. The document recommends that these areas be designed to prevent motorcycle and off road vehicle use and the Department concurs. The use of physical barriers such as fencing and native bramble vegetation will restrict the misuse and degradation of open space intended as compensation for development and will also impede the ability of wildlife to stray into developed areas. The resources management plan for these preserved areas should include maintenance of barriers and adequate patrol and protection. Funding for such necessary functions will be bourne by the Cit~. Loss o~-' The Department ~s intensely co-~d with ~he preseryation of the River~n alluvia~ fan Sa~- 8o~.__~_~it%~ni~u~to this area. Balancing the d&vei0~ent needs of the l~dow~s with ~he resource need of maintaining viable wildlife populations is a concern properly examined by the City. Compensation for the loss of this fan sage scrub habitat should reflect a replacement ratio of 2:1. Loss of foraging habitat to all wildlife, including raptors and species of special concern must be compensate as w~.__.~~__he appropriate compensation should be the rese~ in perpetuity, of the drainages previously mentioned and~he ~11 property north of the utility corridor. These large open space dedications would resolve much of the current fish and wildlife concerns of the Department. Proximity to San Bernardino National Forest - Intense development adjacent to any National Forest is unacceptable tO the Department. Human encroachment will result in adverse impacts to the extant biota in the Forest and the existing significant ~uffer zone will be forced past the Forest Service boundary. Preservation of the wilderness/open space north of utility corridor will act to salvage the existing buffer zone of the Forest. Ms. Miki Bratt June 26, 1991 Page Four Listed Species and'Species of Special Concern - The surveys presented in the DEIR regarding the absence of the endangered Santa Ana River woolly-star and the slender-horned spineflower are not convincing. The surveys were done during severe drought 7 If conditions and should have been followed up with a ~urrent survey. Compensation through habitat preservation for loss of habitat to and take of the oran - w ' '1, S~n Di~ coast horned lizard, and other species of concern t-o the ~partment has beeh previously discussed. In summary, the Department recommends the development plan be redesigned to include adequate long-term protection of all the major drainages and sufficient wildlife movement corridors to interconnect them. These unique and sensitive habitat areas support significant biological resources and require approriate action. Preservation can be accomplished through protection of the drainage areas as well as the property north of the utility corridor. Until the Etiwanda North Specific Plan incorporates these concerns, the Department recommends against certification of the current document. The project sponsor is subject to the user fee provided by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, and the fee is payable to the County Clerk when the Notice of Determination is filed by the lead agency. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(c), the user fee is $1,250 for a Negative Declaration and $850 for any type of Environmental Impact Report. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. If you have any questions please contact Kimberly K. McKee of our Environmental Services Staff at (213) 590-5137. Fred Worthley~ ~ Regional Manager Region 5 cc: M. Giusti, R-5 Sharon Dougherty, San Bernardino National Forest, Cahone Ranger District, Star Rt. Box 100, Fontana, CA 92336 Caiifornla Department. of ?ish and !Same 3:}0 Golden Shore, Suite 50 Lon9 Beach~ CA 90602 Febraruy !0, i992 Ms. Leeohs Klippstein P.O. Box 2828 Beverly Hills, CA 90213 Dear Ms. K1 ippstein: Tkmnk you for your. letter of' January 5, 1992 and for your. concern for. the protection of River. sidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub habi%at. The Departmenb is al~o concerned and ~ ~orked over, the t,msg ~] years try and insure the pr'otection of this valuable habitat. Currently, no s%r-eaml~d alher-a%ion agreements have ~en reached for add%ional work %he Ehiwanda, San Sevine, Henderson, Mc, pris or Wardman drainages. i~ ~he Department's in~eng ~1-~% these areas be pr. ogec%ed ~o serve as a wildlife cor. r. idor. into national f'or. est proper. ty. Until such time as the City and County can agree on a proposed developmen plan for the area the Deparhment will no% execute any agr. eementa~. if you have any f~*hl%er questlon~ please con%act me at (2i4) 924-2757. Siracer'ely; M~ck~el Giust, i Asa, ociate Fi.shel-y Biologist Region 5 ,*,YATF: OF CALIFORNIA--THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Gevemor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME .j~ ~30 Golden Shore, Suite 50 ,ong Beach, CA 90802 (310) 590-5113 April 1, 1992 City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga P.0. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Dear Council M~m~era: Etiwanda North Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, SCH8912314 The Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed the draft Final EIR for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The project is a general plan amendment and prezoning of approximately 6,840 acres prior to annexation of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga Sphere of Influence. The Plan area provides 3,613 single-family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue, south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. Approximately one half of the area is a gently-sloping alluvial fan which includes Day Creek Wash, Etiwanda Creek Wash, and San Sevaine Wash areas, supporting Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub and riparian vegetation. The Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub habitat was once widely distributed along the southern outwashes of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains, but has now become confined to remnant patches along unaltered streams and outwashes, as residential and flood control projects have eliminated it from most of its former range. The Department of Fish and Game recognizes that planning for the Etiwanda North area is a complex challenge, and we commend the City of Rancho Cucamonga's effort to address a wide range of land uses including designation of open space reserves. However, the DFG is still concerned about the loss of habitat values that will result from urbanization under scenarious outlined in the planning documents and the lack of commitment by the City for preservation of alluvial fan sage scrub habitat. Our concerns about specific mitigation measures put forth in this document are as follows: Mitigation measure ,12 states that native "bramble" vegetation would be used to restrict public access into wildlife preservation areas. There is no native "bramble" in this type of plant community. Bramble vegetation is likely to either not grow at all due to gravelly, dry soil conditions, or it may become invasive and spread. The springs and bog area are particularly vulnerable to being taken over by invasive plants, and this must be avoided. Laurel sumac (Rhus laurina) would be a more appropriate local native which currently grows onsite, is an evergreen, and grows fairly rapidly. Baccharis could also be interplanted with laurel sumac. Mitigation Measure #16 needs to indicate that applicants shall obtain agreements with the Department under Fish and Game Code 1600 for 91! streams and not just those designated as waters of the United States. City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga April 1, 1992 Page Two Because Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub constitutes a Significant Natural Community and has become one of the rarest habitats in the state, the Department still contends that compensation for loss of this habitat should reflect a replacement ratio of 2:1 for inkind habitat, and not the l:~ ratio identified in Mitigation Measure #20. The Department requests that this measure's language be deleted which says that our previous recommendations for preservation of sage scrub habitat was for that habitat "which can feasibly be retained". This statement is in error. Mitigation measure #21 would require resurveying a portion of the project area for endangered species prior to the issuance of grading permits. The Department contends that the Final EIR and the LSA Associate Biological Assessment referenced in the document do not adequately address baseline biological values for the area in relation to sensitive plants and animals. This lack of biological information makes it impossible to assess and mitigate for biological impacts that have not been adequately identified. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in section 15~25 requires that an EIR include special emphasis on environmental resources that are rare or unique to the region. The Department is concerned about biological surveys being conducted just prior to grading permits being issued. In the Department's view this is too late for identifying biological impacts'and for acquiring site specific mitigation measures. Therefore, the Department recommends the following changes be made to mitigation measure #21~ that individual project proponents be required to complete focused EIR's in which detailed biological survey information is obtained for all sensitive and threatened and endangered species within their projects footprint as well as to contributing to surveys for the entire alluvial fan sage scrub area covered by the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. In our letter to you of June 26, 4991 on the Draft EIR for this project, the Department recommended preservation of Day Creek Wash,.San Sevaine Wash and Etiwanda Creek Wash drainage, and those alluvial fan sage scrub lands. north of the utility corridor. However, mitigation measure #30 in the document only indicates that a study should be undertaken. The Department's policy is that studies are not considered mitigation for the adverse environmental impacts of a project. Rather, in this case, a commitment by the City to preserve habitat north of the utility corridor would be acceptable as mitigation for this plan. Based upon the Department's concerns about this plan, as previously stated in this letter, we have no choice but to recommend against the adoption and certification of this document by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. However, there currently exists an opportunity for resolution of these issues. Governor Wilson recently signed into law the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act of ~991 which promotes the voluntary cooperation of state, federal, and local agencies end jurisdictions and private landowners in preserving natural areas that are large enough to support viable populations of the states flora and fauna while allowing for a~propriate economic development. The state has selected the coastal sage scrub plant and animal community of southern California for a first attempt to implement this law. The Conservation Planning ~trea for this effort includes northern San Bernardino County and specifically those areas that still contain alluvial fan sage scrub, including Rancho Cucamonga. City Council City of Rancho' Cucamonga April l, 1992 Page Three Your city, along with numerous other local jurisdictions, has recently received a letter and an enrollment form from the State of California, Resources Agency that asked you ~o participate in this NCCP program. The Department of Fish and Game asks that you seriously consider this invitation as a mechanism to work cooperatively with us, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and your neighboring jurisdictions, developers and conservation interests to address and hopefully .resolve alluvial fan sage scrub protection issues on a broad scale. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this plan. The Department of Fish and Game looks forward to the opportunity to work with the City of Rancho Cucamonga and others to resolve these issues. Questions about this letter and further coordination on these issues should be directed to Glenn Black, Natural Heritage Supervisor at (3~0) 590-4807. Sincerely, Region 5 cc: Mr. John Hanlon, USFWS-Carlsbad Ms. Leona Klippstein, San Bernardino Sage Friends United States Department of the Interior ECOLOOIOAL $F.~VICES Carlebed Field Office 2730 Loker Avenue Wes~: Ca=lab&d, C,tl. tfo~*ni& 92008 Jvne lt,, 19{}/, Super:Leer Jori D. H:Lkels0 I, reeident San Be=~ardino County ~oard o£ Supervisors County Government Center 385 North Arrowhead Avenue, 5th Floor San Bernardino, Californ~a 92/~15-0110 Oak Sumnit Planned Development (State Clearinghouse Numbo~ 92092036), San Bernard[no County, California Dear Supo~so~ ~ike~s: ~o F~sh and ~ld[lffe SedUce (Se~co) ~ders~an~ ~hac ~he Co~Cy Boa=d of Superb. ors would con. ida= ~ha project l~tcer =h~s Resolu=[on T~usC Corpora=ion (~TC). ~e ac=ached No~ce of Public would appear =o be erroneous in li~=[~J ~n~ark ~nd Company of Cal~fo=n~a. Inc, as ~ho "Appl~c~nt/~o~(s)' and fa~l~n~ ~o ~dica~ ~ha~ RTC i. o~r. Ve wan= Co be sure you undors=and =hac the Depar~en~ of In,.rio= has ~ivan the ~TC a le=ter of incen~ =o ~cqu~=e this property because i= is a r~Sionally sl~nifican= b~olo~lcal ~esourca. The Seaice Is responsible for a~inis=rat~on of =he Endanssred Species Act of 1973, ~s ~ended (Act). ~is includes ~e processin~ of pe=miCs for non- federal proJec=s chac may adversely affeo~ species listed ~der the Ac= (Sac=ion 10(a) petits). As de~ailed below, lc appear~ the proposed Oak S~[c Plied Davelopmen~ would, in fat=, adve=s~ly af~ec~ l~s~ed The Draf~ Enviro~en=al Impact Repo== on =he p~oposa1 was issued in 1993. Since ~hac =line, i~ has come =o =he ~=tenclon of ~ha Se~[ca ~haC proJec= may adve=sely affect specie~ lis~ed and proposed as endangered =hrea=ened, as wall as several candida=es fo~ 1lacing, undar =he AcC. Specif~cally, ~o sinSinS male leas= Bell's vireos (Vireo ~ ~), species of b~rd l[s~ed as anent. red under the Ac=, were obss~ed, ~ediacely adjacent =o an area of the sics =o be developed as ~olf co. as, durin~ sprin~ off 1992; and an adulc ~e~ls coastal California ~natcaccher (~ ~ ~), a species of bird lis~td as ~hrea=ened ~dar the 2 Ac~1, was observed in an area 2o be developed with golf course and residences · on cite on 16 April 1994. These observ&~one of the v~reo and ~na~ca~cher Sou~hvef~e~ villo~ flyca~chor (~ ~ ~), a bird species p~opossd flor lts~in~ as en~nsered un~r ~h6 Act, hal been obse~ed in past ~n an area ~o be devotepod as ZsOft course by ~ho project; ho~e~er, a~e~ has no~ been su~yed flor ~ho spec~8. in co~ec2~on w~h the p~oJecc'e ~evie~. Similarly, ~here ar~ h~scor~ca[ ~eco~ds, ff~o~ an area ~o be as ~ol~ course and eques~r~a~kin~ ~r~l by ~he project, o~ Cali~o~a red- Act; boweve~, there has been no ffoc~ed su~ey ~or the species in connection with the project. ~e ?reject site is also potential hab~ac flor c~o plant species listed as endsgered under ~he Act, the ela~er-horned (~ ~) and the Santa Ams woolly scar (~ ~ asp. ~). A n~bs~ of species which are can~a~es ~o~ ~s~nf ~er ~ho A~ are kno~ Co occur on ~he si~e. ~es8 ~nc~udo ch~ h~hesc ~o~ rola~Lvo de~hy of Los Angeles [i~lo pocke~ mouse (~ ~ ~) ~d high ~nsic~es of Pl~e~'s mariposa l[ly (~ ~), ~o su~mys fo~ ba~e ~ere done ~n connection vi~h the project, ~ho~ ~he ~e [oca~y Cal[fo~[a mastiff ba~ (~ ~ ~ is nearby. Southern California =ufous-cro~ed (~ ~ ~) and BelL's sash sparrows (~ ~ ~) breed ~h~oughou~ che nl~e. Coastal California ~hip~ltl (~ ~ ~), San Bernardino rinjneck snake (~ ~ ~)~ cos, hat cosy boa (~ ~ ~), ~o-sC=lpsd Sacte= s~ke (~ ~), and co~sC patch-nosed snake (~ ~ ~) have p=avlouely been sishoed on ~e p~oJecc, bu~ no s~ey has been co. laced for ~hem durlns proJoc~ development. Hountain yetlov-le~ed firsts ~ ~) have been ~epo~ed ff~om ~he sl~o this Hay 1991, and in 1976 vote ~epo~ed ~rom Day and Ecivanda Cree~, buc no survey ha~ been dons for the species In color,ion wi~h ~he p~oJ~cc. ~o Oak S~l~ si~o ~s a si~lffican~ block o~ Rlve~sidian Alluvial Fan S'c~, 8 s~ca~e~o~ off Coastal SaSe Scrub habitat ~ha~ has been d~as~ically depleted ~hrou~ou~ souche~ Callffo~la, ~o elinibbles and ffra~encaCion speci~, including, mos~ notably, the coastal California gniCcacchsr, skir~ o~ alluvial ~ana excend[n~ along ~6 southern base o~ ~he San Cabriel and San ~e~nardino ~ounCains supported i major po~ton o~ ~he o~[~inal Rive~sidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scab habitat. IC hal been particularly a~fecced by ~valopmen~ due ~o l~s moderate slopes and accessib~ll~ co ~he as a threatened species under ~he Ac~. ~is .decision vas made on ~he ;~ounds tha~ cs=rain ~w da~a behind scien~fio papers used by the Se~ico in do~erm~nin~ ~he s~a~ug el the ~na~caccher were noC mad~ available /or public review. ~e So.ice ~emains conffidenc chac th~ l[skin~ o~ ch8 ~Ccaccher ~as done on the basis off so~d scientific inflowsties, and ve are Cak~n~ steps co co~ecc any p~ocedural deficiency in the cutemaking. la~ge n~be~ of s~lea which a~e candidates ~o~ liscln~ uude~ ~he Ac~ which ~pe~ on ~h~. habitat ~e, a few of ~ich ~re lisce~ above as recorded from the O~ S~c fica. A pc~a~y objective o~ ~he Seaice unda~ the Endeared Species ~C fs co poevane ~ecies f~om becomi~ 8~angered. ~s ca~c be d~o without pFesa~lns the habica~ essential foF ~eee species. Preae~vacion o~ the Oak S,,--~C sics If cclCical ~s ic is a ~elaCivoly undisCu~bed, st~lcan~ portion of the ~emalning ~versid~an Alluvial Fan Sa~e Scab habitat, and lc links important habitats of this ~d oChec ~es in ~he .~ ~oo~ille, ca~ons, and mountains o~ the San Beckdine Rational Fo~esC Co ~he neck, and ~e washes o~ LyClo and CaJon Cceeh Co the eaaC and south. ~e ask Chac 2ou consist these facts ~n youF deliberations on ch~s p~oposal. ~e Depa~enC o~ InCe~lo~ Is concin~n~ ice offo~tf co acquire ~ls ~iolosically i~o~an~ area. Ua ~ould be happy co discuss ~his mac~e~ with you fu~cher. Please cell be a (6~9) ~l-9~O o~ a~resa specific ques~ions co S inc araly ~ail C. Kobacich Field Supervisor A~achmenc: Allen ~(c~tey~olda, Clyde Ho~ls, EPA San Be~ardino Co, Pla~l~ Dept. ~y H~htnaky, CDF~, San Diego Ha~ Hayer, CD~, OJai Fred ~oz~hley, CD~, Long Beach ~11 Tippe~e, CDF~, San Diego ~r~y EnS. CD~, Sac~en~o John ~lll, United States Department of the Interior FISH A.\'D WILDLIFE SERV'ICE FISH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT m · SOtWHERN CALIFORNIA FIELD STATION Laguna Niguel Office Federal Building, 24000 Avila Road Laguna Niguel,' California 92656 March 13, 1992 Supervisor Jon Michaels County of Sam Bernardino 385 N. Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardino, California 92415-1080 Re: Ailuvi~i Scrub Habitat Dear Mr. Michaels: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is very concerned about the rapid loss of alluvial scrub habitat in southern California. Alluvial scrub is a type of coastal sage scrub. Alluvial scrub habitat is only found along the coastal draining slopes of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains. It is estimated that only 5% of this habitat remains. As you may know, this loss is the result of residential and commercial development, water diversions, and flood control structures. Alluvial scrub habitat is a unique assemblage of plants and animals based on the dynamic nature of alluvial systems and soil deposition. This ecosystem is also very important for natural groundwater recharge at no cost to man. This habitat also serves as natural flood control through the extension of sheet flow out over a wide area that allows for percolation into the ground. Alluvial scrub habitat to be a high priority habitat for conservation. The California Department of Fish and Game and the Service consider. As you know, there is no comprehensive development plan to protect the functions and dynamic nature of this habitat in San Bernardino County. Every development proposal is viewed separate from all others. This creates a patchwork of habitat fragments that will no longer function biologically. Flood control measures and structureg remove the hydrology and debris flow that is essential to the maintenance of this habitat. Considerable interest has developed regarding the protection of biologically functioning alluvial scrub habitat.. This interest was heightened by the proposed Los Angeles Raiders stadium in Xrwindale that would have eliminated 178 acres to create a parking lot; the proposed golf course in Big TuJunga Wash that would eliminate 350 acres; and the proposed flood control projects in Etiwanda and San Sevaine Washes that would have eliminated the remaining alluvial scrub habitat within their drainage areas.. Xn addition, the area's many individual residential developments either proposed, planned, or under construction in San Bernardino County will eliminate significant acreage. Jon Michaels 2 On February l&, 1992, an educational forum was held in Rancho Cucamonga regarding alluvial scrub ecosystems. It was well attended. The purpose was to bring together planning department personnel from all levels of government to network and plan development to protect the remaininE alluvial scrub habitat. Also, the City of Rancho Cucamongo prepared the Etiwanda North Specific Plan within their sphere of influence in an attempt to protect some of the remaining alluvial scrub. However, it does not So far enough. To date, the County of San Bernardino has not acknowledged this effort nor its intent. The Service suggests that the County of San Bernardino Planning Department consider the remaininS alluvial scrub habitat within their jurisdiction of high priority for protection and possibly develop a special planninS district. · "1~ environmental constraints should be identified first and any devclepment that would not impact these constraints could be considered. The Service is committed to the protection of the remaininS acreage of this rapidly declining unique ecosystem and asks for your cooperative effort via the planning process. We look forward to hearinS your views and working together to avoid further loss of this habitat. If you have any questions please feel free to contact John Hanlon at (71&) 6~3-&270. Sincerely, Brooks Rarper Office Supervisor cc: CDFG, Region 5, LonS Beach, CA (Attn: B. Ellisson) CDFC, Region 5, LonS Beach, CA (At~n: M. ~uisti) CDFG, Region 5, LonS Beach, CA (At:n: H. Meyer) City of Rancho Cucamon&a, CA (At~n: B. Bullet) City of Rancho Cucamonsa, CA (Attn: M. BraCt) Supervisor Larry Walker Supervisor Marsha Puroci Supervisor Barbara Riordan Supervisor Robert San Bernardino Sage Friends (Attn: L. Klippstein) The Nature Conservancy (Attn: R. Cox) San Bernardino County Planning Department (Attn: R. Scott) LETTER 8 United States Department of the Interior FISH A.N'D ~LDLIFESER%qCE ...m.~ FISH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT ~. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FIELD STATION Laguna Niguel Office Federal Building, 24000 Avila Road Laguna Niguel, California 92656 July 3, 1991 Mr. L. J. Henderson City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 9i729 Attn: Miki Bratt Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for Etiwanda North Specific Plan, Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California Dear Mr. Henderson: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the referenced document dated May 1991 and provides the following comments. The Service commends the City of Rancho Cucamonga for their efforts to address long-term planning and the development of natural open space preservation. The Service finds that the referenced document adequately addresses the project and we fully support the intent and purpose of the proposed Specific Plan. We, however, would like to share some comments with reference to utility corridors and areas to be preserved. Utility corridors provide managed open space for maintenance purposes. Management includes vegetation control or removal by chemical treatment or clearing. Because the habitat is reduced or eliminated, utility corridors should not be considered in any way for mitigation of development impacts. Natural open space preservation should be contiguous with the San Bernardino National Forest. The natural open space within the Specific Plan area should extend southward from Che National Forest boundary to the existing east-west electrical utility corridor and then follow Day, gtiwanda, and San Sevaine Washes southward. This continuity is important to preserve wildlife movement, reduce fragmentation of habitat, and maintain alluvial scrub habitat by allowing flooding and scouring. Debris basins within or above the Specific Plan area would be contrary to this preservation. ~itigation for the loss of alluvial scrub habitat resulting from the proposed development within the Specific Plan area could be achieved by the restoration of flooding and scouring within the Day Creek spreading grounds. This would also provide for the recharge of groundwater. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this important project Mr. L. J. Henderson 2 We look forward to working with you in the implementation of the goals of the project. If you have any quest£ons, please feel free to contact John Hanlon at (714) 643-4270. ~incefely, ~ [B r ~4~ 9~arpe r Office Supervisor cc: CDFG, Region 5, Long Beach, CA (A~tn: M. Giusti) Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, CA (Attn: M. Durham) UNITED STATES FOREST San Bernardino 1209 Lytle Creek Rd. DEPARTMENT OF SERVICE National Forest Lytle Creek, CA g2358 AGRICU[,TURE 1560 December 23, 1992 Dr. Thomas Kucera Environmental Science Associates 301 Brannan Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94107-1811 Dear Tom: k/hen we met with the County and other agencies on site to discuss the Oak Summit project, November loth, you asked me about bighorn sheep in the Day Canyon area. I recently reviewed Steve Holl's and Vern Bletch's 1983 report on the San Gabriel hlountatn sheep herd (USDA San Bernardino National Forest 1983). The Day Canyon area is identified in that report as a wintering area for sheep, and sightings of sheep have been documented in the canyon within a half-mile of the guaging station. This information should be included in your biological assessment for the Oak Summit Project. Enclosed is a copy of the Day Canyon wintering area map from the '.report 'and the citation for the report. I can provide a copy of the complete report if you t~ould like one. Please call me at (909)887-2576 if you have any questions. Sincerely, /- SHAROhl DOUGHE~TY (~ // ~) District t';ildl ife Bto'Toglst(,._,,/ . cc/County of San Bernardino Planning Department California Department of Fish and Game F~O200.Ze(?.82) UNITED STATES FOREST San Bernardino Star Route, Box 100 DEPARTMENT OF SERVICE National Forest Fontana, CA 92336-9704 AGRICULTURE Reply to~ 1560 September 27~ 199[ U.S, ^rmy Corps of Engineers ATTN= CESPL-CO-R-91-iOO-RS P.O, Box 27Z~ Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325 Dear Staff, We have reviewed the publtc notice of Permit ^pp]lcatton No. 9~-100-RSo San Bernardino County Flood Control Dlstrict~s proposal refers to elght years of consultation with resource agencles regarding the deslgn of the project. To my knowledge, the Forest Service was not lnformed of this project prlor to receipt of the current application. For thts reason, our following input 1s 11mired to the Information Included in the perair application. The proposed project is 11kely ~o impact Forest Service lands and wlldlife through Increasing the 1solarton of these lands and reducing the quantity of wildlife habttat available on adjacent or nearby healthy areas of native vegetation. Thls w111 be especially important for anlaals with large hoae ranges, such as golden eagles and mountain 11ons~ and for anlaals with already reduced ranges that depend on scrub habitats, such as the California gnatcatcher and'San Diego horned lizard, a federal C-2 species, (California gnatcatchers are currently being considered by the US Flsh and Wtldltfe Service for 11stlng as a threatened or endangered species. The species was found in [99[ near the confluence of Cajon Wash and Lytle Creek in similar habttat~ a survey for the gnatcatcher in the project area is recommended.) Ultlgatlon for the project does not appear to be adequate to Its effects. ^lluvlal fan sage scrub ls considered a habltat with a hlgh priority for preservation by the California Natural.Diversity Data Base (1987). The project falls wlthln one of the 'ten largest. intact stands of thts vegetation remaining In Southern California (Han6s et al. [989~.enclosed). This vegetation 1s adapted to periodic flooding and scouring° The long tara vitaltry and integrity of the surrounding alluvial fan sage scrub is likely to be affected by changes In the flood regime resulting from the creation of debris baslns and c~annellzation of flews° Thus a much larger area than the 54 acres listed in the project proposal will be impacted by the project° The 225 acres proposed as mitigation for the project is less than adequate, not only due to the larger area of impact. The 150 acres located ~lthln the channel In Upper Ettwanda Creek have already been impacted by flood control activities and do not represent healthy a11uvlal fan sage scrub. The remaining acreage~ below 24th St,~ will fall within an area of intense residential develop~,~n:. These acres will be isolated from other intact alluvial fan sage scrub and are 1 ikely to becon~ degraded due to i~,lpacts froat surrounding residential areas. The isolated nature of the habitat will greatly reduce i~s value to wildlife as well. ' The proposal also mentions that the set-aside areas will not be managed for h~bitat value. If this is the case, these areas cannot be considered as F~Htigation for i~pacts to habitat resulting from the project. In addition, cumulative iF.~pacts from the increased capacity for development of adjacent lands have not been be sufficiently addressed by this proposal. The proposal states that the 225 set-aside acres "accounts for impacts relative ~o any adjacent development as well as the impacts associated with the debris ~asins and concrete channel." The applicant should clarify what development is referred to in t~is s~ate~nt. I~litigation for the cumulative impacts of associated develop~r~nt must be considered based on the scope and in,pacts of the proposed development. Ploaso feel free to contact our district wildlife biologist, Sharon Doughorty, or our distric'C lands officer, Gary Earnay, at 714-887-2576 to discuss these co~,~ents. Thank you for the opportunity ~o review this proposal. Slncerel y, cc: San Bernardino County Flood Control District, Bill Mann Associates LAW OFFICES ~'~OLF. RIFKIN & SHAPIRO, LLP I~11CHAELWOLFf STEVEN A. $~LV£R 11400 WEST OLYMPIC BOULEVARD TENTH FLOOR DAN*El. C, SHAPIRO LORI A. VAN OOSTERHOUT N! NT~ FLOO~ (310 ) 478-810 O MICHAELT. SCHULMAN KELLYM. ALLEGRA LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9OO6~-156~ FAX (310) 478-6363 ALaN M. R0~ENTHAL DANIELNG (3~O) ~78'~[OO REFER T0 FILE NO. .o..~. w,s.,c., .~,., os~., 0 3 0 2 2 - 0 0 3 '~.o~o.,..~o ...... July 9, 1997 James Markman, Esq. Rancho Cucamonga City Attorney c/o Markman, Arcznski, Hanson, Curly & Slough P.O. Box 1059 Brea, California 92622-1059 Re: The Height at Haven View Estates Tentative Tract 14771 ("Tract 14771") Dear Mr. Markman: We make reference to the letter to you from Darren L. Hereford of Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh, dated June 25, 1976. This letter is in partial response to the statements made by Mr. Hereford. A. Background Documents. In preparation of this response letter, we have reviewed the following documents: 1. Rancho Cucamonga V-Haven View Estates Homeowners Association's ("RCV") Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("CC&Rs"); 2. The Developer Street Easement and Maintenance Agreement, recorded as Instrument No. 15300 in the County of Riverside, (the "Developer Agreement"); 3. The Association Street Easement and Maintenance Agreement (the "Association's Agreement"), recorded as Instrument No. 15301 in the County of Riverside; and 4. The First Amended and Restated Grant of Mutual Easements LAW OFFICES ~ James Markman, Esq~ July 9, 1997 Page 2 (the "Amended Grant"), dated February 7, 1990, affecting the RCV Property. The Amended Grant was executed by M.J. Brock Homes & Sons Inc. ("Brock Homes"), Tseng Shu-Jen ("Chen") and JCC Development ("JCC"). In an effort to make the facts clear, we have color coded the enclosed Tract Map No. 12332-2 by identifying the Brock Property in red, the Chen Property in pink, the JCC Property in yellow, and the Tract 14771 Remainder Parcel in blue. B. Additional Defined Terms. Again, for purposes of keeping our terms clear, we have defined the following terms in this letter: 1. "Brock Property," The Brock Property is described in the Amended Grant as that real property located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California more particularly described as Tract 12332-2 as per Map recorded February 15, 1989, in Book 218, Pages 63 through 71 of Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said County, except for lots 32 through 70, both inclusive, and Lots 82 through 116, both inclusive of Tract 12332-2. 2. "Estates Property" Tract No 12332-1 known as the property occupied by the Haven View Estates Homeowners Association. 3. "Lot 151 Remainder Parcel" Lot 151 shown on Tract No. 12332-2, in the City of San Bernardino, State of California, as per Maps recorded February 15, 1989, in Book 218, Pages 63 through 71, in the office of the County Recorder of Said County. 4. "RCV Property," the real property described as Lots 1-150 of Tract No. 12332-2 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 5. "Tract 14771 Remainder Parcel" The area known as Tentative Tract 14771, except for the Lot 151 Remainder Parcel. C. Discussion. 1. Rights of Lauren over the over the streets located within the Estates Property. As set forth in the letter of Darren L. Hereford, there are two agreements controlling access through the Estates. The Association Agreement granted Cristiano, as the then owner of the RCV Property, the Lot 151 Remainder Parcel and the Tract 14771 Remainder Parcel, for the benefit of a homeowners' association to be formed, and its members, guests, owners, employees, tenants, LAW OFFICES ~ WOLF, RIFKIN & SHAPIRO, LLP James Markman, Esq. July 9, 1997 Page 3 contractors and invitees, 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 purposes reasonably related to the construction, maintenance, marketing and use of the residences and related improvements located within the Association and the Tract 14771 Remainder Parcel. Similarly, the Developer's Agreement granted Cristiano and its prospective purchasers, tenants, owners, customers, agents, employees, contractors and invitees (collectively, the "Developer's Group") a nonexclusive easement of access to and over the Access Streets for vehicular and pedestrian purposes reasonably related to the construction, maintenance, marketing and use of the-residences and related improvements to be located within the Association and the Tract 14771 Remainder Parcel. Since the Estates could only grant access over and through the Access Streets located on the Estates Property, these agreements created no easements over the Access Streets located on the RCV Property for benefit the Tract 14771 Remainder Parcel. 2. Rights of Lauren over the Streets within the RCV Property. Mr. Hereford states that the Amended Grant gives Lauren easements over the streets in Tract No 12332-2 for access to the both the Lot 151 Remainder Parcel and the Tract 14471 Remainder Parcel. We strongly disagree. The Amended Grant only gives Lauren access easements to the Lot 151 Remainder Parcel. In the Amended Grant, Brock Homes, Chen and JCC granted to each other easements over all streets located upon what was then the Brock Property (remember, the definition of the Brock Property specifically excludes the Tract 14771 Remainder Parcel), the Chen Property and the JCC Property, which properties, except for Lot 151 now form the RCV Property. Section 2.1 of the Amended Grant sets forth the following: "2.1 Permanent Street Easements. The parties hereby grant to each other party mutual and reciprocal permanent, non exclusive easements for ingress and egress of pedestrians and vehicles and use and enjoyments over all streets located upon the Brock Property, the Chen Property and the JCC Property (the "Permanent Street Easements") as such streets are shown upon Tract Map 12332-2 ... and upon and over such streets which may be shown upon any recorded tract map for the portion of the Brock Property which is presently shown lAW OFFICES ~ WOLF. RIFEIN ~ SHAPIRO, LLP James Markman, Esq.' July 9, 1997 Page 4 as the "Remainder Parcel" upon the Recorded Tract Map. All such streets are referred to herein as the "Streets" " The definition of the Brock Property explicitly excludes the Tract 14771 Remainder Parcel. This is a very important distinction. This means that the Tract 14771 Remainder Parcel does not and can not benefit by the Amended Grant. Section 2.1 of the Amended Grant does not grant the mutual easements for the benefit of the Tract 14771 Remainder Parcel. The language in the Amended Grant was only intended to grant rights in and to the Remainder Lot 151, since Remainder Lot 151 is not within the RCV Property. Simply stated again, the Amended Grant was created for the benefit of the Brock Property, the Chen Property and the JCC Property, but not for the benefit of the future owner of the Tract 14771 Remainder Parcel. D. Conclusion. Since the Brock Property by definition excludes the Tract 14771 Remainder Parcel, there was no and could be no effective grant of easements over the Tract 14771 Remainder Parcel. The only portion of the "Brock Property" presently shown as a part of the "Remainder Parcel" (as the term is defined in the Amended Grant") is Lot 151. While Lot 151 is a part to Tract No. 12332.2, the CC&Rs do not affect Lot 151. Therefore, again, the parties to the Amended Grant intended to grant easement rights to Lot 151 only. Since there is no adequate access to Tract 14771, we believe it is incumbent upon the Planning Commission to deny LaurenIs request for design approval. We are, of course, prepared to discuss any questions you may have. Very truly yours, WOLF, RIFK~3~& SHAPIRO, LLP MINDY S~PS MS:pk cc: Board of Directors- Rancho Cucamonga V-Haven View Estates Homeowners Association Darren L. Hereford, Esq. Roy G. Rifkin, Esq. ,,,.o.,,.,,..,,.. TRACT FNO. 1,~;~2-2 -.,,-,.--.,..-., ~,o~,o~,~,-~ IN THE CITY 0 RANCHOilCUCAHONGA Chen~rop. erty- PIN~ BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION!OF THE WEST THREE- OCC~roperty-Y~.~OW FOURTHS OF SECTION 24, T. IN., R,?I~,, $.B.H., IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF, CAL]FORN]A. Tract 1~771 ,, Remainder Parcel - BLUE BOUNDARY SURVEY AND INr~X M.~P INDEX 1. ASSOCIATION STREET EASEMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 2. DEVELOPER STREET EASEMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 3. GRANT OF MUTUAL EASEMENTS (Dated October 12, 1989) 4. GRANT OF MUTUAL EASEMENTS (Dated November 27, 1989 5. FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED GRANT OF MUTUAL EASEMENTS (Dated February 7, 1990) 89-O56O51 ' RECORDING REQU~-ST~D BY, A~) ~ & PE~AU~ {FSJ) 4041 MacArthur Boulevard Pos~ Office Box 2710 ~ ~ Ne~or~ Beach, CA 92658-8995 (Space ~ove for aecorder's Use) ASSOCIATION STREET EASEM~qT AND MAZNTENAIqCE AGREEMENT This Association Street Easement and Maintenance Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into by Haven View ~statee Homeowners Association, a Cal~fornia nonprofl~ mutual benefi~ corporation (the "Initial Association"), and Cristiano Partners l, a California general partnership (the "Adjoining Landowner"). The Initial Association and the Adjoining Landowner (collectively, the "Parties") enter into this Agreement with reference to the following fac~s: A. The Initial Association is the homeowners as- sociation formed in connection with the operation and management of that certain residential subdivision known as Haven View Estates (the "Estates") more particularly described as Tract No. 12332-1, as shown on a Subdivision Map recorded in Book 174 of Maps, Pages 34 to 39, inclusive, in ~he Office of the San Bernardino County Recorder. Lot C of said Tract No. 12332-1 consists of streets serving the residential Lots in ~Lhe Estates (~he "Phase 1 Streets"). B. Adjoining Landowner proposes to create a homeown- ers association ("Brock Association") which will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of all or a portion of certain streets and other common areas located on real property adjacent to the Estates. All of the real property which may become subject to the Jurisdiction of the Brock Association is described on Exhibit "A" hereto (the "Brock Property"). C. If formed by Adjoining Landowner, the Brock As- sociation will need access to and from Haven Avenue, a public street, over three streets in the Phase 1 Streets, called Ringstem Street, Clover Place, and Tackstem Street (collectively, ~he "Access Streets"). D. The Parties now wish to enter into this Agreement with respect to the use and maintenance of the Access Streets as well as certain other common areas. THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Nonexclusive Easements Over Street. (a) Initial Association Grant. The Initial As- sociation hereby grants to the Adjoining Landowner, for ~he benefit of the Brock Association, and its members, guests, own- ers, employees, tenants, contractors and invitees, nonexclusive easements of access, ingress0 egress, use and enjoyment in, to and over all of the Access Streets, and ~hrough the gates on or controlling access to and over the Access Streets, for vehicular feJO37/16851/OOO/OO20/ease.main 009/099 01-09-89 89-056051 * and pedestrian purposes reasonably reLa~ed to the construction, mm~ntenancs~ marketing and'use of the residences and related £~provements located or to be located in the Brock Property. Hoth~ng contained in this Agreement shall Limit the righ~ of the Brock Association, its members, and their respective mucco~0Lve o~ners and assigns and their agents, quests° employees end ~nviteee to use all of the Acceos Streets for access, ~nq~eae, egress, use al~d enjoyment. Although the easements described heroin s~e being conveyed to Adjoining Landowner, it 18 ln~ended that ~ho easenests ~iLL be transferred by Ad~oinin~ Landowner its 8uccesmor-~n-interest to the B~ock Association prior to the first recordation of a deed to a consumer purchaser o£ a from Ad~oiningLandowner or its successor-~n-~ntereot. (b) Easements Appurtenant. ~he easements conveyed herein shal~ be appurtenant to, and shall pass with title to the Brock ~ropeEty, any portion thereo£ an~ ~ntereot therein. 2. Maintenance of Access Strsots~ Security Gates Landscaping. ~e Initia~"Aesociet~on shall, in a Feesenable ~n~ workmanlike manner, cause the Access Streets° the ~ccess gates and ~ondscaping aLon~ Haven Avenue to be operated, maintained° repa~redo replaced and insured in accordance w~th ~he applicable provisions of the Declaration of Covenant8, Condit~ons and ReatF~ctione of Haven V~e~ Estates (Ulnitia~ Declaration"), vhich was Recorded on August 15, 1984, as ~nstr~men~ No. 84-~95405, of O~£tci&~ Record8 of San Bernardino county, Ca~£o~nLa. The Initial Association shall enforce the Declaration with respect to the Access Streets and access gates and mhal~ ensure that the Access Streets and access gates are cLea~ and unobstructed to allow £or continuous traffic flow. · ho Initial Association shall furnish the Ad~o~ni~g Landowner and.1~he Brock Association, upon reques~ £Fom t~me to time, an adequate number o£ gate transmitters fo~ the members of Brock Association at & cos~ ec~ual to what is then charged members o~ the Initial Association. 3. Allocation o£ Costs to Maintain the Acces~ Streets. ~he Brock Association shall share in ~he costs to the n~--~'~ Association of maint~ininq the Access Streets [the ~Ma~ntenance Comte~), which ~ncLude (i) the costs to the As- secretion of hazard and liab~l~ty insurance related to the cema Streets, (~L) the costs to the ~nLt~aL Association of maintaining all Access Street improvements thereon, (~ii) the reasonable end customary reserves related to the maintenance by the Initial Associat~on of the Access Streets, (~v) the cos~ to the Initial Association of m&~ntainingthe Landscaping along Haven Avenue, (v) the cost to the In£tia~ AssocL~tion of operat- ing and maintaining the access gates, (v~) the cost ~o the Initial Associet~on of ~aintaining the horse trails ~ocated along the Access Streets, and (vl£) administrative (inc~uding &ccoullt~ng) costs associated ~Ath the ~nit~al Assoctetionos dete~m~nation of the Patties* allocation o£ the Maintenance Costs. In December of ~989 and ~n December of each calendar year thereafter, the Init£&~ Association shal~ eat4m~e £n good faith the Ma~ntenenceCoats for the £ollow~ng ca~enda~ year ("Eat~matedXa~tenance Coste~)- ~he Brock Assoc~ation sha~L pay the Initial Association its respective share o£ Estimated Maintenance Costs (the ~Street Assessneste) £o~ each calendar yea~ after the commencement of Street Assessments. The Street Assessment shall be payable monthly by the Brock As- saclateen £n advance w~thin thirty (30) days o~ receipt o~ an invoice therefor from the Initial Association. ~he Brock -2- fsjO37/~685~/OOO/OO20/ease*ma£n 009/099 01-09-99 89-056051 - Assoctation's Street Assesdmen2 for each calendar year after the commencement o£ Street Assessments shall be an amount equal to the total Estimated Maintenance Costs for such year by a fraction the numerator of which is the number of Lots subject to assessment by the Brock Associations and the denominator of which is the total number of Lots subject to as seeamana by the Initial Association plus ~he total number of Lot8 subject to assessment by the Brock Association. In January of each calendar year following the year in which Street Assess- ments commence the Initial Association shall calculate the actual Maintenance Costs for ~he preceding calendar year as actually paid by the ~nitial Association (exclusive of any re- lmbursements or contributions of the Adjoining Landowner pursu- ant to the Developer Agreement executed concurrently and shall give written notice thereof to the Brock Association. Such notice shall be accompanied by a refund to ~he Brock societies of ~he amount, if any, by which the Brock Associatton"a Street Assessment for such year exceeded the Brock Associatton°s share of actual Maintenance Costs for such year. ~f the Brock Association's share of actual Maintenance Costs for such year exceeded the Brock Association's Street Assessment for such year, the Brock Associat~on shall pay the amount off such excess ("Deficitn) to the Initial Association within ten (lO) days of receipt of the statement of actual Maintenance Expenses; provided that such Deficit shall not exceed f~ve percent (B~) of ~he Eatlasted Naintenance Costs without ~he written approval a majority of each class of members of the B~ock Association. The Brock Association shall ba entitled to inspect and copy at its solo expense the books and records of the Initial As- sociation relating to the Estimated Maintenance Costs and actual Haintenance Cos~8 upon reasonable notice during norms[ business hours. The Initial Association shall maintain all such records for mly calendar year*s Maintenance Costs for at least three (3) years after the end of such calendar year. 4. Co~,o~cement of Street Assessments- The S~ree~ Assessment state,table to the Access Streets an~ other related areas shall commence for the Brock Association on the day when one hundred thirty (~30) deeds have recorded for the acquisition of Lots in the Brock Property by purchasers pursuant to a sales requiring the issuance of a Final Subdivision Public Repor~ by the Californ£a Department of Real Estate (~DRE~)- The Brock Association shall notify the Initial Association in~nodiately upon such ~ecordation. The number of Lots to be included in Street Assessment calculations under Paragraph 3 of this Agree- meet shall be determined quarterly based upon the number of Lo~S then subJoct to the ~urisdLct~on of the Brock Association. 5. Lim£tation on Increases. Any proposed increase by the Initial A~8ociation in the Estimated Maintenance Costa which exceeds one hundred and twenty percent (120~) of the Actual ~aintenance Costs for the preceding calendar year mus~ be approved in advance by ~he vote or written consent of at leaa~ a majority of the voting power of each class of the members o£ the Brock Association. ~otwithstandin~ ~he foregoing, a proposed increase in the Estimated Maintenance Costs may exceed one hundred avenay percent (L20~) of the Actual Maintenance Costs fo~ the preceding calendar year ~f such increase is necessary for an emergency situation, as defined in Paragraph 7 below. 6. Capital Improvements. Should the Initial As- sociation detez~ns the need for a capital improvement or other such addition tot he Access Streets or related areas, the cost of which, in the aqqreqate, exceeds five percent (5~) of the -3- fsjO37/L6851/OOO/OO20/ease-main 009/099 0~-09-89 89-0u6051 - Emtf'-~_ted !~a~ntenence Costs for ~e ~en ~rent calendar year, ~en ~e vo~e or ~ten co~en~ o[ a~ leaa~ a maJorit~ off each c1~8 of ~o vo~ po~er of ~o ~o o~ Brock ~soc~a~on shall ~ r~r~ to approve ~d render effe~ivo ~y ~o~ts Lov~ by ~o In~t~aL Association to cover ~e co8~ of ouch o~dl~o (uCapl~ I~rovemen~ Feeu). No~l~o~d~g fo~o~g, a Capital I~rov~en~ Fee ~ excess o~ f~ve percen~ (SX) o~ ~e Es~at~ Ms,ten,co ~s~o ~or ~e ~en ~ren~ c~end~ ye~ may Be lev~ by ~e Initial Associa~on wl~ou~ ~e c~en~ of ~e Brock ~s0ciation, If n~ increase Is neceo- s~ fo~ ~ emer~en~ situation ~ de~ ~n P~a~aph 7 below. Br~k ~soc~a~on 8hal~ pay its shoe off ~e Capl~ I~rovemen~ Fees wl~ ~y (30) day8 of ~e due da~e ~er~f es2~liohed by ~e Bo~d of Dlr~oro of ~e lni~ia~ Asaocia~ion. 7. ~er~en~ S~a~on8. For p~oee8 of Paraqrapho 5 nd 6 ~e, ~ emerg~ 8~a~on ~s ny one of ~e ~g: (a) ~ o~rao~d~ e~se r~r~ by ~ order co~; (b) ~ e~raord~ e~enoe neceos~ ~o repair mn~2a~ ~e Access S~ee~8 or rela~ ~e~ where personal smfo~y on ~o Access S~ree~o or ~lat~ ~eao or ma~a~ ~e Access S~r~t8 or relat~ ~eaa or ~y par~ ~or~ ~ co~d no~ have been teasshYLy forespn bo~d of direc~oro of ~e Initial Association ~ prepar~ ~d . ~n~a~ Decimation. However, prOoF ~o ~o ~os~2~on or col- d~r~toro of ~e Ini~ Ass0ciat~on shall pass a o~raord~ e~e ~voL~ ~d why ~e e~ense was no~ could no~ have b~ reason~y foreseen ~ ~e budqet~n~ proc- ess, ~d ~ch resolution sh~l be dts~r~u~H ~o ~e Brock As- 8. Non-Pa~t of Street Assessor. po~on of ~e Str~ ~sessmen~ or ~y o~er chugs or fee levi~ p~ ~0 ~a A~en= remade ~paid for a period of ~y (30) days be~o~ ~e date on which n~ ~o~t i8 due, ~e ch~e or f~ sh~ be deem~ =o be del~ent ~o~= ~pa~d shal~ be= ~te=es= from ~e date due at ~ ~ua1 ra~e ~ to ~e lesser of (~) ~he m~ rare allswale by law, or (ii) ~e ae~er~ce aa~e p~l~sh~ from t~e B~ of ~er~ca, ~A, ~ i~s reference rate for co~uta2~on of ~tereuU rates on c~ercial io~s, whichever ~8 [ess. In add~- =ion, ~e de~~ Brock ~soc~a=lon ~1 be =e~o~le for ~I costs of co11~on of ~e del~en~ ~o~t ~c~ud~g w~out l~u~tat~on reason~le atto~eys' f~s ~d co~ costs. 9. D~e =o Access Streets b~ Me~ers of Brock As- socia~on. ~e Brock ~socia=~on shall be l~le for ~y d~age to ~o Access Struts no~ f~ly re~a~ by ~ce lz~ ~e ~e~f by ~e Brock Asaoc~a=lon, or ~e ~Fock ~sociat~on'8 metro, ag~s, employees, contractors or o~er person or entity deriv~g a r~ght of use ~d enJo~ent of ~e Access Struts or ~rovenen=s ~er~n from ~e Brock As- sociation. 10. ~ven~=s ~ wi~ the L~d. ~e her~y d~l~e ~at ~e Bro~ Property, ~e Access Streets al~ ~tere8t8 ~ere~ ~e ~ ~ held, conveyS, =o ~e for~o~g l~tat~o,,, res~r~ctio~, ease=ants, -4- faJ 037/16851/000/0020/ease. ma~n 009/099 01-09-89 89-056051 ' covenuts, and conditions, all of vhich are declared and agreed to be in furtherance o£ and for the protection and maintenance and improvement of l~he Brock Property and the Access Streets for the purpose o£ enhancing their value, use, desirability, and attractiveness. ALl provisions of this Agreement are imposedas equitable servitudes upon the Brock Property and ~he Access Streets. All provisions of this Agreement shall run with the Access S~rests and the Brock Property1 shall be binding upon and forths benefit of all ~-he Estates, ~he Brock Property, the Ac- cess Streets, and any portion thereo£ or interest thersin~ and shall be binding upon and for the benefit of all parties having or acquiring any right, title, or interest in the Estates, the Brock Property, the Access Streets, or any part thereof, and their successive owners and assigns. II. Rules and Regulations. The Brock Association and the Initial Association shall cooperate with one another in the promulgation and enforcemen~ of rules and regulations respectin9 the Access Streets and the s~reets in the Brock Property. Such rules and regulations shall apply uniformly to all Owners of lots in the Estates and all owners o£ iota in the Brock Property. The Brock Association and its members shall at all times comply with provisions o£ the Initial Declaration and such rules and regulations adopted by ~he Initial Association respecting the use and enjoyment of the Access Streets. The Brock Association shall enforce ~heprovielons of ~his Agreemen~ against its members, and the Initial Association shall enforce ~he provisions o£ this Agreement against its Members. 12. Notices. Any notices to be given hereunder by any party to any other party shall be in writing and shall be delivered either personally or bM United States mail, registered or certified, postage paid with return receipt requested. Notice shall be delivered or addressed to the parties, until notice of a dif£eren~ address is given, at the ~ollowinq ad- dresses= Association= Haven View Estates Homeowners Association c/o Condominium~anaqement Services 600 N. Mountain Avenue. B~il~ing "C" Suite No. 200 Upland, CA 917B~ With Copy to~ Best, Best & Erieget 800 N. Haven Avenue, Suite 120 Ontario, CA 91764 Arts: Dennis M. Cots, Esq. Cristiano Partners I: Cristiano Partners I c/o The Cristiano Company 4400 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 780 P. O. Box 8230 ~ewport Beach, CA 92658 With Copy to: Rober~ Garcin, Esq. M. J. Brock & Sons, Inc. 67~7 Forest Lawn Drive Los Angeles, CA 90068 -5- £eJO37/16851/OOO/OO20/esse.~ain 009/099 01-09-89 $9--0 051 ' l~ottcoe not personally served shall be deemed delivered three (3) day8 after mailing. 13. Effect of ~exat~on to Estates. ~e ~a~ies are cooperating wl~h one ~o~er ~n ~ error2 gradually ~ex ~0 B~ock ~roperty ~o ~e Estates as the Brock Proper~y Is developed by AdJoin~g L~do~er by way of ~ ~end- men~ ~o tha~ certain Declaration which ~a deacrib~ ~n ~ho Developer Agreemen~ a~ached ~o this Agreement an E~bi~ "B." ~O Parties agree ~ha~ ~his Agreement shall have no force or e~fect wl~h respect 2o all or ~y portion o~ ~e Brock Property which ~8 as ~exed by ~Join~ng L~do~er to ~e Estates, th~s A~eemen~ ahal~ be deemed to be te~ina~ as ~o ~y such ~exed proper~y. 14. H~scell~eoua. (a) ~aiver. ~e waiver by ~y party of breach by ~y o2hor p~o~ ~y ~, coronet, or condition con~aLned ~n ~ia ~eemen~ uha~ no~ be deemed to be a waiver of ~y a~se~ent breach o~ the s~e or ~y other ~e~, coven~, or cond~ion con~ained ~n this A~eement. (b) ~o~ce o~ La~. ~8 Agreenenk 8hal~ be gove~ed ~d construed ~n accord~ce with the laws of ~e S~ate ' o~ Callfiesta. (c) L~aqo const~c~on. ~enever the contex~ o~ ~h~8 Agreement F~FOS, ~he mas~l~ne gender shell ~nclude ~he ~eminine ~d neuter ~d the a~n~lar n~er shall include the plural. Des~a~ono used herein are for c0nven~ence on~y ~d shall no~ be controL~ng ~n ~he ~nterpretationa o~ Agreement. A~[ e~bi~8 referred ~o herein are inco~oEa~ed ~n~o ~hi8 Agreemen~ by such reference as Lf ask ~or2h in herein. (d) ~ar~ia~ ~nval~dit~- If ~y provision ~n ~h~a Agreemen~ is held by a cour~ o~ competen~ ~uriadic~lon be ~nvaL~d, void, or ~en~orce~le, ~he rema~n~g provision8 sha~, nevertheless, continue ~n fui~ force ~d e~fe~ being ~mpai~ed or ~val~dat~ in ~y (e) Mortgagee ~ro~ec~on. ~o portion el Agreenen~ or ~ ~en~t or violat~on hereo~ 8hall operate defteat or render invalid, in whole or ~ par~, ~he ~lgh~s o~ the beneficia~, ~8~rer, ~SF~OF, OF holdo~ o~ a mortgage or deed o~ ~rua~ enc~er~ng ~y portion of the Brock, provided a~eF forecloses of ~y mortgage or deed of ~8~, ~e p~oper~y fforecloaed aha~l remain s~Jec~ to ~s A~eemen~. (~) A~o~e~s' Fees. lff ~y action or proceed- ~ng ~s ~na~l~ut~ by ~y person ~o enforce or ~te~ret provisions hereof, ~he preva~ling party ~n such action preceding shal~ be en~L~ ~o recover from ~he o~er pa~y or park~e- ~ts costs ~d expenses ~ncurred in co,screen ~herewith, ~ncLuding ui~out ~mita~on reasoners atto~eys' f~a ~d costs ~d e~ense8 of litigation. (q) Zf~ectivo Date. ~ia Agreement shal~ be effective on the da~e of L~8 recorda~ion. (h) ~e~. vn~ess o~hervlse te~inat~ by ten agreement of ~he~les, ~o Agreemen~ s2a~l continue full force ~d of~ec~ for a ~e~ of ~iff~y (50) year8 firon the -6- fsJ 037 /168$1/000/0020/ease.matn 009/099 01-09-89 89-056051 date hereof. after which the same shall be extended for succes- sive ten (10) year periods. (l) Aasi~nment. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of ~d be binding upon the respective oucceaaora-in- in~erest ~d aaal~ees of the Parties. (J) ~en~en~. No men.end, ch~qe, or modification to ~hia Agreement shall be valid ~1ea8 12 Is in ~i~ing ~d execut~ by t~o (2) authorized officers of ~e Brock Association ~d two (2) authoriz~ offricers of the Initial aociation ce~ifyinq that all necessary approvals to bind the respective p~ies to the modifica~ion or ~en~ent have been obtained. Such ~en~ent shall be recorded in ~he Official Records of S~ Bernardino Co~y, CaLifomia. ~ho ~o~eqoinq, ~0 Per,tea aqree ~o m~e ~y ~en~ent to this Aqreemen~ ~hich is re.ired by the DRE. (k) Au~ori~y. ~e individual execu~inq Aqreemen~ on behal~ of AdJoininq L~do~er represents tha~ he has ~e au~orl~y ~o execute this Aqreenent on behalf of Adjoin- ing L~do~er ~d tha~ all nocea8ary approvals to bind AdJo~in~ L~do~er to ~ls A~reeMen~ have been obtainS. ~e individuals exe~tinq ~is A~eement on behalf off 2he Initial Association represen~ ~ha~ ~ey have ~e authori~y to execute ~ia Agreemen~ on behalf of the Initial Aaaocia~lon ~d that all necessary ap- provals ~o bind ~he Ini~/a/ Association 2o ~t8 Aqreemen2 have been obtained. ~ia Aqreemen~ shall constitute ~ ~en~en~ 2he Initial Dec~ation to the exten~ necessary ~o authorize each ~d every provision of this Aqreement. ~e Pa~tiea have executed this Agreement [-- /I -- , 1989. App~ov~ as ~o ~o~ ~o~ ~ V~ ESSAYS H0~O~S ~e Initial A~octa~on ASS~IA~ION, · Callfo~a nonprofit ~u~ua~ benefi~ co~po~a~ton BEST, BEST ~ ~IEG~ ', , /~.~ ~ M. Co2a ,~/ "Init~a[ Association" Approved as to form for CRISTIANO PARTNERS Z, Adjoining Landowner a California qeneral partnership McKI~I~, JASON, DelCO & PE~AU~ Date: -7- faJ 037/16851/000/0020/ease .main 009/099 01-09-89 89-0560,51 STATE OF CALXFO~RXA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDXNO } On ~/~A%w [! , 1989, before me, th~ s~ed~,a No=W~ P~[c ~n ~d zor s~d S=a~e, pqr~onally ap- ~..~'~o~'/to me or proved to 2e on ~ basis of corpora~ion t~ere~n n~ed, ~d ac~owledged ~o me ~ha~ corporation executed i~. WI~SS mM h~d ~d orificial sea~. No~h~y ~ c ~ said STA~ O~ CA~IEO~IA CO~ OF O~GE ) ROB~T J. ~ISTI~0, p~=sonaliy ~o~ ~o me o= prov~ ~o me 0n the basis of aa=tafac=o~ evidence to be ~e person who executed the within instr~en~ as qeneral par~er on behalf of ~ISTI~O P~S I, the par~ership ~herein n~ed, ~d ac~owledqed me that ~e par2nership execu=ed WI~SS my h~d ~d official seal. Notary ~ig i~ ~d for aalH -8- faJ 037/16851/000/0020/ease.raain 009/099 01-09-89 89-0 051 EXHI81! ~'A~ DESCRIPTION OF BROCK PROPERTY: ALL TI'~AT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGAo SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, CONSISTING OF LAND INTENDED TO BE SUBDIVIDED INTO ONE HUNDRED FIFTY-ONE (151) RESIDENTIAL LOTS ARD A REHAI#DER PARCEL CONSISTING OF APPNOXIHATELY TNENTY-SIX (26) ACRES M*I1CH HILL CONTAIN NO HONE FORTY-FIVE (45) LOTS, AND CERTAIN PROPOSED CONNON AREAS. ALL WITHIH THE CONFINES OF TENTATIVE TRACT MO. 12332 AS SHONN ON THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION HAP THEREFOR. THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHNEST ONE-QUARTER AND THE HEST ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RARGE? WEST, SAM BERNARDINO I~RIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNAROINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, SAID PORTION LYING NORTHERLY OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THAT PORTIOH CONVEYED TO THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, A BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC, IN DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 3, 1977, IN BOOK 9275, PAGE 1~61, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AND AS AJ4ENOED BY DEE'O RECORDED IN BOOK 9418, PAGE 161], OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH~£ST ONE-QUARTER AND THE NEST ONE-HALF OF T~E NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER AND THE NEST ONE-HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION TONNSHIP ! NORTH, RANGE 7 NEST, SAN BERNAROINO HER[DIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNAROINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, SAID PORTION LYING WITHIH A IO0 FEET HIOE STRIP OF LAND BEING 50 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOHING DESCRIBEO CENTERLINE: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NEST LINE OF THE NORTHNEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 24, OISTANT THEREON SOUTH 00EGREES 39 MINUTES 8 SECONDS NEST. 1207.87 FEET FROM THE NORTHNEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 24; THENCE SOUTH 74 DEGREES 4 HINUTES 42 SECONDS EAST, ~OS.Og FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 265.31 FEET ALONG A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHNESTERLY. HAVING A RAOIUS OF 2053.22 FEET ANOR CENTRAL ANGLE OF 7 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 13 SECONDS; THENCE SOUTH 66 OEGREES 40 MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST, 896.66 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 314.86 FEET ALONG A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RAOIUS OF 4000 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 4 DEGREES 30 HINUTES 36 SECONDS; THENCE SOUTH 71 DEGREES 1! MINUTES OS SECONDS EAST, 250g.82 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERMINATION IN THE NEST LINESOF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SA[O SECTION 24, SAID POINT BEING DISTANT THEREON SOUTH 0 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 08 SECONDS NEST, 6.84 FEET FROM THE NORTHNEST CORNER OF SAIO EAST ORE-HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 24. EXCEPIING TNEREFRDH ANY PORTION LYING NITHIM TRACT NUMBER 12332-1. IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOMGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER HAP RECORDED IN BOOK 174 OF MAPS, PAGES 34 THROUGH 39, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. 89o05605~ - !~XHIBIT nB~ COPY OF DEVI~OP~R AGRE~ £$1037/1685L/OOO/OO20/eaae.main 009/099 01-09-89 '~ /(" ": -"; ~ It~ORDE8 IN OFRCiAL RECOIlDS .~- :,,,'..' Js,,.."~~'[B 16 1989 AT 8~AM L__i'.l._H RECORDING REQUESTED BY, A~ '~O~l~t ' ........ '"'" ~EN RECORDED, MAIL TO: McKITTRICK, JACKSON, DeMARCO 4041 MacArthur Boulevard Post Office Box 2710 Ne~ort Beach, CA 92658-8995 (Space Above for Recorder s--~--~--se) DEVELOPER STREET EASEMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT This Developer Street Easement and Maintenance Agree- ment ("Agreement") is entered into by Haven View Estates Home- owners Association, a California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation (the "Association"), and Cristiano Partners I, a California general partnership ("Adjoining Landowner"). The As- sociation and the Adjoining Landowner (collectively the "Par- ties") enter into this Agreement with reference to the following facts: A. The Association is the homeowners association formed in connection with the operation and management of that certain residential subdivision known as Haven View Estates (the "Estates") more particularly described as Tract No. 12332-1, as shown on a Subdivision Map recorded in Book 174 of Maps, Pages 34 to 39, inclusive, in the Office of the San Bernardino County Recorder. Lot C of said Tract No. 12332-1 consists of streets serving the residential Lots in the Estates (the "Phase 1 Streets"). B. The Adjoining Landowner is the owner of certain real property which is directly adjacent to the Estates and more fully described in Exhibit "A" hereto (the "Adjoining Property"). The Adjoining Landowner is also the owner of ap- proximately twenty-six (26) acres Of land located adjacent to the Adjoining Property and more fully described on Exhibit "B" hereto (the "Additional Acreage"). C. The Adjoining Landowner needs access to and from Haven Avenue, a public street, over three streets in the Phase 1 Streets, called Ringstem Street, Clover Place and Tackstem Street (collectively, the "Access Streets"). D. The Parties now wish to enter into this Agreement with respect to the use and maintenance of the Access Streets as well as certain other common areas. THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Nonexclusive Easements Over Street. (a) Association Grant. The Association hereby grants to the Adjoining Landowner, for the benefit of the Adjoining Landowner, and its prospective purchasers., tenants, owners, customers, agents, employees, contractors and invitees, nonexclusive easements of access, ingress,-eggess, use and enjoyment in, to and over the Access Streets, '%nd throug~ the gates on or controlling access td and over all of the Access Streets, for vehicular and pedestrian purposes reasonably fsj-O37/16851/OOO/OO20/developer 009/099 01-09-8 related to the construction, maintenance, marketing and use of the residences and related improvements to be located in the Adjoining Property and the Additional Acreage. The foregoing grant with respect to the Additional Acreage shall be effective for the use by owners of no more than forty-five (45) homes in the Additional Acreage, so as to avoid an overburdening of the Access Streets by the ultimate residents in the Additional Acre- age. The foregoing grant of access, ingress, egress us enjoyment shall be subject only to t~- -~ ....... ' e ~nd -~ ~,~u~uzons prescribed for construction traffic and marketing traffic as set forth below. (b) Easements Appurtenant. The easement conveyed herein shal~' be appurtenant to, and shall pass with title to the Adjoining Property and the Additional Acreage, any portion thereof and interest therein. 2. Construction Traffic Easement. The Association ~hereby grants to Adjoining Landowner easemehts and rights of way over'and under that portion of the Access Streets.~commonly known as "Tackstem Street" (the "Construction Access"), for the purpose of access by construction personnel, vehicles, equipment and materials to and from the Adjoining Property and the Ad- ditional Acreage, during the hours between 6:00 A.M. and 6:00 'P.M. every day except Sunday, until construction of homes and 'related improvements on the Adjoining Property and Additional Acreage is complete (the "Construction Period"). The Construc- tion Period shall begin upon execution of this Agreement by the Parties, and it shall extend until the last completion of the dwelling unit on a Lot located in the Adjoining Property and the Additional Acreage, as evidenced by final inspection by the City ~ ~, of Rancho Cucamonga ("City"); however, Adjoining Landowner may unilaterally terminate the Construction Period upon thirty (30) '~ days prior notice to the Association. During the Construction ~,P~%~io~, ~he Adjoining La~doW~er"a-grees,. at its sole cost and .expenSe, to sweep clean the Construction Access no less · gfrequeh~ly than once. a week. 'During the Construction, Period, ?Adjoining Owner shall have access through the security ga~e on ~.the Construction Access, including. use and possession of keys, .,?1ocks.~and=.tra~mitter~, and shal'l maintain and repair the gate at its sole expense.. As soon as reasonably possible after the Construction Period, the Adjoining Landowner shall return the  Construction Access to the condition of the Construction Access as of the date of this Agreement. In the event that the gate ~malfunctions, Adjoining Landowner may immediately order repair ~of the gate~ The Adjoining Landowner shall take photographs of the Construction Access prior to commencement of construction and shall notify the Association so its board of directors can arrange to take pictures at the same time. ~-T~e Adjoining . '~i~Landowner.. agrees to promptly repair any damage-to the Construc- tion Access caused by use of the Construction Access by its 'contractors, agents, i~vitees, employees or any other persons .~ usin~ the Construction Access b~ permission of the Adjoining Landowner. 3. Ass°cia=ion~s Maintenance of Access Streets. The Association shall operate, maintain (in ~'workmanlike manner), repair, replace and insure the Access Streets in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Haven View Estates ("Declara- tion"), which was Recorded on August 16, 1984, as Instrument No. 84-195405, of Official Records of San Bernard/no County, California. The Association shall enforce the Declaration with respect to the Access Streets and shall ensure that the Access -2- fsj037/16851/000/0020/developer 0~/~ ~-no_~o Streets are clear and unobstructed to allow for continuous traf- fic flow. Nothing in this Paragraph 3 shall limit the obliga- tions of Adjoining Landowner as set forth in Paragraph 2 of this Agreement. 4. Marketin~ Traffic Easement. The Parties acknowledge that upon execution of this Agreement, various marketing efforts, including viewing of the Adjoining Property and Additional Acreage by prospective buyers, agents'and others related to home and home site sales (marketing traffic) will begin, and such marketing efforts will continue until such time s all residential Lots on the Adjoining Property and Additional creage. are sold (the "Marke~ina Period"). Adjoining Landowner grees to use Tacksty,,, J~reet for ~ss daily marketing efforts; provided, however, that Adjoining Landowner may also utilize Ringstem Street and Clover Piace for primary marketing efforts during Saturdays, Sundays and state and nationally recognized holidays. Whenever Adjoining Landowner is using Ringstem Street ~ and Clover Place for primary marketing efforts, Adjoining , Landowner shall (1) post. a uniformed attendant or hostess at the security gate to hand to prospective homebuyers a map routing ~hem directly to and from the model home area of Adjoining Landowner, and (2) place rubber cones or other such devices at the entrances to cul de sac and other Phase 1 streets, which are not necessary to travel to and from the model home area, branch- ing off of Ringstem Street and Clover Place in such locations to discourage prospective ('/h~ng~ streeter) Adjoining Owner from driving on such branch homebuyers~ streets while still allowing residents of the Estates access to and from their Lots. If the Association, in its sole discretion, determines that the measures employed by Adjoining Landowner are not adequate to discourage prospective purchasers from dr~ving on such branch streets, then the Association may, at its. sole expense, post one or more attendants at one or more entrances to such branch streets to dissuade such travel; provided, however, that the Association agrees to take no steps to interfere with the sales efforts of Adjoining Landowner or to encourage any such interference by others. The foregoing provisions shall apply only to marketing rela~ed traffic. '-During the Marketing Period, ntil deeds.have recorded for the sale of one hundred thirty 130) Lots by Adjoining Owner, Adjoining Landowner shall have ~access through the security gate on Ringstem Street, including ~use and possession of keys, locks and transmitters, and shall .maintain and repair such security gate at its sole expense. .Thereafter,. Adjoining Landowner shall reimburse the Association q!/arterly for.twenty-five percent (25%) of its costs in perform- ~.ing such services~; unless Adjoining Landowner elects to continue to operate such security gate until the Marketing Period explres in which case the Association shall reimburse the Adjoining Landowner for seventy-five percent (75~) of such expenses. 5. Marketing Signs. The Parties acknowledge that the'Adjoining L~downer must ~lace certain signs, flags and :,:other .marketing displays on the Common Area owned by the AS- ~..sociation during the Marketi'ng'Peri'6d~ The Association hereby grants to Adjoining Landowner easements and rights of way for the installation, maintenance and removal of marketing signs over and under those portions of the Common Area which are described on Exhibit "C" which is attached hereto and in- corporated herein by this reference. As soon as reasonably pos- sible after the Marketing Period, the Adjoining Landowner shall remove any marketing signs which are installed by the Adjoining -3- Landowner on such areas and shall repair any damage to the Com- mon Area caused by such installation, maintenance or removal. .~ 6. Landscape Installation and Maintenance. % to the provisions of P~ragraph 7 of this Agreement a~d Subject thebal- -% ance of this Paragraph 6, the Adjoining Landowner shall assume ~all costs for landscaping and landscape maintenance throughout the time designated in the Construction Period and Marketing ~.':Period.'~ The Adjoining Landowner shall have the right, without '. obligation, to install, water, fertilize, prune and otherwise maintain existing and additional landscaping features around such areas of the Common Area as are described on Exhibit "D" attached hereto and incorporated herein during the~arketing-- Period. Any such additional landscaping ~ust be acceptable to the City; however, Adjoining Landowner may install and replace substitute plants in its sole discretion for so long as Adjoin- ing Landowner is maintaining such landscaping.' If the Adjoining Landowner elects to install and maintain additional landscaping on portions of the Common Area, then the Adjoining Landowner shall continue to install or maintain such landscaping until deeds have recorded for the sale of one hundred thirty (130) Lots by Adjoining Landowner. The Adjoining Landowner shall give ? the Association at least thirty (30) days' notice before dis- ~ continuing its maint-n~e, ~f .... ,--4 .... = ..... ~rea There -- i~ ..... J .... .~.~pAn~ on ~he Common · · axter, ~j~L~inq Landowner ~shall reimb sociation ~.-- urse the As- ; w &m~ng suc~ lan~sca e mai . · · ~ £andowner elects at ~- -~ ntenan~e, unless Ad3olning -,;~ . · ~ uwn expense, to continue to perform ,.~! % such ~uties during the balance of the Marketin Perlo ;~case written notice of t ....... ? ' d in which n= ~u3oinin ~a · t ~be provided to the A .......... g . n~owner s election shall ~u=xau~on. Ine Association shall notify \ /its members in writing that the obligations of the Ad oln __~ Landowner under this Agreement are onl,, tem-o ..... 3 . lng  x ~ ~ury in nature. /~U%.. 7. Payments by Adjoining Landowner..~uring the ~arketing Period, and provided that the Association is n · ?efault under this Agreement, ~he Ad~oi-~ ........ o~.ln . ~ ~*~ ~uowner s~all pay '~n amount per quarter'to the A'~sociatlon to reimburse it f ~ne-half of the Association's water ~-~ ...... or ~,~= ~=wer cnar~es as such ./7~~a~sbma~h~r~ase or decrease from time to time~ and the ~ -' Y he general liability insurance pre ' f the /\Association may exceed Four Thousand Ei m~ums o ~/_Q %($4,800% her ,,e-- ~ ..... ght Hundred Dollars ~ ~e data ~f t~i;'A'~,~e. same coverage which is in effect as of J~' . g nt. Adjoining Owner reserves the rl /to replace the Association's "e- ........... 'ght ~ ,~=~a a~amlllty insurance cover- /age with a different carrier if Adjoining Owner determines in ~s sole discretion that any increase in premiums is too high. 8. Term of Agreement. Subject to the following provisions, the term of this Agreement shall commence im- mediately upon execution of this Agreement by the Parties, and it shall continue until the Marketing Period and the Construc- tion Period have expired. However, Adjoining Landowner may uni- laterally terminate this Agreement by serving at least thi'rty (30) days written notice on the Association if, in the sole discretion of Adjoining Lando-wner, both of the following events do not or will not occur within a reasonable period of time fol- lowing the commencement date of this Agreement: (1) a sub- division map for the Adjoining Property, allowing for the creation of at least one hundred fifty-one (151) Lots will record in the Office of the San Bernardino Recorder, and (2) the City will issue a grading permit for the Adjoining Property pursuant to the grading plans of Adjoining Landowner. The Construction Period (described in Paragraph 2 of this Agreement) -4- fsj037/16851/000/0020/developer ana the Marketing Period (described in Paragraph 4 of this Agreement) may be extended by Adjoining Landowner for any Period of time that construction or sales, 'respectively, are. suspended by Adjoining Landowner, and any and all payments under this Agreement otherwise payable by Adjoining Landowner during any such suspension shall be suspended for such period of suspen- sion. 9. Assignment or Transfer. The Parties acknowledge that the Adjoining Landowner may trahsfer, assign or convey the Adjoining Property, the Additional Acreage, or any portion ..... Y_ ......~n~zer, assignn~n~- ~ ..... -~ ~. In the Benefitted Prouertu .... ~=-= .......... .___9~_.ot~er conveyance of the = =, u,~= ~3olnlng Landowner shall be ~t~mati~ally freed and relieved, from and after the date of such transfer, assignment or conveyance, of all liability for the performance of any covenant or obligation on the part of the Adjoining Landowner contained herein thereafter to be performed relating to the portion of the Benefitted Property that is transferred, assigned or conveyed, and all such liability shall be deemed to have been assumedby the transferee of the Benefitted Property so conveyed. The Adjoining Landowner may transfer, assign or convey its interest in the Benefitted Property without the consent of the Association and such transfer, assignment or conveyance shall not be deemed a viola- tion of any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The Parties further acknowledge that the Adjoining Landowner or the transferee, assignee or conveyee of the Benefitted Property, may organize a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation (the "Adjoining Property Association") which is intended to ultimately consist of owners of individual Lots within the Benefitted Property. However, the Parties agree to cooperate with one another in good faith toward the mutual goal of amending Article X of the Declaration, so Adjoining Landowner may unilaterally annex all or a portion of the Benefitted Property to the Estates, with the intent that all owners of Lots in the Estates and in the Benefitted Property will be members of the Association and the Adjoining Property Association may be dissolved. 10. Reimbursement of Portion of Attorne s' .. Ad' '~ln andown -er ~72~- ~u~o~ne s' Fees by other obligations outlined in th~ .......... ltlo~ to any ~ ~==m~n=, agrees =o make a one time payment to the Association in an amount equal to Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) to'partially reimburse Association for some of its costs in resolvin the ' Landowner's acc~ ...... g issues of Adjoinin ...... ---, =~=emen= rights and maintenance obligations. ~aymen~ Dy A~3oining Landowner shall be made within thirty (30) days of the sooner to occur of the following events: (1) the recordation of a subdivision map in the County of San Bernardino creating at least one hundred fifty-one (151) Lots on the Adjoining Property, and (2) the issuance by the City of a grad- lng permit for the Adjoining Property. 11. Covenants Running with the.Land. The Parties hereby declare ~hat the Benefitted Property, the Access Streets, and all interests therein are to be held, conveyed, hypothe- cared, encumbered, leased, rented, used, occupied and improved subject to the applicable foregoing limitations, restrictions, easements, covenants, and conditio~Ds~,all of which are and agreed to be in furtherance 6f a-~ ~ .......... declared · .,~ ~u~ une'Dr~ec~ion and maintenance and improvement of t~e Benefitted P~oDerty and the ~ Access Streets for the purpose 6f enhancing thei value, use, ~r~bil~ty, a~d attractivenes~.~__-A-~i proart. he's-of this A ree- m=nu are lmpose~ as equitable servitudes upon the Benefitte~ -5- f~j037/16851/000/0020/developer PrOperty and the Access Streets. All provisions of this Agree- ment shall run with the Benefitted Property and the Access Streets; shall be binding upon and for the benefit of all ~he Estates, the Benefitted Property and the Access Streets, and any portion thereof or interest therein; and shall be binding upon and for the benefit of all parties. having or acquiring any right, title, or interest in the Estates, the Benefitted Property and the Access Streets, or any part thereof, and their successive owners and assigns. 12. Notices. Any notices to be given hereunder by any party to any other party shall be in writing and shall be delivered either Personally or by United States mail, registered or certified, postage paid with return receipt requested. Notice shall be delivered or addressed to the parties, until notice of a different address is given, at the following ad- dresses: Association: Haven View Estates Homeowners Association c/o Condominium Management Services 600 N. Mountain Avenue, Building "C" Suite No. 200 Upland, CA 91786 With Copy to: Best, Best & Krieger 800 North Haven Suite 120 Ontario, CA 91764 Attn: Dennis M. Cora, Esq. Adjoining Landowner: Cristiano Partners I c/o The Cristiano Company 4400 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 780 Post Office Box 8230 Newport Beach, CA 92658 With Copy to: McKittrick, Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh 4041 MacArthur Boulevard P.O. Box 2710 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8995 Attn: F. Scott Jackson, Esq. Notices not personally served shall be deemed delivered three {3) days after mailing. 13. Miscellaneous. (a) Waiver. The waiver by any party of the breach by any other ~arty-of any term, covenant, or condition contained in this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained in this'Agreement. (b) Choice of Law. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. (c) Language Construction. Whenever the context of this Agreement requires, the masculine gender shall include the feminine and neuter and the singular number shall include -6- fs~037/16851/000/0020/developer 009/099 01-09-89 the plural. Designations used herein are for convenience only and shall not be controlling in the interpretations of this Agreement. All exhibits referred to herein are incorporated into this Agreement by such reference as if set forth in full herein. (d) Partial Invalidity. If any provision in this Agreement is heid by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall, nevertheless, continue in full force and effect without being impaired or invalidated in any way. .(e) Mortgagee Protection. No portion of this Agreement or any amendment or violation hereof shall operate to defeat or render invalid, in whole or in part, the rights of the beneficiary, insurer, guarantor, or holder of a mortgage or deed of trust encumbering any portion of the Benefitted Property, provided that, after foreclosure of any mortgage or deed of trust, the property foreclosed shall remain subject to this Agreement. (f) Attorneys' Fees. If any action or proceed- ~ng is instituted by any person to enforce or interpret the provisions hereof, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover from the other party or parties its costs and expenses incurred in connection therewith, including without limitation reasonable attorneys' fees and the costs and expenses of litigation. (g) Effective Dat~. This Agreement shall be effective on the dat~ of its recordation. (h) Amendment. No amendment, change or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless it is in writing and executed by Adjoining Landowner and two (2) author- ized officers of the Association, certifying that all necessary approvals to bind the respective parties to the modification or amendment have been obtained. Such amendment, or a memorandum thereof, shall be recorded in the Official Records of San Bernardino County, California. (i) Authority. The individual executing this Agreement on behalf ~f Adjoining Landowner represents has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf that he of Adjoin- ing Landowner and that all necessary approvals to bind Adjoining Landowner to this Agreement have been obtained. The individuals executing this Agreement on behalf of the Association represent that they have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Association and that all necessary approvals to bind the Association to this Agreement have been obtained. This Agree- ment shall constitute an amendment to the Declaration to the extent necessary to authorize each and every provision of this Agreement. -7- fsj 037/16851/00~0 ~/~00,~2 ~0 ~/d.e.ve_l_op .e_r The Parties have executed this Agreement as of Approved as to form for HAVEN VIEW ESTATES HOMEOWNERS the Association ASSOCIATION, a California BEST, BEST & KRIEGER nonprofit mutual benefit -~- corporation Denis M. Co~a ~ "AssocSation" Approved as to form for CRISTIANO P~RS I, Adj Dining L~do~er a . California par~ershi~ & PE~E~AUGH By: ~obert J. ~istt~o F. ~cott J~son "Adj Dining L~do~er" STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) On (~i.,m.~-~.~,- II , , 1989, before me, the under- signed,~ ..a~Not"~;y PL~bl~ in and for said State~ . peared ".,'~& ~ .~ F~=u u~ ~e on t~e basis of satisfac- tory evidence. to b~ the persons w~ exec~ed the Within lnstru ment as~l~.,~ and//~$, ~ -- ' ' ' - behalf of ~VEN VIEW ESTAT=o ~ ...... '.~L'2z{W~.,~.r · or on corporation the~,~ ...... ~ ~u~m~N~KS ASSOCIATION, the ...... ~t" ~eu, an~ acknowledged to me that the corpora=ion execu=ed it. W!~SS my h~d and official seal. -8- fs~ 037/16851/000/0020/developer STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) a Notary Public in and ~or said State, personally appeared ROBERT J. CRISTIANO, Personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person that executed the within instrument as a general partner or on behalf of CRISTIANO PARTNERS 2, the partnership therein named, and acknowledged to me thmt the partnership executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Jl~& MOWSAND ; Notar%] Publid ' - · O~*~aCO~ ~ in and for sald Stat~ -9- fsj 037/16851/000/0020/developer EX/{IB IT "A" DESCRIPTION OF ADJOINING PROPERTV All that certain real property in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California within the confines of the subdivision map for Tentative Tract No. 12332 (exclusive of the Remainder Parcel), consisting of one hundred fifty-one (151) residential lots and common areas. fs~O37/16851/OOO/OO20/developer EXI'{IB I T "A" DESCRIPTION OF ADJOINING PROPERS,, All that certain real property in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California within the confines of the subdivision map for Tentative Tract No. 12332 (exclusive of the Remainder Parcel), consisting of one hundred fifty-one (151) residential lots and common areas. fs~O37/16851/OOO/OO20/developer 009/099 01-09-89 EXHIBIT "B" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ADDITIONAL ACREAGE All that certain real property in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California, within the confines of Tentative Tract No. 12332 (exclusive of the one hundred fifty-one (151) Lots shown therein), which is designated as the Remainder Parcel in the Subdivision Map for said Tenta- tive Tract. fsj037/16851/000/0020/developer .... - when Recorded Return To: .obert .. O ro .. ' - ..... ' j 89 409605 M. J. Brock & Sons, Inc. , 6767 Forest Lawn Drive Los Angeles, CA 90068 GRANT OF }gJTUAL EASF2(ENTS THIS GRANT OF MU~A3AL EASEMENTS ("Grant") is made and entered into as of the 12th day of October, 1989 by and between M. J. Brock & Sons, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Brock Homes") and J. C. C. Development, a California general partnership (,,J.C.C."). A. The parties to this Grant are land owners who own or hold an interest in real property which is located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino county, California. The property of Brock Homes is described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and is referred to herein as the "Brock Property." J.C.C. is the owner of that property described on Exhibit "B" attached hereto which is referred to herein as the ,,J.C.C. Property." B. The parties intend by this Grant to provide for (a) mutual and reciprocal permanent non-exclusive easements of ingress, egress over the streets, (b) mutual and reciprocal temporary non-exclusive easements for construction of the streets, and (c) mutual and reciprocal non-exclusive temporary easements for construction of the Buyer Work and the Seller Work, over both the Brock Property and the J.C.C. Property upon the terms hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth herein, the parties do hereby agree as follows: 1. Grant of Street Easements. Brock Homes hereby grants to J. C. C. and J. C. C. hereby grants to Brock Momes a mutual and reciprocal permanent, non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress of pedestrians and vehicles over all streets located upon the Brock Property and upon the J. C. C. Property. Brock ~omes hereby grants to J. C. C. and J. C. C. hereby grants to Brock Homes a mutual and reciprocal temporary non-exclusive, construction easement for purposes of constructing all the streets located upon the Brock Property and for purposes of Doc\JCCHAVE3.EAS 102389 I reasonable costs and expenses, reasonable attorneys* fees and reasonable fees of expert witnesses. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. M.J. BROCK & SONS, Inc., a Delaware Its ~_.- By: '? ~/' Its: J. C.' C. Development, a california general partnership By: J. C. C. Enterprises, Inc., a California corporation, as general partner Ja~ Cameron Its: President By: J. C. C. Cashco, Inc., a California corporation, as general partner Steven ~chwartz Its: ~e~k C.Cameron i ~ S/~J:ECO =' - TITLJ~ INSUI~ANCE FOR NOTARY SEAL OR SIAMP ~ - . :.. .'........ .' .... ' . ,..... : :.-..~ B~tsy J. Stephens 2~t~ Octobe~., 1989 Bet~v J. Stephens Jack C. Cameron ; ..... Betsy 3. Stephens ~IST OF EXHIBITS A. Description of Brock Property B. Description of J. C. C. Property Doc~JCCHAVE 3. F-AS __~ Exhibit "A" The Brock Property is described as that real property located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California more particularly described as Tract 12332-2 as per Map recorded February 15, 1989, in Book 218, Pages 63 through 71 of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, except for Lots 32 through 56, both inclusive, and Lots 105 through 116, both inclusive, of such Tract.' Doc\JCCHAVE3. EAS 102389 5 ~ 89-11 9605 Exhibit "B" The J. C. C. Property is described as that real property located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California more particularly described as Lots 32 through 56, both inclusive, and Lots 105 through 116, both inclusive, o~ Tract 12332-2 as per Hap recorded February 15, 1989, in Book Pages 63 through 71 of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. DocXJCCHAVE3. EAS · I · 90 004511 ' ~ ~o~ ~e~ ~ot 6767 ffo=~ ~ ~tve ~ ~gel~ ~ 90068 : .,: .... -_. __=~ ·sag Shu4a ~ a. individual (.~en"). ~ pro~y of Br~X Ho~ is d~cr~ on ~tt "A" hereto ~d is rele~eQ ~ herein as ~e "Br~k ~ope~y." Chen ~ is ~a o~ ot ~t p~Y d~ori~ on ~it "~" atta~e~ hereto wti~ is refe~ to herein as ~e "~ Prope~y." B. ~e pa~ies tnten~ by ~is Gr~ to provide lot ., mural and =eoipro~l ~~[ non-exclusive eas~en~ of ~ess, ~ss ~ ~e s~ee~, (b) mutual ~d reciprocal 'i t~r~ non-~l~tve eas~ts for consthe/on of :.~ s~ea~"a~ (o) actual ~ reoip~o~l non-~l~ive teapo~a~ -~ ~s~ lot coatnotion of ~e ~y~ Worx ad ~e Seller Work, ~ ~er bo~ ~e Br~k ~ope~y ~d ~e Ch~ ~ope~y u~n ~e te~s [~. [~ hereof. '~ NOW, ~0~ in consideration ~f ~e mutuel covenants and a~e~ se~ fo~ herein, ~e pa~i~s do her~y a~ee as ~, follows: ~ 1. Grant of Strut Easements. Br~k Homes her~Y grants %~ to ~ ~d ~ her~y ~ts to Brock Ho~ a mutual "': recipro~l pe~t, non-exclusive eas~ent for in,ess and ~' ~ess oE ~d~tria~ ~d v~ioles over all streets. lo~ted Upo~ '. ~e Bro~ ~ope~y ~d upon ~e ~ ~ope~y. Br~k Homes :. her~y ~ to ~ and ~en h~y gr~s to Br~k H?~es a nutual ~d.reoipr~l t~pora~ nun-~olusive~ oo~=~[on ~:' ea~ent for p~os~ of oonst~ot~g all ~e s~eets located upon ~e Br~k ~ope~y ~d for p~oses of const~cting all the ;' st~ets l~t~ upon ~e ~en ~o~y, i~ order ~at each pa~y ' ~cN888. Res ~ 120~89 · /. : ...... ..,.,-.- . '-:'.~:.,. ..-.:-... :.~':'. · ? '" ..... '" * · ' . "...,"., .'*.'~'...'.'.i'..- .{ ~...': : :.. -.-.... ....,......... . ~.. ":- .. .'.: ..:- . . ;.. : -1.., : · ,. : .. '.: .' .: .J. ,1, , , . '"'.. - "' . · . . . . . . · .. , , · .. ' ... ;.,-, .~-~. ~ .';.:-..~ ..* ... , . . ....-..'.....'.-. '.. .... . · '" ~"~ '""'" : "' '" ' " ; ~', ' ":" - : · :.:...~.- ~ .,~ '.. : · . 2,:'. .' ... . · . . .,. . . :. ~. . . . , ,..: 1...'.. :... . , . . .. ,.,: ..... .: ~,. ~. . . , . .:.:., : .... . ., ..... .,',.."..*:.':':~j,:,..! : · . - · : . '.. -...,,-: .... , . :,.'.-. ,...:. : ,::.,.c'..,. .... · ' ,*.-' 4...'. ' ~' '" ." ' "';, ·,., :.' "' -' · ' ' ..... " ';:"' "a"'*"*' .. . . ........ .., .'. ., ~ ..... . .. :. · .~i. , . - ... ',,%. ~ . , ....*:. ,,.. ~. ' .. ,.- ,.' ...- * , · -,.-,..;.?..: . . "..':L~'.."~:~;. :~" shall have sufficient rights of access to complete the constzuction oE su~ stree~ P~ to ~e te~ of ~a~ fo~ ~c~se ~ Sale ~ ~o~nt ~cro~ I~t~ctio~ dat~ ~- a~a as ~y Ci~ o~ ~cho ~on~ ~-- --.. ci roll ~s~ents granted he=e~ ~e referee to colie~ively as the station Easeme~. B~E Homes he~eb2 2. ~ant o~ Con .... ~- +-~ u~ock a mutual and Easiest." - of ase~e-t Riehl. Under a.s~mi~ar,srant 2. Assi~ment ~ ....... v =om-s anu ~. ~- ~- . -~ ~,,~,al Eas~ents by ~d De~e~.~=~_~i~'~tober 12, 1989 ana ~velop~=, a ~ ........ No. 89-409~05 in the re~r~ ~ober ~1, 1989 as Instant Official Reco~s of S~ ~ardino ccitt, ~li~o~ia, J- c. C. ~velop~ent ~t~ to BrOOk Homes ce~in Street EaS~ents and a ce~ ConStation Eas~. To ~e e~ nec~a~ for ~en Br~k Homes her~2 as~i~& to ch~ to ~oy ~e ~en ~ope~/ .... =~c on Eas~en= ~anted If ~e s~ee~ ~ ~ tion or p~lic agency ~nve ~ to a ho~eo~e=~_as~ ........ ~ created her~Y shall ~ln such ~tree~, ~e u~r~u~ ~- ...... ~e pa~ t~ate wigout ~e re~ir~ent for ~u~er action on of ~2 pa~y. However, ~e p~ies hereto agree to execute and deliv~ su~ d~tS as ~Y be re~ir~ to m~orialize ~nation of ~e Street ~s~ents. ' 5. ~omut ComDletio~ of Wo~. AEter co~encing any work ' t Eas~en~ o~ ~a Conerection Basement, ~ rs~t to ~e S~ee .... =-~- ~-~ te such work i~ a ~e ~Y coercing sucB worm ~==~ ~_=le agreed in the diliq~t, wor~anlike ~ lien ~r~ m~er and as ~r~ase and Sale 6. ~e~i~atioR o~ Te~Dora~ E~se~eR~:. ~% te~[a~ easters ~t~ herein shall te~inate at ~e time ~yer Work and ~e Seller Work have ~en completed pursuit to ~e ~s of ~e ~chase ~d Sale A~e~ent. All pe~ent 120789 90 004511 easements shall continue in perpetuity, unless terminated pursuant to the terms o£ th~s omnt. · ~e ~rant shall be b~ndinq upon, and 7. .. . -~ ..... -~-- ~ereto- their successors thie G=ant. 8. , . In an~ action between the parties i~ t~. _ . ; ............. ~-~unctive o~ o~e~ ~elie£, i~so~Xe ~sts ~ ~~, r~son~le at~o~eys' fe~ z~son~le fa~ ol ~ wide.es. ~ ~SS ~F, ~e pa~ies have ~ted a~ of ~e day ~d year f~rst ~e ~l~- M.J. ~ a SONS, I~c.~ a ~la~e ~~on · 0o-oo~ ~ST 0FE~F~BZT~ Ao Descrip~ion o£ Broth Property B, Description o£ then Property' 20789 0O--004511 00-004511 (Corporation ~urat £o~ B~k Ro~es) ) ss. ~ OF ~IDE ) ~ Jan~r~ 03~ 1990 , ~fore me, ~e ~de~ed, a No~ ~lio ~ ~ for ~id s~, perso~lly ~v~d Valent~no/V~ce Presiden~ _, ~ona11~ ~ ~o ~e, or prov~ to ~e on ~e ~s~s oE ~tisfa~o~ evident, ~e per~n who ~e~ted ~e wi~in ~st~ Vice Pr~tde,~ of H. ~. Bro~ a So~, Inc.~ a Delaware. co~orat~on, ~e co~oration ~at exerted wl~in i~~t, and ac~owledged to me ~at such co~orat~on ~e~t~ ~e w~n ~ns~t proust to r~olut~on of its ~ar~ o~ dire~o~. / (Official Seal) ~o~ ~[o;~uro~.~ i (Co,ration J~at for Br~k Homes) ) ss. ~ OF ~S ~GE~S ) On .-~U~ ~. ~0 before ~e, ~e ~dersi~ed, a ~o~ ~lic ~d for said state, ~rsonally ~sonally ~o~ to me. or proved to ~e on ~e ~sis of set,sfac- Sons, I~O., a Delaware co~oration, ~e co~o~tion that exe~t~ ~e w~[n ins~ent, ~d a~owledg~ to me ~at such co~oration executed ~e wi~ ~nst~e~t pursuit ~o or a r~olution of 'i~ boa~ oE dire~o~. J MX~t~ ~r~A~l Z lm J 120789 (ZndLvidual Jura~ ~or Tsenq Shu-,Ten c~en) STATE Off CALI~A ) * No~ ~11c in ~u Eo~'~td ~e, personally app~ Tseng Shu~en ~, perso~11y_~o~ t~[ o= prov~ to me on ~e basis of ~tis~a~o~ evldence, co mu ~e ~rson ~ho ~e~ted the wl~1n ~t~ and ac~owl~ged to me ~a~ she exe~ ~e ~SS m~ h~d' and ofE~=tal s~1. (Offtci~l seal) D.o~\888 120789 30-11!246 RECOROEO IN Irecording Requested by and ~FFICIAI. REOORD-~: ~obe~ ~. Ga~cin~ Seq. . S, N BERNARDINO ,. 3. ~oc~ He, e. , Sons, xnc '~~~1 CO.. CALIF. FIRST ~NDED ~D ~ESTATED G~T OF ~T~Ab T~IS FIRST ~ND~D AND RESTATKD G~T OF ~TUAL ~ASE~4~TS (.~ondod Grant") i~ dated for ro~orenco purposes as of the da~ o~ February, 1990 and i~ ~nt~od into by and between H. J. ~rock Hom~s ~ ~o~s~ ~c.~ a Dela~aT~ corporation (.Brock ~bu Jan Chun, an ~naiv~dusl (-chen") an~ J. C. C. Development, u California gcnorul purthu~ ~ip ( JCC ). A. The partie~ to this ~ad0d Grant are land owners who ow~ real property located in th~ City of Rancho Cucamonga~ San dine Count , Californi~. The property of Brock Homes Chcn is the owner o~ those 37 lots described on Exhibit "B" ~ttached hotore (the "Chun Property"). .JCC fs the owner oE those 37 lots described o~ ~xhibit .C" attached hereto (the "JCC proper ty" ) · Chen ufobased th~ Chen Property from Broc~ Homes ~or 20 lots and an Agreement ~o~ Purchase and Sale and Joint Escrow In~truction~ dated the 27th day of November, 1~89 for 17 lots (the two agreements are re~errud to herei~ collectively as c encee bo&~g recorded Januarys4; 1990 and the original ~a~ Grant o~ =asom0nts by and b~twoon Chen and Brock ,crees (the .origi,al chun Grant") was recorded that same day in the O~fio~al ~ocords of San Bernardino County as Instrument No. 90- 004511 · C. JCC purchased th~ JCC Property from Brock Homes Du~suant to the terms of an Agreement for purchase and Sale and Joint Escrow Instructions dated the l~th day of Ootobor~ 1989 (the -JCC Sale Agreement") , the 9=ant dee~ for sbch conveyance ,. Hutual Grant of Easements by and batwoon JCC and Brock lieroes (the Doc%888~d4. Ess 021390 9O-111246 "original JCC Gran~") woo rsuorded that same day' in the Official Records o£ Sam Dernardino county as Tnst~mont fro. 89-409505. D. The paM~ioo inland by ~hi~ ~ended Gran~ [o (a) b~oadon [he scope oE the aao~mon~o ~ran~ed by ~e Original Chart G~an[ and ~he Original JCC Gram~ and to (b) grant new reciprocal "Trail Easementre," "Drainage Esaumonte," And "Stem Drain EaSeslents" (all as defined below) over the Brook Property, the Chon Property and the JCC Property to ~11ow for the unimpeded development of all the propertiom and the future and pe~anen~ enjo~ent 9~ all the properties by the ~ar~to~ and =heir successors ana assigns. E. The ~artioo aU=ea [hat this ~ended Grant shall amend, restate and replace in i~o onti~ety the Original then G~ant and the O~iginal JCC Gran~ and ~he original chen G~an~ and Original JCC Grant a~e hereby cancelled and made of no e~fect or force. NOW, THEREFORE, itl consideration of the mutual covenants agreements set forth heroin, thG parties do hereby agree as foilowe ~ 1. R~citaln ~r~lo_a~d correct. Th~ parties auknowledge that the Reelrolo are truo and oarroot and that tl~oy are bargaining In ro1~anco upon the truth and aoou=aoF of the some. The contents of tile ROcI~ul~ ar~ here~y ~ncorpo~ated by thl~ 2. Grant of S~rnnt 2.1 Pnrmnnnn~:_S~ ~a~m-~.. The parties hereby grant to each other party mutual and reciprocal pa~anont, non- exclusive easements for ingro0o and egre~e of pedestrians and vehicles and use and enJoyant over all streets locate~ upon the ~r~ck ~=op~rty, ~ho Ch~n propor~y and ~ho JCC .=ope=~y Tract Map 12332-2 wlt~ch was recorded in Book 218, pages 63 through 71, tnolusiv~, of 14ap~ in ~h~ official Records of San Bernardino County (the ,,Recorded Tract Map") and upon and over such streets which may ha shown upon any recorded tract map for that portion of th~ B~ock Property which is presently shown as the "Remainder Parcel" upon the Rocordud Tract }lap. All such streets are referred to heroin as the "Streets." 2.2 ~nmmorarV Con,~:ruc~ion Easements. The hereby grant to each oth~ par~y mutual and reciprocal, temporary, non-oMclu~ivo con~tructiom oas~mmnts over the lots In purposes o~ aonotructing all the Stroat~ and such other work th~ City of Ra~oho Cucamonga and any oth~r governmental or quaoi- governmental agency (the "TamperofF Conmtructio~ Easement") or Doc~888Amd4 .Ess 021390 2 90-1112 6 such othor work as may have boon agreed to by tl~ parties in the Chen 37 Lot Sale Agreement, the JCC Sale Agreement or ea may bo othorwi~e agreed to by any of the parties concerning an~ of each other party mutual and rooiprocal eaeem~nt~ and right~ to us~ any ~nd all of the privat~ tra~l easements looatod upon ~rook Prop~rty~ th~ ch~n Property and ~he JCC Proper~y as ~hown upon the R~cord~d Tract Hap and which may be shown upon any rocord~ ~ruct map for the R~ma~nder Parcel and ~o go upon ~ho property of tho oth~r per, los to ~nstall, repair, maintain and replace any improvomont~ located thereon fo~ the continued and enJo~en~ of ~uch eaeomonte (the "T=atl Easements")~ 4. Gra~t o~ Sto~ Dra~n Easement~ and Dra~naoe The part~nn boreby gra~t to each other pfirty mutu~l and ro=iprocal easemoats and rights to us~ any and all of the privato eto~ drain oasumonts and privato drainage easements located upon th~ Brook Property, the Cho~ Property and th~ JcC Property ao uhown upon the Rocordud Tract }lap and which may b~ shown upon any recorded tract map for th~ Rumcinder Parcel and to go upon the proporty of the arbor partics to install, repair, maintain and raplace any lmprovomonts located thereon for tho continuod and enJoyoat of such ecscmoats (the "Sto~ Drain Easements" and the "Drainage Easemoats"). shall cooporat~v~ly maintn~n, roplac~ and repair th~ var~ou~ streets, cquo~trinn trails, drainage faciXities, ~arkway landscaping, sidcwalko and street lights and all related improvem~nts upon tho Broc~ Proporty~ the Chun Property and tllo =cc Property and cooporativuly share the caste thoroof (tho "Pro, sot Hai~tenance" and tho "Project Hainte~ance Costs") ~ccord~ng to th~ numbor of lots o~ned as of the date of this Anondad Grant by oacl~ party compared to all lots in the Chun Prope=~y; the ~ock Proper~y (but~n~ncXudi~q the Parc~ tho JCC P~op~ty. ~r'om'~'~nd after the recO~%ion fi~l traot~a~ upon the Rumcinder Parcel, the obli~ution of Brock Homes to shar~ tho Project Maintenance Cost~ shall bo upon the nu~o= of lots ~n the Brook Property ~nclud~ng the lots in the Remaindot Parco1. ~ Sharin~ o~In~J.a! A~ooiation CostS. The parties agroe to ~har~ thoso otho~ superarc on~ addl~ional co~ts ~'=n~t~al Assoc~ation Costs") ~mpoeod collectivoly u~on tho 0whats of tho Brock Property, the Chun Property, and the JCC Prop0~ty by that Dove~oper Stroot Ea~omont and Ha~ntenance Agreemoat and by that A~sociation Strcot Ensemont and Maintenance Agroomont entered into b~ and b~twoon Cr~stJano Partners I and the Havon V~ow ~status Homoownors A~soc~ut~on recorded in the Official Doc~888Amd4. Eas 021390 3 90- .. 246 liecords of Ban Bernardino County on February 1G, 1989 as instrument ~o. 89-056050 and lnmtrumen~ No. 89-056051, r~p~c~tvoly, Such ~haring of cos~a shall be according ~o ~ho numar o~ lo2~ o~n~d as o~ the date oE 2hie ~ndad G~an~ by each party compared to all lo~a in the Brock Property (including the Remainder Parcel}, the Ch~ Property and the JCO Property. 7. Fo~ntion of Homeown~r~ Aseoolation/~ad The parties intend to fo~ a homeowners aeeociat~on for governance of the properties which a~nex to such Such aseooia~ion ehal~ maintain the Streets, e~0otrian trails, parkwa~ landscaping, siduwalks~ street lights, feeill=ice and rolate~ improvements upon the ann0x~d ~nd e~a'~% porfo~ the duties of ~he "Brook Assoo~at~on~dor and hereby give each other further aoou~'al~cos of cooperation. Wl=hout l~miting th~ obligatio~ of tltu parties to cooperate, the parti~ agree that they shal~ enter ~nto a aintenanc~ Agreement in fo~ ana content reasonably o all parties and the California Department of ~aal Estate the same ~s r~quired by the Californ~a Departeat of Real Estate. Unt~l th~ formation of ~uch a~sooiat~on, Chen shall assum~ the role of "~ad Developer. and as Lead Developer arrang~ re= and cause the porfo~a~c~ of the Project l.~ntenance and the perfo~ance of the duties of the "Brock A~oo~ation" unde~ th~ Agreement. Brock I[om~ and JCC shall rut~ur8~ Chen for their respective sheroe o~ the Project Mainto~ance Costs end Initial Aseoc~atio~ Costs ~ithin thirty (30) days of Chen~s request for such 8. Brock..[[~mo.~ 9.1~ht to._}]a~ta~. If for any reason Chen or the homeownoro as~oc~ation to be fo~od fa~ls to porfo~ the Project }[aintunanco ~n a ~r=~ class manner or fable to perform the du=~s of the "~rock Association" under the Str~ot Easement and Main~nance Agreement, Brock Home~ el{all have tlt~ right, but not the obligation, to p~rfo~ the I'lai~tonanc~ and the duties of tl~e "~rock Association.. a~ a condition to oxo=cising its rights undo= this Brook Homos she11 first delive= a written notiae to Chun or the Z'~intonance or other work wh~Sh 'Brock Homes 'desires to por~o~. Chart or th~ homeowners assoc~atio~ fails to undertak~ ~uch work within ton (10) bus~nuss days of ho~ or i~s receipt of such not~ce or fails to dil~gantly prosecut~ such work to completion after commencement of such work, Brock Homes shall hav~ the right to porfo~ such work and ~o invoice Chun, JCC and/or homeowners associat~on for the P=oJact ~aint~nance costs and ot~tor costs incurred and shall be entitled to within t~trty (30] days of race,pt of such ~nvoice by Doc~B8BAmd4. 021390 4 l)-111246 partl0s. ~s used ~n this paragraph, HBrOo~.H~ma~" ~e£~ to D~ooR Homos and any aucce~so~ and assLgn o£ Broo~ ~omsa Ln ~nc Remainder Parcel. For pukesee of this paragraph onl~ "Brook Homos" shall re£or to H. J. Brook & So~s, Inc. and to any successor to M. J. Brock & Sons, Inc, ~n and to the Remainder ParC01. 9. Dnmaao to ImDrovementR~ Indomni~cation. If any party damages the Droparty or improvements Of any otho& person by its of an o~ thc easements orestad by this Amendod?rant~ the. use. Y ............. ~ -a~ £or all costs o£ repaLr anu. ~5~ ..... t gwhioh repair an~ ~eplucomeny shall b? other P cub o~ =no acre or coat~ liability, exportsee and olaim~ aFlaing the £ailures to act of any of the parties. easements ~ranted heroin shall terminate at the time that thu work to bo completed through the use of such easements has bach completed. All po~anont oas~ments shall continua in porpotuity, unless terminated puruuant to the torm~ of thi~ Grant. 11. ~' This ~ondod Grant shall. be binding upon, and inure to the bono~i~ o~, the parties horace, their succ0ssors and assigns and shall run with the land. The of each BrOOk Homo~, Chon and JCC are the ,,So~iont Tenement" and th~ property of e~ch Brock Homes, then and JCC are the ,,Dominant Ton0mont" pursuant to this ~ended Grant. Without limiting the gen0rality of th~ foregoing, the successors a~d assigns or ~ho parties includes, without'limitation, the motors of the homobuying public who purchase any of the lots ~hown in the various prop~rties and any homeowners associations fo~ed for thu governance of any of the properties. aceking enforcement or u doclara~ion of =~o r g the in this ~ond~d Grant, ~lmo prevailing party in such action shall 02~390 be awardad, in addition to damages, inJunotive o= othor relief. its reaoonable costs ~n~ ~5 o~ that date. M. J. Brock & Sons~ Inc.. a Dalawa~ corpore,on t'eat~onC & Dtu/~ton Han~tger Tseng 8hu-Jen J. C. C. Development, a California partnorship California corporation a8 esid~nt California gunera1 partns~ ItS: Vlco Preaid~nc It~: Prcsi4enC Doc%888~d4 .EaS 021~90 90-11124.5 ~S~ OF RXHzB'r~s A. Doscription of Brock Proparty B. Desor~ptton of Chon Property C. Dooortptton o£ JCC Property I !, Doc\O80Amd4.Eau 021390 the City of Rancho cucamonga, County o~ San ~ornard[no~ St~tQ of )laps ~ the Office of th~ county Racerder of eaid County, except for Lots 32 through 70~ both ~nclusiv~, and Lots 82 through 116, both ~nolueive, of Tract 12332-2. Doc\888Amd4.Eas 021390 90-111246 Doecription o£ chon Property the City ot Rancho Cuoamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California more particulurly described ae Leto 57 through 70, both lncluoiv~, and Lore 82 through 104, both inclusive, of TraCt 12332-2 a8 per map recorded February 15~ 1989 in Book 218, Pages 63 through 71 of Maps in the Office o£ the County Recorder of said Doc\B88Amd4.Sas 021390 Exhibit "C" DOscription of JCC t iB the City o~ Rancho Cuoamonga, ~ou.~ Ca~iforn~a mo~ par~i~ula~lY doscribe~ as ~ts 32 through 56, both in~usiwa, an~ ~%s 105 throu9h ~6, bo~h ino%u~ive, of Pagos 63 through 71 o~ I.lap~ ~n the Offica of ~he County Recorde~ of sal~ county. Doe\88 BAred4. Ess 021390 ,90-111Z4G (corpo=ation Jurat for Brock Homes) STATE OF CAUlFORNIA ) ) es. COUNTY OF RIV~.RSIDE ) on FI':I)RUAR¥ 23, 1990 ., before me, the undersigned, a Notary P~ in and for sai~ s~at~, per~ona11~ appeared JASON WlI~'IDN , por~onnlly known to J me, or prorod to mo on tho bas~o oZ earl.factory ov~dence, to be the person who executed the within insolent as the VICE-PI~ESII}ENT of H. J. Brook 1Iomos & sons, In~., a D ~ ~ aw.ro oo~por~tion, ~hs :o~po~a~ion that oXOcUtOd tho within lnstrumont, and ao~owledgod to mo thnt such corporation oxocutod th~ within inst~ment pursuant to its bylaws or a resolution of its board of direorate. WITNESS my hand and officia~ soul. (o~R.~9,~ so.~ .................... ! ~?/ ,.v~s.0~ ~u~- / (Corpora~ion Ju~a~ fo~ Brock NOm~) ) COUNTY OF ~S ~GE~S ) On .... , before me, the undoreigned, Notary Public in and for said s~ato, personally Doreenally known to too, or proved to me on the baslo of tory ovidonce, to be the person who ~xooutod ~ho within instru- ment as the of M. J. Brook Hom~s & Sons, Inc., a California corporation, the corDoration that exaoutm~ the within instrument, and acknowledged to mo that such oorporat$on executed th~ within ~nstrumont pursuant to bylaws or a resolution of its board of directors. WITNESS my hand and off~oiol s~al. Signaturo~ (Official Ooc\OOSAmd,$.Eas 02~390 ACKNOWL~DGEHENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ~{GELES ) On this 13~h day Of Nnr~h .. 1990 , bo£ore me, the undorsignod, a Notary ~ublio in and for ~aid Coun=y and state, personally appoarod J~k C. C.~.~.- personally known Co m~ (o= provo~ of tho corporation ~ha~ o~eouto~ tho within instrumon= and known to me to b~ the p~rson who executed the within instrumon= on behalf tho partnership tha~ exccutod the within aoknowlodgud to me that such cor~oration oxocutod the same as such partnor and that ouch pa~or~hip oxocuted tho soma. %~ITNESS my hand and official STATZ 0F CALIFO~IA ) SS. " COUNTY OF LOS ~GELES " · On this ~ day of Ha.'.h _, 199~, before me, tho undersigned, a No=a~ ~1~= in and for said County nnd Stats, personally appearod ~ and sTEVE. N SC[~6~ersonally .known to me (0r proved to me on ~he basis of~t'ksfactorY th~ .u~o~td..~ and vtc. P ..~.~. ~ of the corporation tha~ ~xecuted who the within instrument and known to mu to bu ths persons executed tho within instrument on behalf o~ said corporation, said corporation being known to ma to bu one of the partners of tho partno=ship tha~ o~cut~d the within insCrumont, and acknowl~dgod to ma tha~ such co~oration executed the same as such partner and that such p~r~nor~hip e~outed the sams. WITNESS my hand and o~iolal sea1. (Znd£vidual ~urat for T~eng Shu-Jen chon) Notar~ Public in for said elate, pereonally appeared Tseng Shu-Jen Chon~ parsonally known to me, or p~ovod to me on the basio of s~tiofnctorY ~videnco, to be the potson who uxeoutu~ tho ~.~lth~n TIlTNESS my hand and official (Offio~l Doo\8 887.,m c14 · Ea e 021390 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 9, 1997 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Thomas Grahn, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-1! - LAUREN DEVEI, OPMENT - 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. (Continued from June 11, 1997.) ANALYSIS: This application was continued from the June 11, 1997, Planning Commission meeting to allow both staff and the Planning Commission the opportunity to review and respond to the issues presented at that meeting. In addition to a fair representation of property owners within the Haven View Estates Homeowners Association stating their opposition to the proposed project, there was also representation from the Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") and the Spirit of the Sage Council opposing the project through oral and written testimony. The following summation addresses the issues presented at that meeting. In addition, the applicant has provided their own response to the issues raised (Exhibits "D, ""E," "F," and "G"). A. Failure to Provide Notice. There are two issues regarding notice related to this project. The first concerns the notice for the May 27, 1997, Neighborhood Meeting. As stated in the staff report dated June 11, 1997, these notices were mailed out on May 21, 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. Notices for this meeting were mailed out by the management company for the two homeowners associations. This meeting was not a City function, but rather a Neighborhood Meeting between the applicant and adjacent homeowners. The second issue has to do with notice for the June 11, 1997, Planning Commission meeting. No notice was provided for this project because the project does not require review as an advertised public headng. The Development Code requires review and consideration by the Planning Commission, but not as a public hearing, and as such was scheduled as a consent calendar item. B. Invalid Tract Map. Statements that the Tract Map is invalid are incorrect. Tract 14771 and Vadance 90-08 were initially approved by the Planning Commission on November 14, 1990; the initial approval was for two years. On October 28, 1992, the Planning Commission approved a one-year time extension for Tract 14771 and Variance 90-08 extending the ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT July 9, 1997 Page 2 project until November 14, 1993. In 1993, Senate Bill 428 automatically extended, by 24 months, the expiration date of any tentative subdivision map that had not expired by September 13, 1993. As the map was still valid on that date, Tract 14771 and Variance 90-08 were extended until November 14, 1995. On October 30, 1995, the City Planner approved a one-year time extension for Tract 14771 and Variance 90-08 extending the project until November 14, 1996. And finally, in 1996 Assembly Bill 711 automatically extended, by 12 months, the expiration date of any tentative subdivision map that had not expired by May 14, 1996. As the map was still valid on that date, Tract 14771 and Variance 90-08 were extended until November 14, 1997. The extensions granted by the State of California are in addition to any City extensions. The Municipal Code establishes cdteria for the extension of tentative tract maps. Section 16.16.170(C) identifies that "Extensions may be granted for a pedod or pedods not exceeding a total of three years." As the City has only approved two time extension requests, one additional time extension request may be considered extending the tentative map and variance until November 14, 1998. C. Violation of CEQA. Statements that the proposed project violates CEQA are incorrect. The proposed project is the design review of 40 single family homes and, as such, is not subject to further environmental analysis. As part of the initial project evaluation of Tentative Tract 14771, staff completed the Initial Study to analyze and address potential environmental impacts. That evaluation recommended, and the Planning Commission approved, a Negative Declaration for the project. Following approval, the Negative Declaration and Notice of Determination were filed with the County Clerk. Regarding compliance with Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game requirements for evaluation of the gnatcatcher and sage scrub habitat; the applicant's representative stated (as the attached minutes reflect) that the applicant is fully aware of the requirements and obligations under the Federal Endangered Species Act, that they intend to comply with Federal and Stare requirements, and that they are aware that violation carries both civil and criminal penalties. D. Design and Construction Concerns. Several design and construction concerns were also identified and include: removal of the existing levee, access to the project, unit compatibility, and the financial stability of the applicant. The Conceptual Grading Plan approved with the Tentative Tract Map proposed the removal of the existing earthen levee and the installation of a concrete drainage channel along the northern boundary of the tract. Exhibit "D" of the June 11 staff report clearly shows the existing earthen swale and the proposed concrete channel and, as previously expressed by staff, the proposed Grading Plan is in substantial conformance with the originally approved Grading Plan. Access to the project site will take place from the existing streets within Haven View Estates. The Tentative Tract Map identifies a street pattern, consistent with the surrounding streets, taking access from both Ringstem Drive and Tackstem Street. Recorded street easement and maintenance agreement documents have been submitted to staff. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT July 9, 1997 Page 3 The project was designed to meet the requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations with respect to setbacks, lot coverage, grading, unit massing, etc. The architectural variety was reviewed by the Design Review Committee and recommended to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Residents have expressed concerns with the size of the proposed units. As stated in the June 11 staff report, units range in size from 3,127 to 4,307 square feet which far exceeds the minimum City requirement of 1,000 square feet. Further, they are consistent with homes in the area. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Development Review 97-11 through adoption of the attached Resolution. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:TG/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - June 11, 1997, Planning Commission Staff Report Exhibit "B" - June 11, 1997, Planning Commission Minutes Exhibit "C" - Letters of Opposition Received after June 11, 1997, Meeting Exhibit "D" - June 30, 1997, Letter from Applicant Exhibit "E" - June 27, 1997, Letter from Hewitt & McGuire Exhibit "F" - June 25, 1997, Letter from Jackson, DeMarco, & Peckenpaugh Exhibit "G" - June 26, 1997, Letter from MDS Consulting Resolution of Approval with Conditions CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: June 11, 1997 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Thomas Grahn, Associate Planner SUBJECT: 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 Ddve 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 Distdct 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 pdvate streets. The project site is located on a remainder parcel in the northeast portion of the gated community (see Exhibit "A"). ANALYSIS: A. Background: Tract 14771 was approved by the Planning Commission on November 14, 1990. That approval included a 40-lot subdivision of the project site (see Exhibit "B") and proposed grading (see Exhibit "D"). B. 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 intedor 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 altematives 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. PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT DR 97-11 - LAUREN DEV. June 11, 1997 Page 2 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. C. Design Review C,,0mmitt~e: The Design Review Committee (Bethel, Macias, Coleman) reviewed the project on May 20, 1997, and recommended approval subject to the following: 1. 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. D. Nei0hborhood 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 "A" Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" Original Tract Map Exhibit "C" Detailed Site Plan/Grading Plan Exhibit "D" Odginal Grading Plan Approved for Tract 14771 Exhibit "E" Landscape Plan Exhibit "F" Potential Corral Pads Exhibit "G" Elevations Exhibit "H" - Design Review Committee Comments Exhibit"l" - May 27, 1997 Neighborhood Meeting Sign-In Sheet Exhibit "J" - May 29, 1997 Letter from Applicant Resolution of Approval CITY OF R AMONGA ¢!~1/q-~ PLAN ~.,~S~1ON Exhibit: ~t '"~'~~:"~I' ~: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14771 Ik.&. D~¥. OF ~t~-,-~-~~~~,~.~ ....... ~ ~/~j , .==,.=="' t~x ::~" ~ACT ' ~: "-, :' -- , . ...... ~ OF i=1~1~~1;~ Project: Title: (~/~,¢l,~r~ "~'~0~ CITY ~OC, AMONGA i~ON Exhibit~ ': i! ONGA ~t/- t~ ' " CITY OF F! AMONGA Exhibit: tt,~ !', Date: \ (~I~ ~'~ "'""~'"' "~ PLAN I :-ILS ON ~t~AMONGA ' h~, ~:~.u CITY N: I'/~.~:~ 1SION Exhibit: ., i- Pate:~ ~1111~1- ,>:.,..,~ ~ ~ - _ ....... CITY OF R AMONGA Exhibit: Project: Title: CITY OF R AMONGA - PL. AN~~J:.'~isto~ Exhibit: , Date: OF R/~'~I~'i.~¢AMONGA Date: C'TYPLANi~iL~.~.S.~ON Exhibitl~" PLAN I SIDE SLOPE ,/~..~ ~.,~.,, .... ~:.,.,, - '~'"*?..*' Project: CITY OF R~Ne.,B~-'C¢CAMONGA Title: P LA N 'N I '~"~:";~t':~~iSiON ~ .......~;...zE:..,,~ .........¢ Exhibit: ~ [ Date .. RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ~,~.-,~ LEFT SIDE ELEVATION FRENCH COUNTRY PLAN 1 SIDE SLOPE .A' .,,~ ~,i~,.~ .~ ~: .~::t:'-'""~%,~,:~;!'~.'.~ Project:~1Z. ~-~L PLAN~I '~":~'"~O]T'~:isjION Exhibit: Date: ~' -~'~ ' ~!P' ~~~~~.~ .... I FRONT ELEVATION o,.,. ,., ~,,,,.~ 0o~ ~" .... FRONT OPTIONAL PORTE COC~RE REAR ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION ~ .... LEFT SIDE ELEVATION RIGHT OPTIMAL PORTE COC~RE SPANISH COLONIAL PLAN 2 SIDE SLOPE 7:: ~.,..,~'~:~..:~:~4'~?.,:: Project: ::.:~.~'.'-~::.s..~ . .~>. ~.. ~.:~'.'...c.'.~:. /.~.,..:..'~.,"~.:.':~.':~ CITY OF R~'N'-C..~O~ :(~UICAMONGA Title: PLAN N I 'l~':~'ib!;~:iS)O N Exhibit: ~4'I' Date' .. ~ .... ,,, -, '~?~¥ . '~ FRONT ELEVATION '~ ~, ~ ' '~ ~ ' ~ s~ ~, ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~co ~ FRONT OPTIONAL PORTE COC~RE REAR ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION ~ .... LEFT SIDE ELEVATION RIGHT OPTIONAL PO~TE ITALIAN TUSCAN PLAN 2 SIDE SLOPE ~/~' if ~'~ ~'~'~l:~ ~' ~:.?. ~:,,z~:,:qt'*?...:~.':~.~ Project: ~ ~1-Ik CITY OF RAN':~Bg,C.,OCAMONGA Title- ~k~0~ L.&..:.~C~: ............ { Exhibit: Date: ' ~i- :--:-': ......."PLAN ,-,~,* .., 3 UPHILL CITY 0 F "?~*~I'~=~' A M 0 N O A Title: L~.~¢]':j~., .....~ Exhibit: Date: FRONT ELEVATION ...... ' '""""" ~'~7 ~=" ~.. ~. ., ,~ mgHT S~DE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ~.,~LEFT S~DE ELEVATION FRENCH COUNTRY PLAN 3 UPHILL '~;: :~:i~ *~"~'%~"~e?' Project: ~- '~*~.. ,~., ~,~'~, ~'.~:'l CITY OF R,~'Ne..BO,C¢CAMONGA Title: PLAN"~ l:~ISiON Exhibit: ~7 Date: . FRONT ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAP. ELEVATION ,~.,~ LEFT SIDE ELEVATION ITALIAN TUSCAN PLAN 3 UPHILL "!~'~", '~'~')~, Project: ~? · :f-~'~. ~..- .,.~.. ~:.,. ~.,..?~ CITY OF R~N'.Q..D.O~/q:I3gAMONGA Title: ~'~-/~ P LAN'N I '~'~]~iSION Exhibit: Date: PLAN 4 UPHILL ~:: ,~?~' ":'~":~' ~.?,~'.', Project: ~¢."~ :.,..:.,,.. ,.,.., ,,,&,. ?...,-4 CITY OF RAN'..C:BO~ ,..OI~¢AMONGA Title: ~,....~:............,,.,~ , ,, ,, ~,(,~ ¢, .....s,..,;¢(-.;.,..,.,,.~ .........iExhibit: , Date: . --~-~ KIT BED 4 · [~ ~ CHEN SECTION A PLAN 4 SIDE SLOPE ~. :"~': ~/-;~_ ',;A. ~, .,.~L~';,f Project: CITY OF R~'N'-.C-.'BO,;~.O~AMONGA Title: ~'L,~'~ .... ..z~.~..~.[":.~. ...........,~ Exhibit: ~' ~ld'~ Date: FRONT ELEVATION FRONT OPTIONAL PORTE COCHERE REAR ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION ...... LEFT SIDE ELEVATION RIGHT OPTIONAL PORTE COCH[RE SPANISH COLONIAL PLAN 4 SIDE SLOPE ..,? R~N'-~ :~,OGAMONGA Title: c.,, o~ ~ '~:'~;':.":~':'~I°"~xh~t: ....... L ..¢ . ...... ~ ~ ~, ....~ FRONT ELEVATION ~ ,,~ ~ ~ ~ /~o ~ FRONT OPT~NAL P~TE C~RE . ----- -~ ~ ~ ..... ~ ~- ~~,_~ ~ .... ~L~_. - ...... REAR ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION LEFT SIDE ELEVATION RIGHT OPTIONAL PORTE COCHERE FRENCH COUNTRY PLAN 4 SIDE SLOPE ~' ~'" ~.' ' ¢~~~'~2' ~'~¢, Project: CITY OF R~F~.~"~AMONGA Title: PLAN h I ;~';:~:"~];~'iSl O N Exhibit: ~{¢ Date: ~. .....~,,,.,~.L"'~' , ............ RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ..... LEFT SIDE ELEVATION SPANISH COLONIAL PLAN 4 UPHILL ~" ..,,.;.~' ',w~--~, Project: CITY OF R~N'-D...~, :C:.OCAMONGA Title' P LA N 'N I '~'"';~'.l:.~tS~ O N ~ ........~,..,.~¥::L** .....~ Exhibit: ~i~x Date: -'~,~a~-~~~~~~-,' .~ ?.i' . / ' L II!i1111 ...../1 FRONT ELEVATION ....... ~ ~'~' ~IGHT SIDE EEEVATION REAR ELEVATION ~ .... LEFT SIDE EEEVATION FRENCH COUNTRY PLAN 4 UPHILL ,~' ~ ~.~:'~ ~:' ,~ ,' '~"~.~,.- :,~:,* Project: CITY OF FIA:N'~BO,,..:~i~AMONGA Title: . ~: ....~--~-~i~:.. .........1 Exhibit: L, ~!~ 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, 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. Background: Tract 14771 was originally approved by the Planning Commission on November 14, 1990. ThYproject 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 ! ~/~d 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 following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major I~sue~: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. 1. 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. 2. 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. SecondaN Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. Lots 23 and 39 do not meet the front setback requirement. CITY OF R.~ Project: Title: AMONGA PLAN LII //'~q Exhibit: Date: DR.C COMMENTS DR. 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT May 20, 1997 Page 2 2. Lot 1 does not meet the ~:orner side yard setback for the porte-cochere. 3. Provide door and window stucco surrounds on all elevations. · . 4. Provide additional multi-pane window treatments to the side and rear elevations. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee forward 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 txvo-story vertical plane. He opposed the proposed houses because they did not'f~ll the width of the lot. Design Review (~ommittee 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: 1. 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' ~ ,~'1'[~ . CITY OF R AMONGA Title: PLA '1 ,I~.~~ON Exhibiti' LAUREN DEVELOPMENT INC. May 29, 1997 R E C E I V E D Mr. Thomas Grahn Associate Planner M~¥ ~ ~} 1997 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division Rancho Cucamonga, Ca-91729 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: cl t[ CITY OF AMONGA Title: PLA I,~ON 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 fi-ont 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 Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 11030 An'ow Route, Suite 102 FAX 909 484.1864 //~.]~5 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA " 'PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 11, 1997 Vice Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Ddve, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Vice Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker (arrived at 7:30 p.m. and was seated at 9:00 p.m.) William Bethel, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: Rich Macias STAFF PRESENT: Brad Bullet, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Tom Grahn, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Bullet, City Planner, indicated that staff had been contacted by some residents who expressed concerns regarding Item A and new information had been submitted which was before the Planning Commission. He suggested that the Commission pull the item from the Consent Calendar, allow public comments, and continue the matter until July 9, 1997, in order to allow staff and the Commission to review the materials submitted. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Bethel, carried 3-0-2 (Barker and Macias absent),. to approve the minutes of the Adjourned meeting of April 9, 1997. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Bethel, carried 3-0-2 (Barker and M',~ias absent), to approve the minutes of May 14, 1997. The Minutes for May 28, 1997, were not acted upon because Commissioners Bethel and McNiel had not been present at that meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR A. 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. Vice Chairman McNiel pulled Item A from the Co/~ent CTndar. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the item was before the Planning Commission only to review the design of the homes. He reported that the tractmap was approved in 1990 and the environmental clearance was also completed in 1990. He stated that letters had been presented from attorneys who disagree. Tom Grahn, Associate Planner, presented a staff report and indicated three letters had been received in opposition to the project. Vice Chairman McNiel invited public comment. John Allday, Lauren Development, 11030 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, thanked st, aft for its guidance in understanding the Hillside Development Ordinance. He reported they had met with many residents of Haven View Estates and have incorporated many of l. he comments. He stated the project is in compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance and the grading plan is consistent with the approved tract map and the conceptual grading plan approved in 1990. He felt the development is consistent with the community and stated they had researched the building permits and design review applications of the existing and approved houses in the development. He presented a summary of existing home sizes and a graph showing that 60 percent of the existing homes are equal to or smaller than the proposed homes. He reported that 55 homes have been built on the 243 home sites. Mr. Allday stated that in July 1996 his firm had begun consultations with the existing homeowners associations within the community. He said they met with the members of the boards of the associations eadier this year and the associations expressed concerns about access, development rights, and association management issues. He stated those issues had been resolved years ago in court approved settlement agreements which were recorded against all of the properties. He indicated they also had a neighborhood meeting. He said there have been some recent design changes as a result of comments from those meetings including adding surrounds around all windows and doors, decreasing the number of homes with front-on garages, changing the plotting to increase square footage, and agreeing to provide a second plan elevation for Plan 1. He indicated they have an optional design element on Plan 3 which the homeowners want to make standard even though that will defeat the diversity argument and said they will provide that element where setbacks permit it. He stated they had added four more color schemes which will provide 6 floor plans, 12 elevations, and 16 color and material schemes which would allow for up to 264 combinations of homes on their 44 lots. He showed a rendering of Plan 3. The following people spoke in opposition to the project: Malissa McKeith, Loeb & Loeb, LLP, 1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800, Los Angeles Leeona Klippstein, Spirit of the Sage Council, P.O. Box 77027-102, Pasadena Bill Angel, 12966 Arapaho Road, Rancho Cucamonga Mahlan Sampson, P. C). Box 1327, Rancho Cucamonga Tim Resar, 5078 Granada, Rancho Cucamonga Bruce Ann Hahn, 5087 Granada Court, Rancho Cucamonga -." Doug Kreinheder, 4146 Clover Place, Rancho Cucamonga Mike Montgomery, 10213 19th Street, Rancho Cucamonga Ruben Salazar, 4981 Ginger Court, Rancho Cucamonga Robert Cantarero, 5122 Equine Place, Rancho Cucamonga Tom Bradford, 5066 Granada Court, Rancho Cucamonga George Hicks, 10430 Almond, Rancho Cucamonga A petition with over 100 names in opposition to the project was presented. Concerns were raised regarding destruction of possible California Gnatcatcher habitat, potential for wild fires, potential for earthquakes, possibility that removal of a levy could increase danger of flooding, increased City liability in the event of a flood, changed water absorption rates and drainage patterns caused by grading, lack of sufficient public notice, reduction in property values, lots being too small, large equipment traffic for removal of dirt, construction traffic, lack of diversity in architecture and variation in roof lines, lack of review by the existing homeowners association architectural review board, wear P,anning Commission Minutes -2-/~,_~' June 11, ~1997 and tear on streets, number of construction workers in the area and possible increase in crime because of the presence of such workers, and possible non-compliance with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding habitat conservation signed by the City. One resident complained that too many garages will be visible from the street even when they are pulled back and indicated the 33 percent maximum for front facing garages was really an intent to hide garages to give more of an estate feeling. Objections were raised that tract homes should not be allowed in a community that is comprised mostly of custom homes. It was acknowledged that another developer had built tract homes in the community, but those homes were over 5,200 square feet. It was felt the proposed homes will be too small and it was pointed out that houses will expand square footage by increasing interior space, not by expanding walls. It was stated that the average house size built since 1990 has been over 5,400 square feet. Pictures of all of the homes in the gated community were presented. A board member of one of the existing homeowners associations stated that Lauren should join one of the existing associations and pay full fees. One resident requested an opportunity to meet with Planning slaff and the developer regarding the designs. One resident stated that Lauren had incorporated in 1988 and he felt that indicated a lack of experience by the developer. The financial stability of the developer was questioned and allegations were made that a pdor company owned by the developer had been sued. A request was made that the City determine if there were any problems or lawsuits in connection with prior projects developed by the applicant. One individual indicated a juice bar and private home is located at the business address of the developer. The residents requested further traffic, noise, and air pollution studies because of the funding and approval of the Route 30 freeway and additional biological studies regarding the California Gnatcatcher and coastal sage. It was contended that the Planning Commission's review of the design reopened the matter with respect to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). One resident requested a full Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Allday stated there is a business sign on the front door of their business and said he had been a private planner for over 21 years, a government planner for 6 years, and is a Planning Commissioner in another City. He stated there had been many untrue things said and asked that the Commissioners remember that the subject is the design review of the houses. He noted that several statements had been made that they had not contacted the homeowners or board members of the homeowners association. He asserted they had dealt with Euclid Management Company which handles the day-to-day operations of the homeowners associations and indicated they have written correspondence from the management company. He stated that the project is in compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance and all City codes. Jeffrey Borum, Gipson, Hoffman, & Pancione, 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles, stated his firm represents Lauren Development and the company is owned by two people, Bill and Cathy Ford, who have been in the development field for 15 years. He said they are a small firm that does quality work. He noted that the City code does not require 7,500 square foot homes even'though residents may want larger homes to increase their own property values. He said this was ihe first time they had heard there is serious opposition to the project. He stated there are court settlements which grant Lauren access easements over Ringstem, Tackstem, and Clover. He said those access rights were litigated by Cristiano, the former owner, in the late 1980s and the agreement was signed by representatives for both existing homeowners associations. He stated the developer has not been sued for fraud. He noted that Western Residential was a prior company in the 1980s which broke up because there was another partner involved, not because of a lawsuit. Mr. Borum stated that the court documents regarding access dghts also allow Lauren to form its own homeowners association and a final decision regarding that matter has not been made but Lauren is leaning toward doing so. Andrew Hartzel, Hewitt & McGuire, Irvine, 19900 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 1050, Irvine, said he is the natural resources counsel to Lauren. He stated Lauren is fully aware of the requirements and obligations under the Federal Endangered Species Act. He said they intend to comply fully with the Endangered Species Act, both federal and state, and do not intend to take any listed species Planning Commission Minutes -3~ ~:~ June 11, 1997 associated with this project development. He stated his client is fully aware that the act carries civil and criminal sanctions. He reported Lauren Development requested that the Army Corps of · Engineers visit the site and the Corps confirmed they do not have jurisdiction on the site. He said they also had the Department of Fish and Game visit the site to be sure there are no riparian areas under its jurisdiction and it was determined that is not an issue. He reported that Lauren hired a team of Gnatcatcher biologists to survey the site and no birds were found on the site or in the immediate area bordering the site. He stated California Department of Fish and Game staff sent a letter in April indicating that the four surveys conducted were not sufficient. He said he called the service in April to ask what its concerns were and still had not heard back from them but he would continue to follow up. He commented that Lauren Development is under no obligations to do any further surveys for the Gnatcatcher. He stated the Fish and Wildlife Service has no authority to compel Lauren to do any surveys and said they would continue to dialogue with the service. He indicated he was very familiar with the MOU referred to by Ms. Klippstein and said this project would not violate the MOU. He stated the action before the Planning Commission is a design review issue and not defined as a project for the purposes of CEQA. He said the CEQA issues which had been raised were not relevant to the discretionary action of by the Planning Commission with respect to the design review. He commented that the issues raised by CURE and Spirit of the Sage would apply to all undeveloped lots in the community, not just this parcel. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Bethel, to continue Development Review 97-11 to July 9, 1997. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BETHEL, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: BARKER, MACtAS - carried Mr. Bullet indicated that a copy of the tape for tonight's meeting would be provided to the two Commissioners who were not present so they would be brought up to date. He encouraged residents to visit the Planning Division and noted the applicant had also extended an invitation to meet with residents. He hoped the residents would take the time to understand the project before it returned to the Commission on July 9. He stated the City has met and exceeded the requirements of the state with respect to noticing and public review of the project. He asked the residents to talk to their neighbors regarding the next meeting. The Planning Commission recessed from 8:45 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., at which time Chairman Barker joined the Commission. PUBLIC HEARINGS -. '. B. 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 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: Parcel Map 14001. C. 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 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. Planning Commission Minutes -4-/~,~¢ June 11, 1997 6-16-97 To: Members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, My family and I have been residents of the Cucamonga area for 42 years. I raised my family on Archibald Ave. (the current location of the Rancho Cucamonga library). In 1986, after years of hard work, I purchased a custom home lot in Haven View Estates. It was expressed to me by Realtors that Haven View Estates, at the north part of Haven Ave., was the prime location in the City to build a custom home. We spent 18 months building. We have a nice custom home of approx. 5000 SF and have enjoyed our living in our neighborhood for the last ten years. It has now come to my attention that a developer is coming into our project to build a tract of homes. I can't believe that the city of Rancho Cucamonga would let a tract development like this come within our gates after many years of continuos custom home building. There are many areas in the city that tract home development can take place, this is one of the very few areas in Rancho Cucamonga that is exclusively designated for custom homes. As you know, even higher end tract homes still degrade and lower the property values (our lifetime investment) of individual custom homes. Although I attended the neighborhood/~,~ the developer in May and attended the Planning Commission meeting in June, I regret I am unable attend the July 9m meeting. I am looking forward to the city's support in keeping our project a custom home development. Sincerely, Earle E Kruggel JUN ! 6 1991 4951 Cactus CT. Rancho Cucamonga 91737 ~,t), ot Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division EXHIBIT"C" 7/9/97 June 23, 1997 Mr. E. David Barker Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 ~C~t~D Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91729 .,~n~o Cuc~°~ Dear Mr. Barker: C~¥O~°'-~Ow~u On July 9, 1997, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission is scheduled to hear a matter involving a proposed housing development on 26 acres in the northern part of the city, just south of the National Forest and near our home. The application has been submitted by the Lauren Development Co. of Agoura Hills. If this housing development is completed, it has the potential to create a number of problems for the community and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Therefore, it is imperative that this proposed development and any proposed in the future be stopped. We do support expansion within the City. However, it must be reasonable. The proposed housing development site is located on steep, hilly terrain near the northernmost point of Haven Avenue. This project would inappropriately alter the natural flood plain and potentially endanger residents in the immediate area after fires and heavy rains, which are inevitable in our area. The proposed development would also have the impact of destroying a sensitive and nonreplaceable wildlife habitat. It is believed that the site may qualify to be a protected area. The developer may have presented misleading information to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, whether by accident or design. They claim there are neither geological nor environmental concerns at issue. We along with many members of our community beg to differ. The risks the community and the City face by allowing this development to occur are great and may be very costly. We feel it is your responsibility to determine the facts and stop this disastrous development. Sincerely. ~ Ernie and Mary Maldonado 4947 Calico Court Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91737 '~"'~'~,A Z'~O ,-, June 27, 1917 '"~_~0~ Re: Haven View Estates Opposition to Lauren Development Projec~ Dear Councilmember, The Cucamonga Planning Staff are approving a housing project that place our homes and family at risk of flooding and rock debris. The Project involves removal of a levee that presently blocks three "blue line" streams- All of the existing flood ~ontrol'infrastructure (cited to justify removal of the levee) is built on earthquake faults where new studies reveal a possible 7.5 quake (15 times stronger than the Northridge earthquake). When the flood control debris basins are damaged in a quake, there will be flooding and debris flow. There are two designated landslide areas within a mile of our homes. The Planning Staff have not conducted any traffic studies. There are many children in our area and the streets are not designed to hold the amount of new traffic that would be created by the project. No air quality studies have been done concerning the health impacts on us and our children during grading of thousands of tons of soil from levee removal. The Project is on sensitive habitat land. There are less than 2,000 acres of this type of habitat land. The Planning Staff did not require any biological studies in violation of state and federal law. The planning staff has been biased toward the developer. It has refused to produce documents that are a matter of public record. As residents and tax payers, we have a right to fair, responsible planning staff who take our safety into account. If the Project is approved and there is ever flooding in our area, we will sue the City for damages. Irene Santuci Home Owner Irene Santuci (909)987-5001 5096 Calypso Ct. Mark C. Estupinian ' 11045 Ranch Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91737 (909) 945-3346 June 26, 1997 Senator Barbara Boxer 2250 East Imperial H~ Suite 545 El Segundo, CA 90245 Re: Lauren Development Inc. Proposed Site for Homes Dear Senator Boxer: Over the Memorial weekend, while vacationing with our family, we received a letter from our current homeowners Association, that there was a community headng at the City Hall in Rancho Cucamonga on the Final Approval for the Proposed Home Sites of Lauren Development, Inc. on June, 11,1997. This was the first and only letter on the development that we received. It wasn't until several neighbors researched and passed out information on just how the proposed project was going to affect us. At the meeting, Lauren Development spoke of there proposed homes showing us there elevation of the homes and spoke regarding the square footage of these homes and how they would not affect the values of our homes. Being a custom home builder myself, I have tried hard with design to blend to the surrounding environment with indigenous materials in hopes that other builders would follow my practice, but because of cost issues, I understand that when you build for profit, this becomes your sole objective. At first, our primary objective at the meeting was to address these issues, but after learning of the proposed grading plan, this became a more important issue, to protect my family and property. Lauren Development proposed to eliminate a levee that protects our community from several blue line streams which they have concluded are dried up and they say that this levee is not needed. I can't believe our present planning commission could be so out of touch with there surrounding area's. These streams run right to the east of my house and are collected by a catch basin in hopes to catch the run off and protect the community below us. Of course they are dried up during the summer time, but these streams become very active dudng the rains of the winter and spring seasons. If this levee is removed, it would put my family and surrounding neighbors in danger during a wet winter (such as the winter predicted for this year's El Ninyo). This levee is also the only protection from failure of an infrastructure, a mile above us, that was constructed on a fault line that current studies have revealed (other than their eight-year outdated study) a possible 7.5 quake which is 15 times stronger than the Northridge earthquake. I am currently a member of the Mt Baldy ski patrol and have experienced first hand the effects on our local mountain of large snow pack conditions with warm tropical rains on top of them. If we have the kind of condition we had during the 1932 flood and the more resent flood of 1968 this levee would be our only protection from disaster. Many homes would be lost and peoples lives would be at dsk. They don't know if that infrastructure will hold dudng these types of conditions, especially if it had been damaged by an earthquake. In our community we have very limited area of natural habitat left. This is where Lauren Development proposes to construct there homes. I am told that there are less than 2,000 acres of this area left in the wodd. My daughter and I both like to walk and enjoy the deer and other natural wild life that exist there. Although I have always been in favor in the growth of our Community, I think that it is most disconcerting that when there is so much land in Rancho Cucamonga, from vacant groves to vineyards, that they would tear this sensitive habitat out only to adjoin more than over 100 lots that are undeveloped for over 10 years and in doing so put our families in danger. 0 This is why I have written to you today. We are in desperate need of your help/!/ If this development goes through, it will not only put my family in jeopardy but also the lives of others. I have never written the government before and have never been a firm believer in our system, but when our local government has all but approved such a potentially disastrous situation in this community, I had nowhere else to turn. Please, with your influence, convince our city government to at least have Lauren Development obtain current studies on earthquake, biological and flood control issues. Thank you for your time to here our plea for help. I would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience, as I know how busy your schedule is. Respectfully yours, a concerned citizen, Mark C. Estupinian cc: Members of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council: William J Alexander Paul Baine James V. Curatalo Rex Gutierrez Diane Williams Members of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: E. David Barker Bill Bethel Rich Mac/as Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy and Jay C. Kim E. David Barker JLIIV Planning Commission C~ty' 10500 Civic Center Dr. ~R_ancho C P.O. Box 807 '~nin~ ,.,..uca~,, Rancho Cucamonga. Ca 91729 Regarding: Lauren Development Project, Rancho Cucamonga We are writting to you because of a growing c, oncern we have about a housing project that if approved will begin. in our neighborhood shortly. As voting taxpayers we feel that we have the right to a fair and responsible planning staff who will take our safety and concerns into account before any "approvals" are processed. Our main concerns are the following: 1) The Cucamonga Planning Staff is planning to approve a housing project that place our home and many others at risk for flooding and rock debris. This project involves removal of a levee that presently blocks three blue line streams. All of the existing flood control infrastructure which has been cited by Lauren Development ( the project developer) is built on earhtquake faults where new studies reveal a possible 7.5 quake could take place. A quake of this magnitude or greater would surely damage the flood control debris basin. This could result in serious flooding and debris flow. There are two designated landslide areas within a mile of our home. The levee the developer plans to take out is critical to the safety of our homes and us. 2) The project plans to build on sensitive habitat land. There are less thatn 2,000 acres like this habitat in the world. Isn't it a violation of state and federal law for the planning staff to ignore the requirement of any biological studies on this land? 3) No air quality studies have been done concerning the health impacts on us and our children during grading of the thousands of tons of soil from the levee removal. 4)' We have a 2yr old and a baby on the way. Other neighbors have small children as well. The planning staff has not looked into the design of our streets and whether they will hold the amount of new traffic that this developementJproject would create in our neighborhood. By the way we pay hefty fees to be a part of our homeowners association. We never intended these fees to pay for non associations members to enjoy our common areas etc. every day at our expense. Our streets were not designed to accomodate all of the anticipated extra traffic. What kind of modifications children with the sizeable increase in traffic. 5) We also are very concerned with the impact these new homes would have on our property values. From what we understand about the tract homes the builder intends on building, is that the value of these homes would be far less than the lower price range of the custom homes in our neighborhood. We as homeowners have worked very hard to be in the position to invest in our current home as well as our fellow association members. This is an investment to us. Isn't there any level of protection we have against a project like this to protect the value of our investment? We know that the value of these new tract hemes will greatly devalue our home (investment) as well as the other CL~stom homes in this neighorhood. The developer has blatently ignored this concern. Will the city and county be lowering our property tax bills etc. accordingly?? The people in this neighborhood are some of the higher paying Voting Tax payers in this county. As residents and taxpayers, we have a right to a fair, responsible planning staff who will take our safety and concerns into account. So far the planning staff has been biased toward the developer and has refused to produce documents that are a matter of public record to our association. If this project is approved and there is ever any flooding or accidents resulting from the above concerns we will have the right to sue the City for damages ....especially since more than one of the homeowners here have brought these concerns to the attention of several city and planning staff members. Please help. Sincerely, Karen&Lauren Althaus 4907 Calico Ct. Alta Loma, Ca 91737 (909)945-3071 or (909) ~6-7636 Dr. & Mrs. Arvind Kumra 5088 Granada Crt. Alta Loma, CA 91737 6/28/97 R E C E i V E D E. David Barker Planning Commission JUL 0 1 1997 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 City of Rancrto CucamongaG~,~,¥ Planning Division Dear E. David: We are writing this letter to you because ~ve are very concerned about the approval of a housing project located near our home. We were~surpfised to find out about this project two weeks before it was to come before the planning commission for final approval. We were not aware that this land (which we thought was a levee) could even be developed. The property in question is located North East of Haven View Estates. As homeowners in this area, we are quite worried about the added risk of flooding and increased traffic through our small streets. After investigating the records on the proposed tract, we discovered that a negative declaration was approved for the area back in 1990. It amazes me that the city can determine that there would be no environmental impact to the proposed homes or the homes located south of this levee which they plan to flatten without any research to support this builder. No environmental studies have been done. Isn't anyone concerned about the two designated landslide areas within a mile of our homes, or the flooding risks if the flood control debris basins are damaged from an earthquake? We also are quite concerned about traffic and air quality which will affect us and our children's safety and health as they remove thousands of tons of soil to grade and remove the levee. No traffic studies or air quality studies have been done to consider our safety. No biological studies have been done to determine if this land should be preserved. Lauren Development has been quite secretive about their plans to develop this area because I'm sure they knew that the homeowners would strongly object to destroying this levee. There are many many undeveloped lots within RC V, Haven View Estates, and Deer Creek which this developer could build on. Why are we cutting into nature, removing a levee which protects our land, and building homes close to huge power lines which you can hear buzzing overhead, when we have so many lots already available for building with streets and sidewalks and equestrian trails in place. We are appealing to you to support our efforts to stop the approval of this project. Allowing this builder to bypass necessary environmental impact reviews could result in the city's liability for flood damage. Please help us protect our homes and our city. Sincerely, ~ ~ L Arvind and Lynne Kumra RECEIVED ,JUL 0 1997 Ci~y of Rancho Cucamonga June 24, ! 997 Dear Larry McNiel, Planning Division I am writing to you in regards to a housing tract proposal in Rancho Cucamonga. Lauren Development is planning approximately 40 homes at the top of Haven Avenue that will remove the levee that presently blocks three "blue line" streams. The existing flood control infrastructure is built on earthquake faults where new studies reveal a possible 7.5 quake(15 times stronger than the Northridge earthquake). When an earthquake occurs the control basins will most likely be damaged and there may be flooding and debris flow. This is very disturbing to me as I live below the proposed project. I also feel the issue of public safety needs to be addressed. In the event of a fire or other natural disaster there is a danger of only having exits off Haven Avenue. Being a rural setting where most of the area is in its natural state, an earthquake or fire could block the only exits. Increasing the gated community by 40 plus homes without another escape route is disaster waiting to happen. Yet another concem is the negative impact this project has on sensitive habitat land. There is less than two thousand acres of this type of land left in the world. It is my understanding the planning staffof Rancho Cucamonga did not require any biological studies which I believe to be a violation of state and federal laws. Unfortunately little time is left before the Planning Commission vote on July 9~', 1997. I would appreciate if you could address my concerns, and I believe a visit to the proposed site would allow you to see firsthand the adverse impact this development, if allowed, will have on our city. Sincerely, Sue Bradford 5066 Granada Court Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. 19737 LAUREN DEVELOPMENT INC. June 30, 1997 Mr. Thomas Grahn Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 - RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Dear Mr. Grahn: As you requested, the following represents our responses to recent comments made regarding our Design Review application. The comments we are responding to are from the following sources: I. Planning Commission Testimony, 6/11/97 2. Letter from Ms. Malissa McKeith to City's Attorney, dated 6/11/97 (including attachments) 3. Letter from Mr. Bill Angel to Planning Commission. dated 6/10/97 4. Letter t¥om Mr. Earle Kruggel to Planning Commission, dated 6/16/97 5. Letters from U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, dated 4/18/97 and 6/10/97 Even though most of these comments are beyond what we have been informed is the scope of a Design Review application, we will respond to the comments nevertheless. We respectfully reserve the right to add additional responses to these comments or to additional comments you may receive in the future. In some cases, we have elected to have others respond to specific comments, in which case those responses are so noted and are attached to this letter. COMMENT: The city and Lauren Development gave inadequate notification about this proiect to the residents. Lauren Development did not talk to all the property owners. Homeowners within 300 feet were not notified. RESPONSE: We have made extensive efforts to contact adjacent residents. We have been in contact with members of both existing association boards for at least one year, met formally with members of both boards in May, and met with other residents and property owners at the Design Review Committee Meeting and at a Neighborhood Meeting also held in May. Owners of 56% of all the lots in Haven View Estates were represented at the meetings held before the June 11, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. Subsequent to that time, we have mailed letters to each of the 106 property oxvners in Haven View Estates (addresses obtained from San Bernardino EXHIBIT "D" ~)9484-1863 FAX 909 484-1864 7/9/97 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - Page 2 County Assessor) inviting them to visit our office to see our plans. As of this writing, we have received no responses. In addition, the city has informed us that Design Review is not a "public hearing item" and notifications to all owners within 300 feet are not required. A detailed chronology of the correspondence and meetings hem with our neighbors and their elected homeowner's association board representatives is included as an attachment to this letter. (Reference Exhibit 1) COMMENT: Lauren Development is "taking" endanqered species. Lauren Development is violating the Endangered Species Act. RESPONSE: This is not true. We have complied with and will continue to comply with all city, county, state and federal laws governing listed species. We have conducted more on-site research and met with more government officials on this site than is required by any existing regulation or condition. We are confident implementation of this development -- consistent with approvals granted in 1990 as well as this Design Review application -- will not violate any provision of local, state or federal law concerning listed species or result in the "take" of any listed species. Please see fitrther comments in this regard in attached letter from Andrew Hartzell of the law firm of Hewitt & McGuire. (Reference Exhibit 2) COMMENT: The city and/or Lauren Development is violatin~ the Memorandum of Understanding / San Bernardino Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan bv approving this project. .. RESPONSE: This is not true. Please see further comments in this regard in attached letter from Andrew Hartzell of the law firm of Hewitt & McGuire. (Reference Exhibit 2) 909484-1863 FAX 909 484-1864 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - Page 3 COMMENT: City Design Review approval is subiect to CEQA. RESPONSE: This is not true. The issues dealt with as a part of the Design Review process have no potential for impacting the environment or addressing purported environmental concerns and therefore this project -- Design Review -- does not require additional analysis and documentation under CEQA. Please see further comments in this regard in attached letter fi'om Andrew Hartzell of the law firm of Hewitt & McGuire. (Reference Exhibit 2) COMMENT: The tentative tract map has expired. RESPONSE: This is not true. Ms. McKeith's letter of June 11, 1997 states that correspondence from Robert Cristiano in city files dated October 14, 1993 "clearly establishes" that an extension application was "not received in a timely fashion such that the subsequent approval of an extension of the Tentative Tract Map violated" a city ordinance and that "the 1993 approval of Cristiano's extension was defective and thus the Tentative Map expired as a matter of law." She is completely wrong. The correspondence to which she refers is merely a letter from Mr. Cristiano seeking acknowledgment from the city that the state had recently passed legislation giving an automatic extension to all maps in the state including his map, to which the city subsequently responded (October 20, 1993) in the affirmative. COMMENT: These homes and the proposed grading are not in compliance with the Hillside' Development Ordinance. Removal of the levee is not allowed bv the Hillside Development Ordinance. RESPONSE: This is not true. The house and grading plans we have submitted are in compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance, as staff has confirmed in their report. We are proud of that compliance and believe this will be looked upon as a model project in the city of Rancho Cucamonga. An analysis of existing site contours and proposed grading plans was submitted and reviewed when the tentative tract map application was filed in 1990 as required by the Hillside Development Ordinance. A Conceptual Grading Plan was approved concurrent with the 11030 Arrow Route. Suite l~Ra~n~ Cucamonga, CA 91730 909484-1863 FAX 909 484-1864 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - Page 4 tentative tract map and a condition was imposed on the tentative map which requires that all future grading be consistent with that Conceptual Grading Plan. Subsequently, the prior owner of the property, Brock Homes, submitted a "Rough Grading Plan" to the city Department of Building & Safety (Plan Check 92-0904), and that Rough Grading Plan was approved by the Planning Department on March 24, 1992 as being consistent with the 1990 Conceptual Grading Plan. Brock Homes was very near to initiating grading of the property at that time, however due to financial difficulties a grading permit was never issued and the site was not graded. The grading plan which we are now presenting as a part of this Design Review application is consistent with the 1990 Conceptual Grading Plan and the 1992 Rough Grading Plan. A comment was made that the levee cannot be graded, per the Hillside Development Ordinance, because its sides are steeper than 30%. That is not true. The Hillside Development Ordinance refers only to natural features which should be preserved if the slope is greater than 30%. The levee is not a natural feature. A re-analysis of the grading impacts is not necessary at this time. as the impacts of the grading plans were evaluated when the tentative tract map was first approved in 1990. Our homes have been designed to step with the slope, and minimal deviation from what was the original grade of the site will be required. Our six floor plans have major splits inside the homes, of 36", 54", 66", 66", 60" and 78", or from 3 to 6.5 feet. Also, the roof lines are within the building envelope requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance, and the use of2:l slopes, retaining walls and stem walls have been minimized. Our homes comply xvith the requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance, and city staff concurs. COMMENT: Traffic will adversely affect the community. RESPONSE: This is not true. The issue of traffic was raised by the homeowners at the time of the processing of the Tentative Tract Map. According to the Planning Department staff report dated September 26, 1990, the applicant, Brock Homes, conducted traffic studies and certain changes were made to the map to the satisfaction of this Commission and the homeowners. 11030 Arrow Route, S uite102~Ra~n~o C ucamonga, CA 91730 909484-1863 FAX 909 484-1864 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - Page 5 In addition, the Homeowner's Association entered into a separate recorded agreement with the previous owner of the property and agreed that"... no more than 45 homes [shall be built] so as to avoid an overburdening of the... streets... ". Also, the RCV CC&R's further state that this property "... will consist of no more than 42 lots... ". Both of these documents clearly inform future property owners that this property would be developed and would not overburden the community. Further, we plan to be sensitive to our neighbors during the construction period and construction vehicles will be extremely cautious of the residential nature of the community. Please see further comments in this regard in attached letter from Mr. Darren Hereford of the law firm of Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh. (Reference Exhibit 3 -paragraph E) Also see comments in this regard in attached letter from Andrew Hartzell of the law firm of Hewitt & McGuire. (Reference E:chibit 2) COMMENT: Removal of the levee will endanger downstream residents. RESPONSE: This is not true. As Ms. McKeith testified, she and her consulting engineer did not have time to review all the plans. Further, the conclusion made by her consulting engineer was based solely on a site visitation. In the words of the civil engineer who prepared the design plans for the new concrete channel, "the replacement of an aged, unlined, earthen training levee that was constructed years ago to provide flood protection until the Deer Creek Channel was complete, by a hardened concrete channel designed to current hydrologic and hydraulic standards, is one where the benefit is so obvious that it speaks for itself." .. Please see the complete comments in this regard in the attached letter from the civil engineer, Mr. Stanley Morse of MDS Consulting. (Reference Exhibit 4) COMMENT: Lauren Development's houses are too small for our community. RESPONSE: This is not true. There are currently 243 approved home sites within Haven View Estates, including our 40 lots. Of the 203 other lots, only 55 homes (or 27%) have been built thus far. The graph and chart A -O 11030 Arrow Route, Suite 102 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 909 484-1863 FAX 909 484-1864 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - Page 6 information we distributed at the last meeting provides a number of facts about the existing and proposed homes in Haven View Estates. These two exhibits are included as attachments to this letter. (Reference Exhibit 5) This material shows that: * Them are five homes in Haven View Estates less than 3,000 square feet, one home over 6,000 square feet and the rest in between. * The median home size is 4,086 feet. * There are more homes in the 3,000 to 4,000 square foot range than any other grouping. * Our homes range (outward appearance, optional interior areas expanded) from 3,143 square feet (and we only have 4 of these smallest homes) to 4,752 square feet. * Approximately 60% of the existing homes are less than or equal to the size of the homes we are proposing. * The average size of our homes is 4,107 square feet which is greater than the median size of the rest of the homes built in Haven View Estates. * The minimum square footage home allowed by the Haven View Estates HOA is 1,800 s.f. * The minimum square footage home allowed by the RCV / HOA is 3,000 s.f. Nineteen Design Review applications have been approved by the city for homes in Haven View Estates. While some of these Design Reviews have been for the larger homes lis~ed on the charts, the city has also approved Design Review applications for homes of 3,409 sf, 3,924 sf, 4,086 sf, 4,105 sfand 4,208 sf. The 3,900 and 4,200 sfapplications were approved as recently as last year. Our homes will be perfectly consistent with and compatible with the rest of the homes in Haven View Estates. Finally, Ms. McKeith, speaking for CURE, and Mr. Bill Angel, speaking for the RCV Homeowner's Association, both went on record in their testimony to the Commission on June 11, 1997 that the size of the homes proposed is not an issue. 11030 Amaw ~' CA 91730 Route, Suite 1'/~ Ra~nc~o Cucamonga, 909484-1863 FAX 909 484-1864 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - Page 7 COMMENT: Lauren Development's lots are too small. RESPONSE. This is not true. Lot sizes were determined when tentative subdivision map 14771 and variance 90-08 were approved in 1990. Our 40 lots have a minimum size of 20,045 square feet, a maximum size of 34,482 square feet and an average size greater than 21,000 square feet. COMMENT: All homes along Ringstem and Tackstem will be the same plan and will look the same. RESPONSE: This is not true. There are seven lots which abut these two streets. Three will be Plan l's, two xvill be Plan 2's, one will be a Plan 3 and one will be a Plan 4. All of the above plans have two different elevations. COMMENT: Rear garages must be counted as front-racine. RESPONSE: This is not true. When the conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 14771 were being considered in 1990, the existing associations offered testimony regarding the design of the homes on these 40 lots only with respect to the orientation of the garages relative to the street frontage. A condition to this effect ~vas imposed, and we have always planned on fully complying with this design condition. During the early stages of our development we worked very closely with staff to develop plans which would mitigate front facing garages. The placement of the garages to the very rear of the homes was proposed by our architect and discussed with staff. It was agreed that placing the garage to the rear of the home, creating garage setbacks of as much as 120 feet from the street, was an extremely effective way to meet this design objective. It should also be pointed out that front facing garages are at a minimum in this development. Since these garages will be placed significantly toward the rear of the homes, they will only be seen by passersby from directly in front of the home; when someone is slightly to the left or right of the front of the house, the garage will not be visible due to its position relative to the rest of the house or the neighboring house. COMMENT: Only "custom homes" are allowed in Haven View Estates. 11030An'ow Route, Suite 102~an~d~camonga, CA 91730 909484-1863 FAX 909 484..1864 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - Page 8 COMMENT: Only "custom homes" are allowed in Haven View Estates. RESPONSE: This is not true. There is no condition or other regulation requiring only custom homes, either imposed by the city or contained in any of the recorded documents governing any of the properties within Haven View Estates. A home-building company by the name of JCC has already constructed non-custom or "tract" homes in Haven View Estates. The construction of these tract homes was subject to existing homeowner association approval (which our lots are not), and said approval was granted. The homes which :ve are proposing for our forty lots are designed with numerous floor plan variations, different elevations, alternative exterior colors and textures, and other optional design features such as garden walls, portals, Porte-Cocheres and balconies which will allow buyers to select features to individualize and customize their homes. The six floor plans, twelve elevations and sixteen color/texture alternatives allow such flexibility that there are over 264 alternative exterior appearances for these homes. It is conceivable that no two homes will look alike. While we are under no obligation to construct "custom" homes, we have striven to make our homes as different from each other as possible, and thereby to be compatible with the neighboring community. Please see further comments in this regard in attached letter from Mr. Darren Hereford of the law firm of,Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh (Reference Exhibit 3 - second to last paragraph on page 4). COMMENT: This development will ruin the neighborhood and drive down sale's prices of other properties. RESPONSE: This is not true. Lauren Development fully appreciates the concerns presented by some of the owners over the value of their homes. It is our considered opinion that our development is a quality development and will have the added benefit of stimulating economic activity in this neighborhood. Resales of both vacant lots and existing homes in Haven View Estates have been minimal compared to the surrounding neighborhoods of Deer Creek and north western Alta Loma area, and overall property values for existing lots and homes have decreased over the last few years. While this is an unfortunate circumstance, its cause cannot be attributed to Lauren Development but to general 11030 Arrow Route, Suite 102 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 909 484-186~ FAX 909 484-1864 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - Page 9 economic conditions in Southern California during the last five years. We believe that the market is showing signs of becoming more active. We are confident that our development is compatible with existing development and can only improve the ultimate market for their neighborhood due to our ability to bring prospective purchasers into the community. Not all prospective purchasers will be interested in purchasing one of our homes, and therefore a greater opportunity will exist for the prospective purchasers to either purchase an existing home or perhaps achieve the dream of building their home by purchasing an existing lot. I can assure this Commission that we plan to offer our homes at prices consistent with today's strengthening housing market, These are large semi-custom homes and will command a commensurate price. We believe our development will stimulate the market for this neighborhood and have a substantial positive impact upon the economic stability and property values of the area. COMMENT: Lauren Developments lots are "part of" the rest of Haven View Estates and therefore must ioin existin.e HOA's. RESPONSE: This is not true. There are currently two separate homeowners' associations in the 243 lot gated community knoxvn as Haven View Estates. There is no requirement that our 40 lots be merged with either of the other two associations. To the contrary, the recorded documents specifically reserve the right to form a separate, third association. The method of determining and sharing common maintenance costs and responsibilities is also included in these documents. The documents referred to herein are the "Developer Street Easement and Maintenance Agreement," the "Association Street Easement and Maintenance Agreement," and the "First Amended and Restated Grant of Mutual Easement", and the CC&R's for the Rancho Cucamonga V / HOA. These documents have been provided to city planning staff as background information. The above documents were signed by representatives of the existing homeowner associations. Please see further comments in this regard in attached letterJ~om Mr. Darren Hereford of the law firm of dackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh (Red/krence Exhibit 3 -paragraph 11030 Arrow Route, Suite 102 Rand~o Cucamonga, CA 91730 909 4~4-186~ FAX 909 484-1~4 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - Page 10 COMMENT: Lauren Development's lots are "part of" the rest of Haven View Estates and therefore must gain architectural approval from existing HOA's. RESPONSE: This is not true. The court supervised settlement agreements referred to above provide for separate associations and none have review authority over the development of lots in the other associations. There is absolutely no basis for the statement that LDI's homes must be reviewed by the other associations or are subject to their architectural guidelines. As a side note, the only component of the Rancho Cucamonga V Homeowner Association CC&R's dealing with architecture is a minimum house size restriction of 3,000 square feet, which has been in effect since these CC&R's were originally recorded. A similar clause in the Haven View Estates CC&R's includes a minimum house size restriction of 1,800 square feet. While we are not subject to either of these CC&R's, we will meet these two requirements. Please see further comments in this regard in attached letter)qom Mr. Darren Hereford of the law firm of dackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh (Reference Exhibit 3 -paragraph D) COMMENT: This property has no access rights to Haven Avenue. RESPONSE: This is not true. The recorded settlement agreements specify that construction, marketing and permanent day to day access to Haven Avenue by the developer of the 40 lots and by the future homeo~,mers is guaranteed. Please see further comments in this regard in attached letter fi'om Mr. Darren Hereford of the law firm of Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh. (Reference Exhibit 3 -paragraphs A and B) COMMENT: Who is Lauren Development? RESPONSE: Lauren Development, Inc. is a semi-custom home developer and general building contractor, operating under California license number 706178. We are a privately-held 11030Arrow Route, Suite 102 Rancho Cucarnonga, CA 91730 909484-1863 FAX 909 484-1864 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - Page 11 Califomia corporation in good legal standing with the state of California. The California Certificate of Status of Domestic Corporation is attached (Reference Exhibit 6) Lauren Development, Inc.'s philosophy is in kind with custom homebuilding: we take pride in quality building and offering personalized service and an array of customized features for our new homes. Our development management team is on-site, available for clients. This development's professional management team has an outstanding history of professional experience, with the members having many years of that experience working together at S & S Construction (Shapell Industries), one of the ten largest builders in the nation, at large developments in Orange County and Los Angeles County, as well as winning placement on the Los Angeles Times List of Leading Residential Builders. The members of this management team combined have over 60 years of residential construction experience throughout Southern California. Lauren Development, Inc. has the knowledge and capability to professionally develop and market The Heights at Haven View Estates development. More details regarding the experience of the management team are available to the city upon request. The office of Lauren Development, Inc. in Rancho Cucamonga is located at 11030 Arrow Route Suite 102. Our plans are available for viewing there. We have invited each owner of a lot in Haven View Estates to come to our office and discuss our plans in as much detail as they would like. I hope we have addressed all the issues raised. Please call me if you need additional materials. Very truly yours, John L. Allday 11030 Arrow Roule, Suite 102 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 909 4~,4-1~c~ FAX 909 484-1864 JU~-Z?-9? 11:06 Froa:HEWlTT MCGUIRE 7142'980510 T-692 P.02 Job-306 HEWITT & McGuraE, LLP &TT~.~ AT LAW DF.~I DU~N-ILOIKIN 19900 M~Ar~ur ~ulevard, Sui~ 1050 MARK R. C,,R~ $. ~ ~vine. California ~612 b~s D. O'N~ W~{,~ R. NA~ ~14) 798-05~ · ~14) 798~511 (fax) ~*~ F. P~]Ko~ ANDR~ K, HA~ PAUL A, ROWE J~N D. HU~ ]~N P. Y~GER 1une 27, 1997 The Honorable David Barker Chairman, City of Rancho Cuc, amonga Planning Commission 10500 Civic Cer~ter Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Development Review 97-11/Lauren Deve]opITlent (Tract 14771 Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission: Thi~ firm repre~nt~ Lauren Development, Inc. ("Lauren") in connection with the above-referenced project. We are writing to respond to certain specific issues and allegations raisecl in written submissions to the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City") by certain homeowners near the project site, acting under the recently named group Cucamongans United tbr Reasonable Expansion ("CURE"), and The Spirit of the Sage Council ("SSC") regarding compliance with certain natural resource statuteE, regulations and agreements and the California Environmv'-atal Quality Act CCEQA"). Regrettably, both CURE and SSC have elected to rely on misrepresentations anti misstatements as the foundation and basis on which to claim non- compliance with, or a "violation" of, the federal Endangered Species Act CESA") and the Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") regarding the possible development of the San Bernardino Valley-Wide Multi-species Conservation Program. Both claims are wholly without merit. Moreover, both CURE and SSC demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of CEQA ancl its requirements as they pertain to the Planning Commission's role in the design review of this approved subdivision. I. Planning Commission Approval of ]-auren's Design Review A'pplication Imvleme~tation of the Proiect Will Not Result In Any Violation of the Federal Endangered Species Act. Independent of, and irrespective of, its local entitlements to construct the residential project, Lauren remains Eubject -- along with every other lot owner of an undeveloped lot in the City or within Haven View Estates -- to the provisions of the ESA. However, given the facts aria circumstances of this project, the ESA imposes no restriction on Lauren or the City with respect to design review, issuance of grading permits or the grading of the property. 06-26-97 3021-00002 $: \Doe\ 161 \CORA \97060030. LT 2 A57- 7/9/97 2 JUN-Z?-9? 11:07 Froa:HEWITT ~GUIRE 7147980510 T-692 P.03/09 Job-306 The Honorable David Barker June 2?, 1997 Page 2 Simply put, the ESA prohibits Lauren from killing or injuring any federally listed species -- including the coastal California gnatcatcher ("Gnatcatcher') -- in connection with grading its property.' If grading the property would result in such injury, Lauren would need to obtain an incidental take permit (Section 10(a) permi0 from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ("Service") prior to grading its property. As well-counseled project developers typically do, Lauren has consulted with biological experts in advance of grading to determine whether any lhted species exist on its property. Through such consultation Lauren learned that the only listed species which could conceivably be located on the site was the Gnatcatcher, although the probability of one or more Gnatcatchers occupying the site was quite low. Although Lauren had no legal obligation to conduct surveys or provide such information to any agency, it elected to survey its property for the Gnatcatcher in an abundance of caution. (A copy of mls survey report is attached.) The biologists surveyed the 25-acre size and immediately adjacent habitats completely on four separate ocea~ion~ in January of this y~r. As the enclosed report notes, the surveys were conducted by qualified biologists in contbrmance with the Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Scientific Review Panel Survey Guidelines. No ~nar~atchers were observed 0r otherwise detected. Since Gnatcatchers do not occupy the site. Lauren. c$oes not need t~ obtain an incidental take permit (or any other authorization) from fl~e Setvie," and is uncler no particular obligations with respect to the ESA, the Service, the California Department of Fish & Game or others. In fact, it would have been rather surprising to find any Gnatcatchers at the site. Only a very few individuals of this species have ever been recorded to have been observed in San Bernardino County. San Bernardino County is considered to lie at the very fringe of the range for this species. The Service letter of April 18 to Lauren Developmerit and its June 10 letter to the City appear to be primarily based on various misunderstandings. The Service appears to believe that Lauren, by sencling to the .Service its survey results (as required under the biologists' federal permits), is requesting an "incidental take" permit from the Service. Lauren is not making such a request. Alternatively, the Service may believe mat Lauren is requesting a written statement from the Service regarding its site; again, Lauren is making no such request. It is even possible that the Service is under the false impression that the Negative Declaration for this project contains a condition requiring a letter of approval from the Service prior to issuance of a ~rading permit. Again, no such condition exists. ' 16 U.S.C. § 1538 (1996). 06-~6-97 30Z1-0000~ S:\DOd\161\CORR\97G60050.LT2 J~-27-~? 1}:07 Fro~:HE~ITT 14CGUIRE 7147980~10 T-6~2 P.04/09 Job-306 The Honorable David Barker June 27, 1997 Page 3 What we do know is that since at least 1993, the Service has accepted three surveys of a site as conclusive of the presence or absence of the Gnatcatcher for individuals requesting permits from the Service. The Service announced a change in this policy in March of this year (copy attached). Under its new policy, three surveys will suffice in some local jurisdictions, whereas the Service will request more in others. Ironically, most past surveys usin§ the three visit methodology have been "grandfathered" in by the Rervice as "acceptable." As this is a new and changed survey policy, the Service has welcomed comments as to whether it is actually appropriate and justified, and the regulated community is awaiting the release of the study allegedly supporting this change for comment. In any event, the decision regarding how many surveys to conduct in this instance is a matter solely within Launan's discnation. Lauren has also appropriately requested more specific information from the Service regarding the allusions in its two letters regarding Gnatcatcher sightings in the area. In a recent phone conversation with Mr. Jeff Newman of the Service, Mr. Newman informed the undersigned that the basis for the Service's June 10 claim that "the p. roperty is adjacent to known occupied California gnatcatcher habitat" cormist~ of a verbal r~port from an upknown individual that last year one bird believed by that unknown person to be a Gnatcatcher was seen in or near the North Eiiwanda Preserve -- approximately I .$ miles to the east of the project site."- To date, the Service has not responded to our request for copies of all written reports, if any, of Gnatcatchers currently living anywhere near the project site, and it is not clear that any such reports exist. Thus, this undocumented, anonymous, unconfh-n'md sighting appears to form the basis for the Service's concern. Even if the Service could establish credible documentation to support this rumor -- which to date it has failed to tie -- the existence of a single bird a mile or more away from the project site would not give the Service a basis to request anything from the City or Lauren Development. The.S~[l Bernardino Valley-wide Multi-soeeies Habitat Conservation Plan MOU Does Not Reo_uire the City to Conduct Any Further Biological Review of the Pr~ect Site. The SSC's assertion that the San Bernardino Valley-wide MSHCP MOU somehow obligates the City or other governmental entities to conduct some sort of further enviromnental review of Launan's project is simply incorrect. 2 In addition, Mr. Scott Eliason of the Service has suggested to the undersigned that there may be historical recorda of one, two or three pairs af hird~ formerly occupying the North Etiwanda Preserve at some earlier time. Of course, historic reports are of little relevance to the Service's statement. 06 - 26 - 97 3021 - OOOOZ S: \DOC\161 \COFIR \9'/'0601}30. LT2 4 JLIN-2?-9? 11:07 From:HE~ITT MCGUIRE 7147980510 T-692 P.05/09 Job-306 The Honorable David Barker June 27, lg97 Page 4 It is rather telling that the SSC does not cite any specific set of provisions in the MOU which require such additional review. In fact, SSC could not do so; since the MOU is designed specifically to preclude any such mandatory obligaitons. The major purpose of the MOU is to establish some initial conceptual frameworks for a poasible multiplo-apecies conservation plan for a portion of San Bernardino County. The development of such a plan is expected to require a minimum of several years at best. (A copy of the MOU is attached.) $SC's first error lies in assuming that the MOU's Interim Project Review Guidelinda ("Guidelinda") apply to projeeta which have already been approved and analyzed under CEQA, such as the project at hand. The Guidelines do riot contain provisions for retroactive application. In fact, the Ouldelines specifically indicate that they are meant to be applied -- and applied at the local jurisdiction's and project applicant's sole election -- to projects which are just begitming the entitlement process. According to the MOU, the Guidelines are meant to ensure early review and consideration of proposed projects by the Service and [Department of Fish and Game] so that projects which could preclude the successful development of the MSHCP will be identified at the earliest possible point in the development review process .... MOU Attachment F, at F-1. This voluntqrv review process is offered to "[eliminate the historic problem in which] comments on proposed projects are not received from the Depml.t-ent of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish & Wiidlif~ Service until very !ate in the lead agency's decision- making process." MOU at F-1. Thus, the review process requested by SSC does not even apply to a project such as Lauren's that was approved years a_eo and where the City has only limited additional discretion over narrow ast)ects of the nroiect's imt}lementation. Nevertheless, even if the Guidelines could be construed to apply to an approved project such as Lauren's -- which they cannot -- the interim review is a totally voluntary process. Therefore, the City will be in compliance with the MOU even if it chooses not to subject any projects to the Guidelines' agency consultation process. The [Interim Project Review Guidelines] specifically do not create an additional layer of project review nor confer any additional authority on the Department [of Fish & Game], the Service or lead agency. The recommendations of the Service and Department are advisory; the final decision of whether to approve, modify, or 06-26-97 3021 -ODD02 S: \D0~\161 \~..0~R\~70600'~0. L T2 5 JUtt-2?-9? 11:08 ;rom:HEWlTT ~GUIRE ?147980510 T-692 P.06/09 Job-306 The Honorable David Barker June 27, 1997 Page 5 deny a project remains in the hands of the lead agency pursuant to existing laws. Each lead agency and/or project proponent shall detcrminc whether a project should be reviewed pursuant to the [Guidelines] .... The lead agency retains the discretion to determine that a project within the plan area, because of the project's characteristics, has no impact on the viability of biological resources and would not preclude long term preservation planning. MOU Attachment F, at F-1. CURE's and SSC's Assel~io~ Concerning CEQA c~mpletelv Misstate the Facia and Law. The assertions of CURE's environmental counsel, Melissa McK~ith, cm~rning the City's compliance with CEQA are factually and legally wrong. Ms. McKeith contends that because the Planning Commission exercises discretion in connection with design review applications, it must reexamine whether there are changed circumstances requiring additional environmental documentation under CEQA regardless of whether the circumstances have anything to do with the type of discretion the Planning Commission exercises during design review. In addition, in complete contradiction to published appellate court decisions. Ms. McKeith arllues that she and other project opponents must only make a "fair argument" that changed circumstances are present. First, the fact that the Planning Commission exercises some discretion when considering design review applications does not mean that the Planning Commission must evaluate the current circumstances surrounding all aspects of a residential subdivision that already has complied with CEQA in connection with tentative map approval. As a leading CEQA treatise star~s: CEQA does not apply to an agency decision simply because the agency may exercise sortie discretion in approving the project or undertalcing. Instead, to trigger CEQA compliance, the discretion must bc of a certain kind; it must provide the agency with the ability To "shape file project" in order tO minimize environmental impacts. Remy and Thomas, Guide to CEQA, p. 42 (1996 Edition) (emphasis added). 06-~6-97 30~1-00002 s: ~,DOC\ 161 \CORR\97060030. L'r2 JLIfi-Z?-9? 11:08 From:HEWlTT MCGUIRE 7147980510 T-692 P.O?/09 Job-305 The Honorable David Barker June 2'/, 199'7 Page 6 Tim very case Ms. McKeith selectively quoted from in her letter to the City Attorney makes the same point: "The touchstone is whether the approval process involved allows the governmere to shape the project in any way whtc~ wo141d res~orld to any of the environmental concerns which might be identified in an environmental impact renoft." Friends of Westwood, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 19I Cal. App. 3d 259, 26? (1987). Of course, Ms. McKeith failed to quote this sentence in her letter. Here, the Planning Commission's discretion in the context of design review has absolutely no bearing on the alleged environmental concerns raised by CURE. To paraphrase the Assistant City Attorney, the decision whether the homes will be French Provincial or Spanish Colonial has no rolovance to the alleged environmental concern~ rai~d by project opponent. CURE'S alleged environmental concerns revolve arouna four topics: (1) vegetation/habitat impacts; (2) flood control; (3) traffic; and (4) air quality. While we believe each and every one of these "concerns" is a complete red herring (and will explain why below), the Commission is certainly familiar enough with its role to know that none of.Oaege proposed conce[71s ~re ~dd~ressed or addresshie as part of desi_en review. One easy way to illustrate this is to point out that the property owner could reco~ his final map, obtain a grading permit. clear the development portion of the site of all vegetation, rough grade the 40 buildable lots, install all subdivision improvements, including roads, sell the lots to forty (40) different individuals, gr~d then submit up to 40 septirate design review applications. Completing such tasks would moot all of the concerns raised by CURE and SSC but would not preclude the Planning Commission from exercising the type of discretion it exercises in connection with design review. To reiterate, the mere fact that the Planning Cormnission still has some discretion over a narrow aspect of the project does not mean that the City can or must reevaluatc all impacts that will result from implementing existing project approvals, None of the alleged environmental concerns involve aspects of the project that can be modified in any relevant way as part of the design review process. Ms. McKcith knows this; if. she does not know this, she is grossly unfamilktr with the applicable law. Even If Design Review.Triggered Reevaluation of the t~ntire Project u~Ider CEQA, the Alleged Changed Circumstances Are All Red Herrings. Assuming solely for the sake of refuting CURE's other factual and legal misstatements that the City had the authority to reconsider all aspects of the project in connection with its design review process -- which it does not -- there are no'changed circumstances with respect to the project which result in new or more severe environmental impacts that would require major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval. CURE's allegations that changed circumstances are present do not withstand scrutiny. 06-26-97 ~02'~ -00002 S:\DO~\161\r'ORR\97060030.LT2 ? JUN-2?-9? 11:09 From:HEWITT MCGUIRE 71d79805]0 T-$9Z P.08/09 Job-306 The Honorable David Barker Jurm 27, 1997 Page 7 First, the listing of the coastal California gnatcatcher could only conceivably be a significant new circumstan~ if the site contained Gnatcatchers, which it does not. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's letter claiming that removal of "suitable habitat" would violate the ESA severely overstates the Service's authority. This issue is addressed above. There have been numerous species placed on the endangered species list since 1990 in addition to the Gnatcatcher; this project will not impact any of them either, and their listing does not constitute changed circumstances either. Second. the vegetation type that will be impacted has not changed since the tract map was approved. It was 'known as a sensitive habitat type even in 1990, although completion of the Deer Creek detention basin and flood control channel have removed the site from hydrological events that k.~p the vegetation dynamic and healthy over time (see p. 2 of the attached Gnatcatcher Survey Report). Presumably, the City determined that the small amount of acreage impacted and its location in a residenti,'d development area made the impact less than significant. Rightly or wrongly, a determination of insignificant impacts was made at the time fi~c Negative Dcclaration was adopted and even Ms. McKeilh acknowledges that the time Io cha|len~e that determination has lon_e since passed. Third. CURE's allegations of change in circumstances with respect to air quality, traffic and noise do not relate to the project at all and do not create any potential for the project to have significant new impacts in those areas. The development consists of 40 homes, which will generate a relatively small amount of traffic. Finally, the claim that the always contemplated removal of the existing berm and swale on the site is a signit]cant new issue because Lauren Development may not have as many assets as the prior developer Brock Homcs takes the cake. The City will require bonding for subdivision improvements and will have th,* benefit of all mechanisms typically available to ensure proper performance of the project. Ms. McKeith's attempt.to characterize her assertion that the Project mie,.ht not be implemented properly as "si~n/ficant new information" is novel and a distortion of what CEQA requires. CURE has attempted to create the appearance of real and serious new issues where non~ truly exist. CURE also contends that it does not n:ed to show "substantial evidence" that these new allcge, d issues are significant; CURE insists that only a "fair argument" need be mad-'. CURE cannot provide any substantial evidence of significant changed circumstances and CURE's counsel conveniently omitted from. her voluminous letter any references to the published cases that expressly state that the substantial evidence t~st applies even when a Negative Declaration was the initial form of CEQA compliance. See, e.g., l~evl:on v. Board of Su_nervisnrs, 226 Cal. App. 3d 1467 (1991); T~rnecula Band of J,,ui$¢no Mission Indians v. R~nc13o C~lifornia Water District, 43 Cal. App. 4th 425 (1996). These failings D6-26-97 30~1-0000~ S: \OOC \ 161 \COR R \97060030. LT 2 8 JUN-ZT-9T 11:09 From:NEWITT ~GUIRE 714T980510 T-$92 P.09/09 Job-306 The Honorable David Barker June 27, 1997 Page 8 compound the fundamental error that CURE has made, which is that design review does .not trigger CEQA review of the entire project. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the very distorted representations made by CURE, SSC and others. Thank you for your consideration of the above. Should you have any questions, please contact Mark McGuire or the undersigned at (714) 79~-0500. Andrew K. Hartzell Enclosures co: William Bethel Riclaard Macias Gail Koberich Peter Tolstoy Ralph Hanson, Esq. Jeff Newman Larry McNeil John Allday Bill Tippets 06-26-97 3021-00002 $: \DOt:\161 \r'ORR\97060010. LT2 JACKSON, DErVlARCO & PECKENPAUGH A LAW CO/:~PORATION ............................. June 25 1997 (714) 851-7427 ~sjO]7~jdplaw.com 26427 James M~an, Esq. VIA HAND DELIVER Y R~cho Cucamonga City Attorney c/o M~, Mczynski, Hanson, Curly & Slough P.O. Box 1059 Brea, California 92622-1059 Re: The Heights at Haven View Estates Tentative Tract Id77] Dear Mr. Marian: We have been asked by our client, Lauren Development, Inc. ("LDI"), to address certain issues which have been raised by neighboring property owners in connection with LDI's development of 40 lots in Tentative Tract Map 14771 (comprised off Lot 151 of Tract No. 12332- 2 and the Remainder Parcel shown on the map tbr Tract No. 12332-2) ("Project") in Rancho Cucamonga. Specifically, we have been asked to address the following issues: (1) LDI's legal right of access over property owned by the 14aven View Estates Homeowners Association ("HVE"); (2) LDI's legal right of access over property owned by the Rancho Cucamonga V- Haven View Estates Homeowners' Association ("RCV"); (3) whether LDI is required to join one or both of the existing homeowners associations; (4) whether LDI is subject to the architectural control committees of one or both oF the existing homeowners associations; and (5) whether the development of the Project was contemplated by the applicable development agreements of record. We address each of these issues below. To provide you with a brief background for the documents which are discussed below, in the late 1980's, lawsuits were filed and litigation ensued between HVE and the property owners in what is now RCV, as well as the subject Project. These documents, signed by representatives of all affected properties are as Follows: the Developer Street Easement and Maintenance Agreement, recorded on February 16, 1989, as Instrument No. 89-056050, in Official Records of San Bernardino County ("Developer Agreement"); the Association Street Easement and Maintenance Agreement, recorded on February 16, 1989, as Instrument No. 89- 056051, in Official Records of San Bernardino County ("Association Agreement"); and the First Amended and Restated Grant of Mutual Easements, recorded on March 23, 1990, as Instrument No. 90-111246, in Official Records of San Bernardino County ("Amended Grant"). JACKSON, DENIARCO & PECKENPAUGH James Markman, Esq. June 25, 1997 Page 2 A. Access over HVE Property_. The Project is subject to the Developer Agreement. In paragraph l(a) of the Developer Agreement, HVE grants nonexclusive easements to the "Adjoining Landowner" for purposes access, ingress, egress, use and enjoyment in, to and over the "Access Streets" in Tract No. 12332-1 (i.e., Ringstem Street, Clover Place, and Tackstem Street). Paragraph 1 (b) provides that these easements are appurtenant to and pass with title to the "Adjoining Property and the Additional Acreage, any portion thereof and interest therein." The term "Adjoining Property" is defined as all of Tract No. 12332-2, and the term "Additional Acreage" is defined as the Remainder Parcel of Tract No. 12332-2. The easements over Ringstem, Street, Clover Place and Tackstem Street within Tract No. 12332-1 are appurtenant to the Project, albeit subject to the covenants contained in the Developer Agreement for sharing of maintenance costs for the Access Streets. Thus, the Developer Agreement ensures access to the subject Project over the "Access Streets" owned by HVE. B. Access over RCV Property_. The Project is also subject to Amended Grant. In paragraph 2.1 of the Amended Grant, the parties granted each other mutual and reciprocal permanent, nonexclusive easements for ingress and egress of pedestrians and vehicles and use and enjoyment over all streets located upon the "Brock Property, the Chen Property and the JCC Property... as such streets are shown upon Tract Map 12332-2... and upon and over such streets which may be shown upon any recorded tract map for that portion of the Brock Property which is presently shown as the 'Remainder Parcel upon the Recorded Tract Map." It is clear that the parties to the Amended Grant enjoy access over and share maintenance responsibilities for the streets within Tract 12332-2. Thus, LDI has easements over the streets in Tract No. 12332-2 for the purpose of accessing the Project. Moreover, we understand that First American Title Company has al~;o concluded that there are easements over the streets within Tracts 12332-1 and 12332-2 for access to the Project, and First American has agreed to insure such access. C. Annexation to Existing Associations. It appears that the "Brock Association" identified in the Association Agreement, was originally anticipated to be a single homeowners' association with jurisdiction over Lots 1 through 151, inclusive, of Tract No. 12332-2, and the Remainder Parcel shown on the map for Tract No. 12332-2. The Association Agreement does not expressly intend or require that a single homeowners' association have jurisdiction over all of Tract No. 12332-2. Moreover, the Developer Agreement, the Amended Grant and the Association Agreement (collectively "Project JACKSON, Dei~aRco & PECKeNPaUgh James Markman, Esq. June 25, 1997 Page 3 Documents") do not contain any provisions which expressly require that the Project be annexed to HVE or RCV. The Project is defined as Annexation Property in the Declaration of Establishment CC&Rs for RCV, recorded on June 13, 1990, as Instrument No. 90-231127 ("RCV Declaration"). However, the Project was never annexed to the property subject to the RCV Declaration. Annexation of the Project to the RCV Declaration, without the consent of the RCV members, must be made by a Participating Builder within 3 years following the original issuance by the DRE of the most recently issued Public Report for a Phase of the overall development. Assuming that this time period has lapsed, consent of2/3rds of the RCV members, as well as the consent of the Participating Builder, must be obtained in order to allow the Project to be annexed to the RCV Declaration. As a practical matter, it may be difficult to obtain the requisite member approval to allow such annexation. Nowhere in the RCV Declaration does it require that the Project be annexed to the RCV Declaration. In fact, Section 17.11 of the RCV Declaration expressly reserved the right of M.J. Brock & Sons, Inc. ("Brock"), LDI's predecessor-in-interest, to not annex the Remainder Parcel to the RCV Declaration. We have not reviewed the Declaration of CC&Rs for HVE CHVE Declaration"). Therefore, we do not have any opinion as to what requirements the HVE Declaration may have, if any, with respect to the annexation of the Project to the HVE Declaration. Given that the HVE Declaration was recorded sometime prior to the RCV Declaration and the Project is defined as "Annexation Property" under the RCV Declaration, the HVE Declaration should not have any provisions mandating the annexation of the Project to the HVE Declaration. Even if the HVE Declaration did contain such provisions, they would be outweighed by the above-mentioned restrictions. D. Architectural Control. As discussed above, the Project Documents do not require that the Project be annexed to the property subject to the Declaration of CC&Rs for either HVE or RCV. Thus, unless the Project is annexed to either the HVE Declaration or the RCV Declaration, the architectural committee of neither association will have any architectural control jurisdiction over the development of the Project. Clearly no submittal to or approval by either of the other two associations or their architectural committees is warranted. E. Development of Project. It is evident from the Project Documents that the construction of homes and related improvements within the Project was intended. For example, Section 2 of the Developer Agreement expressly provides for easements and rights of way over the Access Streets "for the purpose of access by construction personnel, vehicles, equipment and materials to and from the Adjoining Property and the Additional Acreage... until the construction of homes and related JACKSON, DeMarco & PECKENPAUGH James Markman, Esq. June 25, 1997 Page 4 improvements on the Adjoining Property and the Additional Acreage is complete .... "Also, Section 1 (a) of the Developer Agreement provides, in part: "The foregoing grant with respect to the Additional Acreage shall be effective for the use by owners of no more than forty-five (45) homes in the Additional Acreage, so as to avoid an overburdening of the Access Streets by the ultimate residents in the Additional Acreage." Moreover, the recitals on page 2 of the RCV Declaration provide, in part: "The Remainder Parcel is currently being remapped and it is anticipated that the Remainder Parcel will consist of no greater than 42 lots and may also contain Equestrian Trails, Drainage Facilities and Common Areas." Thus, it is evident that the development of the Project with 40 homes was intended from the beginning, and the members of RCV had constructive notice of this intent when they purchased their homes. The Project Documents encumber the Project and delineate the rights and obligations of RCV, HVE and the owner of the Project concerning access over the streets within Tract 12332-1 and 12332-2, and the sharing of maintenance costs for streets and related improvements, among other things. However, the Project Documents do not contain any restrictions or covenants concerning the type of homes to be constructed within the Project. In the letter dated June 10, 1997, RCV's counsel fails to cite any recorded restriction or covenant encumbering the Project which supports RCV's position that the Project should only be developed as a "luxury community" characterized by "large custom homes." We have not been asked to address the entitlement and environmental impact issues raised in the June 10, 1997, letter. However, it is evident that RCV's counsel fails to cite any specific authority or policy in support of RCV's opposition to the development of the Project by LDI. To the contrary, the public policy expressed by the California State Legislature is that the construction of housing is a matter of great public need.~ Clearly RCV's myopic and self- serving opposition to the development of the Project is contrary to the express public policy of the State of California. Please call me to discuss any questions you may have regarding the foregoing matters. Sincerely, "" 0 / Da~en L. Hereford FSJ:DLH 0259882.03 Mr. William D. For~ Jeffrey M. Boren, Esq. F. Scott Jackson, Esq. 1Government Code §65913. MDS CONSUL TING 'pLANNERS ,, ENGINEERS ', SURVEYORS {714) 2Sl-8821 17320 Redhill Avenue. Suite 350 E~.Y 251-0516 irvine. CA 92614 June 26, 1997 Mr. John Allday Lauren Development Post Office Box 790 Agoura Hills, CA 91376 TRACT 14771 STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES Dear John: In response to the Declaration of Bruce Collins dated June 11, 1997, the oral presentation to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission by Ms. Melissa McKeith on June 11, 1997, and the con'espondence from Loeb and Loeb to Mr. James Markman, Esq., also dated June 11, 1997, I offer the following comments: I am the president and founding partner of MDS Consulting, and have been in pdvate practice since 1970, starting my own firm in 1976. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in civil engineering and am a registered civil engineer in California and Arizona. I have practiced civ[I engineering, including all facets of grading and drainage design, since entedng private practice. My company has worked extensively in the western portion of San Bernardino County, including the city of Rancho Cucamonga, and has followed the development and construction of many of the major flood control channels, including Deer Creek Channel and its appurtenances. I have been personally involved in the hydrologic and hydraulic calculations performed on Tract 14771, and in the subsequent processing through the involved approving government agencies. Our company was retained by Brock Homes in April of 1991 to complete the preparation of various construction drawings for the final phase of Master Tentative Tract No. 12332, a forty lot subdivision named as Tentative Tract No. 14771, 'The Master Tentative Tract No. 12332 and its re{ated construction drawings were prepared by Associated Engineers, Included in their drawings were detailed hydrologic and hydraulic calculations including various analyses of offsite drainage conditions. All of these calculations were reviewed and approved by all appropriate government agencies. Our assignment for the forty lot subdivision (Tentative Tract No. 14771 ) was to update and complete the processing of the FEMA map revisions, both the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and the Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), which we accomplished. At a project level, we prepared the various hydrologic and hydraulic studies in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice required to substantiate the design of the hardened concrete drainage channel at the northern property line of Tentative Tract No. 14771. These hydrologic and hydraulic studies were reviewed extensively and were deemed acceptable for permit in December of 1992. The project I.aid fallow (due to the general economic recession) until 1997, when Lauren Development resurrected the project and reprocessed the plans. The hydrology and hydraulic portions of the design have again been determined to be acceptable and ~he plans are in the final stages of processing for construction permits. We are not sure if either Mr. Collins or Ms. McKeit~ have ever reviewed the volumes of material available on the design of the vadous drainage facilities designed for Tract 14771, as our company has never been contacted by them. Apparently, they only reviewed the tentative tract map, and, as we all know, a tentative tract map is just that, a tentative plat to be used as a guide to more detailed construction plans, Even at that, MDS STANLEY C. MORSE GARY DOKICH SKIP ~CHULTZ EXHIBIT "G" 7/9/97 June 26, 1997 Page Two the City of Rancho Cucamonga requires preliminary drainage studies to accompany the tentative tract map, documents that neither of the project opponents mentioned as being reviewed. In our professional opinion, the replacement of an aged, unlined, earthen training levee that was constructed years ago to provide flood protection until Deer Creek Channel was complete, by a hardened concrete channel designed to current hydrologic and hydraulic standards, is one where the benefit is so obvious that it speaks for itself. As a sidelight, the County of San Bernardino Flood Control Dist,dct abandoned their drainage easement through Tract 14771 in 1988, as it was no longer necessary for their operation. In other words, the maintenance and operation of that earthen levee is not within any organization currently, whether private or public. By the construction of the concrete channel with Tract 14771, a maintenance association will be in place to take care of the channel. Should either of the project opponents need to perform proper complete research on the project, we are available to meet with them and discuss both the regional facilities (Deer Creek Channel) and the project level facilities (Tract 14771). Sincere~ _ SCM:jo G:~4 l~00~COR~TR 147'71.DOC 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 June 11, and continued to July 9, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held meetings 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 meetings on June 11, and July 9, 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 1 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-11 (TRACT 14771) - LAUREN July 9, 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. All applicable conditions from Resolution No. 90-137 and 90-138 shall apply. Engineering Division 1) Driveways on Comer 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. 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-11 (TRACT 14771) - LAUREN July 9, 1997 Page 3 ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of July 1997 by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: Design Review for Tract 14771 SUBJECT: Development Review 97-11 APPLICANT: Lauren Development LOCATION: 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 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not __/ /__ issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. B. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include __/ / site plans, architectural elevations, extedor materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and Development Code regulations. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being 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 Distdct and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be __/__/__ submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for __/__/ consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. Project No DR 97-11 Coml)letion Date 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, / / all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. 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, herming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 8. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, / / including proper illumination. 9. 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 1. An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units and __/ / for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other alternative energy systems are demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. All swimming pools installed at the time of initial development shall be supplemented with solar heating. Details shall be included in the building plans and shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. 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. 3. 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 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping __/__/ in this case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval pdor to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. All private slopes of 5 feet or 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. 3. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater __/__/__ slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or Project No. DR 97-11 Completion Date larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 4. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously /__/__ maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 5. Front yard and comer side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development __/ / Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 6. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included / / in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 7. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the __/__/ perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 8. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the / / design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 9. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of /__/ Xedscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. Environmental 1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock / / Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 2. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Alquist-Priolo 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. 3. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway project __/__/__ in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, pdor to accepting a cash deposit on any property. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-27'10, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: F. Site Development 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical / / Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electdc 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. SC - 5/97 3,/~/~'~ Project No. DR g7-11 Com~)letion Date 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to __/ / existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and / / prior to issuance of building permits. 4. For projects using septic tank facilities, wdtten 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 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City __/ / Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to / / perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the / time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: H. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: July 9, 1997 TO: Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer ~.~ SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA, JULY 9, 1997, ITEMS A AND B Upon discussion with the Developers, I have agreed to delete condition no. 1 of Engineering Division for Development Review 97-11, page A72 of the agenda. Also, I have agreed to modify condition no. 10 of Engineering Division for Development Review 97-10, page B39 of the agenda. Please refer to the attached. DJ:sd Attachment PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-10 - CENTEX July 9, 1997 Page 5 40 percent, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Metropolitan Water District. 9) Where applicable, street trees shall continue themes established in earlier phases. 10) Driveways on Corner .~r~~.59~R.h --a-~:~3T-L-o~ ~pj~c..,~an~Lots l~.."'~a...n~Z9~of phase .5 shall .be. Iocate,,d at le, a, st 50 feet from the intersection BCR, or the maximum a stance aHowea Dy the lot size to minimize conflicts between vehicles turning right and those backing out of driveways. 11) All the conditions applicable from Resolution Nos. 89-188, 87-162, 85-168, 85-168A, and 85-168B of Tract 12659 shall apply. Fire Safety Division, 1) The project shall be reviewed in accordance with, and may be subject to, the City's Wildland Fire Interface requirements, to the satisfaction of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY 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 cedify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of July 1997 by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 9, 1997 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-10 (DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12659, PHASES 2 THROUGH 5) - CENTEX HOMES - The design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for the development of 92 lots within an approved subdivision (Tentative Tract 12659), which consists of 134 lots on 67.67 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) in the Eftwanda Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Etiwanda and Wilson Avenues - APN: 225-111-40 and 42 and 225-341-30 through 37. PROJECT AND SITE DI~$¢RIPTION: The project site is in a predominately single family residential area in the northern part of the Etiwanda community. Phase 1 of this subdivision, which consisted of 33 lots, has been constructed and exists in the southeastern quarter of the subdivision along with a portion of Lot "A," which is the equestrian common open space element within the subdivision. The remaining three-quarters of the subdivision was rough graded years ago but has remained vacant; and as a result, the grading is practically non existent. A row of Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees exists along the southern border of the subdivision. BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract 12659 was originally approved by the Planning Commission on November 13, 1985. This subdivision was designed to be in compliance with the Optional Development Standards included within the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Essentially, the Optional Development Standards allow for individual lot sizes (private open spaces) to be smaller in exchange for larger areas of common open space. In this case, the subdivision was designed with three areas of common open space. The largest (Lot "A") includes numerous equestrian related amenities to compensate for the loss of the potential keeping of horses on individual lots within the subdivision. As stated earlier, Phase 1, which included 33 residential lots and a portion of Lot "A," was developed by a previous owner. Since that time, the property has been sold on two separate occasions and the current owner has submitted this application for your consideration. ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is proposing to develop 92 lots within the approved Tentative Tract with homes that range in size from 2,326 to 3,419 square feet on lots that average approximately 14,000 square feet. Four floor plans are being proposed and each include three-car garages. The smallest floor plan is a one-story and the remaining are two stories. In order to comply with the Etiwanda Specific Plan requirement that a minimum of 50 percent of the units are required to have an alternative garage type other than fronting onto the streets, all of the one-story Plan 1 models and some of the Plan 2 and 3 models have swing-in garages. The proposed architecture has been designed to be consistent with the architectural styles and guidelines of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97-10 - CENTEX HOMES July 9, 1997 Page 2 The applicant is not proposing to develop the six vacant lots fronting Etiwanda Avenue with this application; although he has stated that they intend to process a separate Design Review application for these lots at a later date. Also, the five lots shown near the southeast corner of the site are being processed by the same applicant as a new Tentative Tract Map and are not a part of this application. The applicant has stated that they intend to use the same architecture on these lots as currently proposed under this application. The proposed street and equestrian trail layout is identical to that approved under the original Tentative Tract Map. The only revisions to the original Tentative Tract Map are: Lot "C" was reduced in size and Lot "B" was created to more evenly disperse common open space within the subdivision. In addition, an intedm detention basin was required on-site in the area where Tentative Tract 15816 is shown on the plans. Significant infrastructure improvements have been completed in the area to the point where the interim detention basin is no longer needed; therefore, the proposed Tentative Tract Map (which will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a later date) can now be processed. With these modifications, the original subdivision area still contains approximately the same amount of common open space and will be designed so as to not exceed the maximum density of two dwelling units per acre. B. Cross Lot Drainage - This project has been designed to convey drainage from individual lots toward ribbon gutters at the rear of lots with the drainage conveyed across, in some situations, several lots to the drainage devices in the public rights-of way. This design, utilizing cross-lot drainage, is contrary to current Planning Commission policy, where this type of drainage is restricted to no more than one lot being able to drain across another lot. However, given that this Tentative Map was conceptually approved by the Planning Commission on November 13, 1985, prior to the policy of minimizing cross-lot drainage was adopted, the drainage devices have been sized and designed based on this odginal concept. In this situation, a redesign of the grading and drainage would not only be contrary to the original concept, but would also be contrary and not tie well in~ he existing phase of development that currently exists in the subdivision, where cross-lot c, alnage is being utilized and easements maintained by an existing homeowners association. Staff has included in the recommended conditions of approval in the attached Resolution, a condition that specifies maintenance practices for these drainage devices to staff's satisfaction. The applicant has indicated that the homeowners association established for this project will be solely responsible for the maintenance of the equestrian and drainage easements. Therefore, staff supports the concept of cross-lot drainage in this situation, and does not view this as precedent setting because the cross-lot drainage system was established in this tract prior to the Commission's policy. C. Design Review Committee: On May 20, 1997, the Design Review Committee (Bethel, Macias, Coleman) reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to the conditions contained in the attached Resolution of Approval. Action comments from the Design Review Committee meeting have been attached for your convenience (see Exhibit "G"). D. Technical Review Committee: On May 21, 1997, the Technical Review Committee reviewed the project and determined that, together with the recommended Conditions of Approval, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97-10 - CENTEX HOMES July 9, 1997 Page 3 E. Gradina Review Committee: The Grading Committee reviewed the project on three occasions, most recently on July 1, 1997, and recommended approval of the project with the conditions contained in the attached Resolution of Approval. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review 97-10 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions. rad Buller X~) -' City Planner Attachments: Exhibit"A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "D" - Grading Plan Exhibit"E" - Building Elevations Exhibit"F" - Floor Plans Exhibit "G" - DRC Action Comments dated May 20, 1997 Resolution of Approval with Conditions SHEET INDEX.' 1. SITE UTILIZA T/ON 2 INDEX MAP 3. DETAILS SHEET 4. CONGF_PTUAL GRADING PLAN ~.. CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN ~.. SITE PLAN Z.. SITE PLAN CENTEX HOMES 2280 Wardl(~w Cirt h., · Suill, Ir~l) TENTATIVE TRA G' T NO. 12659 ET/WANDA ES TA TES SITE UT/L IZA T/ON 12659- 3 ~E ~ET ............. CENTEX HOMES ~ ~NTN FIVE CENTEX HOMES TENTATIVE TRACT ~. 12659 ~TI~A~A ~STA TES SITE PLAN ~RELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN b CENTEX HOMES CORPORATION 22~o WARDLOWC~ROLE. SUn'E ~50 CORONA. CAUFOR~~A 9~720 ~ ~----"' i " \ · "! !'--:--- 'I ' =~ :' ' .... ----"""'----~ 'NO. !~; 12659-2 , ETIWANDA ESTATES TENATIVE TRACT No. 12659 .,: ., ~.: ,, ..: , .:. ., ., _ 4 -- ~'. CENTEX HOMES " ,,, TENTATIVE ~ ., ', NO. 12659 ~ ~cr / ~ , ETIWANDA ESTATES ~ OONCEP~AL : - ,1%', GRAD~G PLAN CENTEX HOMES NO. 12859 ETIWA~A ESTATES ~AD~G REAR DRA!'41NG LOTS PCC V-~DI'['_~_H WAX FOBWARD ~A _1',1!'~ LOTS OW~J~ / ~VE~q~m CENTEX HOMES "~ ~ ' ' .? ~ ~ ~ '~ 'm~c'r ,o. ~ Corona. CA 9 ! 720 .... ~ I , 2280 Wardlow Orde · Sui,e , 50 ........ , .,. TEN TA 7'1 VE ~ . ;;'-'::.:'i:=; 7=; ~i.~ NO. 12659 ' " ~',,,,,,.~ ""'"~,~r:--- ~:~ ETIWANDA ESTATES '~,';=-'-!.// /., L.._.J ............. DETAILS '"'""J""; = Y ~ ;'""~' -- ' ~ .... _~11111~__8mEE~T_ .......... ~' I.I'16D tql~l](~l SHEET '~ I1 RIGHT L~FT ..~ , , . ___.i ~F~m, lI?..[ ~, '---'! REAR FRONT EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS [.=~.'..~"-'-'--- I I ~ v,'. ,'-~' ~ ~ RIGHT ROOF PLAN I ~'~'"~' R~R ~RO~T EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS I ~'~ I I ~ '/" ' "-~' J ..... ~[ff~=~=~l~Uii~i~- - -' ~__~,1~4 ~, · ' REAR FRONT Ii EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS I '----~'='.~.. I I ~ v,-. ,'-,' -- C]C]C]C][I]nO m ...... ,, ,, RIGHT ROOF PLAN I "~ '/"' '"" LEFT ' ' REAR FRONT ....... -'~ I J ...J,~L.,~ I:11~HT "'--'"' ROOF PLAN I ':~ '/"' "'" .... " ii .. Ii ~ .......... '"-- I II l ~'*'~~~ ,~'"----~, ~ ~.-I - ~: I ....... '". LEFT RIGHT LEFT - REAR FRONT EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS I =-,'"'-'--%- I t ~'" '"" ' "'°' -} _._~.~ ... RIGHT ROOF PL^N I I~1 ...... ~L ....~ ~ .....~ ~'~': ~~~~_.~.~ LEFT ii! !i't ....... · REAR FRONT EXTERIOR F_LEVATIONS I'-----""-'-~- I I '~ '/"' "'°' Ii _ '~ ....... ,' '~ ~ U I ...... ' ~ ~ ~ ~~ .............. ~ ~, ~.....~............. :JRIGHT ................ ~ .... ~-_._._~_.~_ . _~~_.~ ............ ........... ........................ ~~ .......... ~ ROOF PLAN I ~ '~' "~' '" ~:~ ' -' :':C:Z:Z:Z:-~F;;:; ~-~ .... .......... ;:z::_:; ....... ~ ~~=~'. ........ LEFT ~,.~.-.~ .-~~.___~ ........... ~__~~,~. ~~::~:'--~~:~:~ --'"~ R~AR FRONT EXTERIOR ELEV~TION~ k RIGHT LEFT REAR FRONT .,.~ EXTERIOR r:LEVATIONS _J '&7_-:_-:-: :_:_: .................... ,_ ............ i RIGHT ~ ....... r.;~ ...--'~ _' .... ¢~EEE~ '-,-=4TM L., ..... --~--~: ...... .-:-~:----~-~'--~]~ .................. i LEFT I ~, .... ' ........................... i~_~,,,...,~,.,.~,~:__- ............ _...:_.-_.i¢i -"'~-;; ............ . ~"~~~ REAR FRONT EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS I =..~'- ',.,.~ L RIGHT LEFT RI6NT ~' LEFT I ' REAR FRONT ....... ~._, ,r'![] ,'-' ~IGHT LEFT ~..:z:_:_l"- .......... z--~-_.'-:_ _-:-:-: ..... 4 ,+ ._~ '-,:~ ~ ..... /'"¢ ii ' i//I " " ~$ "'"' ' '"~"~' ........ ' i RIGHT ........ ............................... LEFT -~=_-_._¢-.............. ;- ...... ~ ,:~--' -,".................. ,T' -~.. , ' hh .............. 'j---l"--jl-'--i---l' ~-ir '" ~ ""'"'ii'"'oo,~-~'"'"':'"--------'"-~-'"'~ REAR FRONT z EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS I'~'~':"=~""~ J I '~ '/"'"-°' _J RIGHT LEFT " ~..C~ I".'lllo01o~, . ,~, ,, ..... REAR FRONT EXtERIOP -' EV^T'OnS L , ;Z:z;_;z .;~ ~"-~t' ,, ;_:'-:ZZZiZiZiZZZiZ.'Zi-%iZ_'~i~i~iZLZLZL--:Z:%]z Z -:----Z ' ~ / ~ I ....... ~ r~ ill RI61-1T LEFT ,,,---_-/_:~:_~:_:~:-i_--_.-_~ .... !'i -"--~ ii- ' ~=: = .... "~i~--c-:----'------'--:-'-'-:--::f REAR FRONT EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS I ="~--""""--'-- b J Z OPT, R~TR~AT , ' ' i ' , I ~ I OPT. ~ETBEAT UPPER FLOOR PLAN 1282 SQ. FT. LOWER FLOOR PLAN 1432 SQ. FT, ],~ ,/,'-,'-~' .J · i'- ~__~ ': ................................. ~ UPPER FLOOR PLAN 1260 SQ. FT. LOWER FLOOR PLAN 1646 ~g. FT. ~ ~,'-,-~' ' ~r~~ '~~ WALL KEY '~.~: ~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:00 p.m. Steve Hayes May 20, 1997 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-10 (DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12659-2 THROUGH (5) - CENTEX HOMES - The design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for the development of 92 lots within an approved subdivision (Tentative Tract 12659), which consists of 134 lots on 67.67 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue - APN: 225-111-40 and 42; 225-341-30 through 37. Design Parameters: The project site is located in a predominately single family residential area in the northern part of the Etiwanda community. To the north is vacant land and a single family residential subdivision constructed by the same developer processing this application. A Metropolitan Water District easement exists along the south side of Wilson Avenue (old 24th Street), adjacent to this project. To the south, the land is vacant and zoned for single family residential development. A Cucamonga County Water Treatment facility exists to the east and to the west the land is vacant and zoned Very Low Residential within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Currently, Tract 12659-1, which consists of 33 lots at the south and east end of the subdivision, has been completed along with a majority of the improvements within Lot "A". This lettered lot included amenities for equestrian use, such as an arena, tack rooms and other related equestrian facilities. . The entire subdivision was at one time cleared of weeds and rough-graded but, a significant amount of time has elapsed as to make this work almost not evident. The site slopes naturally from north to south at approximately 7 percent. A majority of the site proposed for development under this application is void of structures and any significant vegetation, except for the southwest portion of the site, where remnants of a eucalyptus windrosy still exists. Background: Tentative Tract 12659 was approved by the Planning Commission on November 13, 1985. The project was approved by the Commission using the Optional Development Standards for residential development xvithin the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Essentially, the Optional Development Standards allowed smaller lot sizes smaller (i.e., less than ½ acre) than typically found in the Very Low Residential District in trade for three areas of Common Open Space. Since the average lot size in the subdivision was smaller than those typically found in the equestrian overlay district in the City, the Commission felt it was appropriate for Lot "A" to be designed for equestrian uses in lieu of individual residents providing those facilities on their own lots. The other two lettered lots were intended to be for recreational activities typically found in more passive common open space areas. The subdivision was later split into phases with Tract 12659-1 being constructed by a previous owner. The applicant intends to build the 92 lots under this application, as well as the 5 lots within Tentative Tract 15816, near the southeast comer of the site, as well as the 6 remaining undeveloped lots along Etiwanda Avenue. The applicant has been meeting with the existing homeowners and reactivated the Home Owners Association (HOA). Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. DRC COMMENTS DR 97-10 - CENTEX HOMES May 20, 1997 Page 2 1. Staff feels that the subdivision design and street layout is still acceptable and the open space reiocations preferred over the original concept. The applicant is proposing to develop the balance of the subdivision with essentially the same lot layout that was originally approved by the Planning Commission. The only difference is that Lot "C" has been reduced in size to create Lots 27-29, east of the currently proposed Lot"C". The open space lost by Lots 27-29 is proposed for relocation as Lot "B" to better serve the easterly portion of the tract. 2. The proposed architecture is complimentary and is more detailed than the original phase of development within this subdivision. The proposed architecture would be classified as California ranch or bungalow style and includes features such as: horizontal siding, decorative gable brackets, brick and stone veneer, wood shutters. Staff suggests the following changes to be more consistent with the Etiwanda Specific Plan design guidelines (see attached): a. Painted wood trim around windows and pot shelves, rather than stucco over foam, on some plans, such as, Plan 1C and 2D. b. Real river rock veneer on some elevations. c. More extensive use of decorative brackets underneath gable ends. For example, use on main gables on side elevations. d. Front and wrap-around side porches should become a more dominant element in the overall architectural design. 3. More front yard setback variety should be provided in the plotting of the homes. Seconda _ry Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. Within Lots "B" and "C", any proposed lighting for the tennis, basketball and volleyball courts should be designed to project doxvn to the courts and to not produce significant glare in the rear yards of the adjacent residences. Additional trees should be provided in the open lawn areas of the common open space areas. 2. Units should be re-oriented to not have the driveway cross or be within the equestrian feeder trail (Example: lots 10 and 18 within Phase 5). 3. The wood siding used on the Plan D models should be extended to the ground on the front and return side elevations to give a more finished appearance. 4. On the left side elevation of the Plan 2 side-on garage model, a finish treatment should be provided around the interior side of the garage door area to give a look of completeness. DRC COMMENTS DR 97-10- CENTEX HOMES May 20, 1997 Page 3 5. Due to the proposed orientation of the swing-in garage models and the proposed location of the ground mounted mechanical units, a uniform screening device, such as a low wall, should be used in situations where the mechanical units will be facing a street. Policy I~ues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. Retaining walls should be limited to a maximum height of 4 feet and be composed of a decorative material or finish. These walls should not exceed 3 feet in height in the required front yard area. 2. The landscape treatment and multi-purpose trail within the Metropolitan Water District easement area should be designed consistent with the design guidelines within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee direct the applicant to revise the plans incorporating the applicable items from above and any other items the Committee deems appropriate. Once revised, the item should return for further Committee review. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the following conditions: 1. The above-referenced Major Issue Nos. 2a, c, and d should be addressed to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. The porches should be added tc, still maintain the required building separations wherever possible. However, if the inclusion of wrap-around porches into the side yards encroaches into the side yard setback in some situations, the Committee supported the approval of a Minor Exception, given the importance of the porches as a critical architectural element on these homes in the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. 2. The above-referenced Major Issue No. 3, Secondary Issue Nos. 1, 2, and 5, and Policy Issue Nos. I and 2, should be addressed to the satisfaction of the Planning Division and will be recommended as conditions of approval for the project. 3. A P.V.C. or wrought iron fencing material should be used around the interior boundaries of the two common open space areas, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 4. Signs should be posted on the street frontages of the three common open space areas noting that the open space areas are private and only for the use of the residents of the subdivision. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 97-10 (DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12659, PHASES 2 THROUGH 5), THE DESIGN REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 92 LOTS WITHIN AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION (TENTATIVE TRACT 12659), WHICH CONSISTS OF 134 LOTS ON 67.67 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) IN THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ETIWANDA AND WILSON AVENUES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 225-111-40 AND 42 AND 225-341-30 THROUGH 37. A. Recitals. 1. Centex Homes has filed an application for Development Review 97-10 (the Design Review of Tract No. 12659, Phases 2 through 5), as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 9th day of July 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 the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on July 9, 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-10 - CENTEX July 9, 1997 Page 2 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. Planning Division 1) Painted wood tdm shall be provided around all windows and attic vents and used as the finish material for all potshelves, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 2) Additional decorative brackets underneath gable ends shall be used on the architectural styles that warrant their use, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3) Porches shall be designed to be an integral element on the front and wrap around to the front of the side elevations on all applicable models. The porches shall be increased in size and wrap around the side elevations in areas where the building separation can still be maintained. 4. Minor Exception application, which would potentially allow for a 10 percent reduction in the required building separation, shall be submitted for those residences where the required building separation can not be maintained. The Minor Exception shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 4) Front yard setbacks shall be varied to a greater degree, while still maintaining the required minimum and minimum average front yard setbacks, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 5) Within Lots "B" and "C," any proposed lighting for the tennis, basketball, and volleyball courts shall be designed to project down to the courts and not produce significant light or glare in the rear yards of the adjacent residences. A photometric lighting plan, indicating the style, height, and location of all proposed lighting in the common open space areas shall be submitted for review and approval of the Planning Division and the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 6) Additional trees shall be provided in the common open space areas, sufficient to provide large areas of shade in the open lawn areas, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 7) All units shall be plotted so private driveways do not cross local feeder trails, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 8) A uniform mechanical screening device, such as a low decorative wall, shall be used to screen ground-mounted mechanical equipment from public view on all applicable models, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 9) Retaining walls shall be limited to a maximum height of 4 feet in the side and rear yard areas and 3 feet in the front yard area. The retaining walls shall be composed of a decorative material or finish with a PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-10 - CENTEX July 9, 1997 Page 3 decorative cap treatment. The final location and design shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of a rough grading permit. 10) The final landscape, irrigation, and trail design of the area on the south side of Wilson Avenue, including the Metropolitan Water District easement area, shall be designed consistent with the applicable guidelines in the Etiwanda and Etiwanda North Specific Plans, to the satisfaction of the City Planner and City Engineer. The entire area within the Metropolitan Water District easement area at the northwest corner of the site shall be landscaped and a permanent irrigation system provided to the satisfaction of the Planning and Engineering Divisions. 11) A wrought iron or PVC fencing material shall be used around the interior boundaries of the two common open space areas, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 12) Signs shall be posted along the street frontages of the two common open space areas so that these areas are private and only for the use of residents of this subdivision, to the satisfaction of the City Planner and City Engineer. 13) If the originally approved plan for Lot "A," the equestrian oriented common open space area, is proposed to be modified at any time, revised plans will be required to be reviewed and approved by the Trails Advisory and Design Review Committees. 14) The final design of the new common open space areas (Lots "B" and "C") shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. Construction of Lot "B" shall be completed prior to occupancy of any of the new residences proposed under this application and construction of Lot "C" shall be completed prior to occupancy of the 51st unit proposed under this application. 15) Front yard landscaping, community entry landscaping, and on-site windrows shall be provided per the Etiwanda Specific Plan, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 16) All applicable conditions from Resolution No. 85-168, the Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract 12659, shall apply to this project. 17) Uniform wall and fence designs shall be developed for those lots backing onto the remainder of Lot "A." The final designs shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. Homeowners shall be informed of the possible options regarding wall designs prior to accepting any cash deposits on a property. 18) A ribbon gutter shall be provided to convey drainage across the local equestrian easement between Lots 1 and 9 in Tentative Tract 12659-5, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-10 - CENTEX July 9, 1997 Page 4 19) The local equestrian easements shall be extended in width to include the adjacent pdvate drainage easements, to the satisfaction of the City Planner, City Engineer, and Building Official. 20) The Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the project shall include specifications on the maintenance of the private trail/drainage easements, to the satisfaction of the City Planner, City Engineer, and Building Official. Engineering Division 1) Street tree placement and species on the south side of West Rancho Estates Place shall take into account line-of-sight considerations for all driveways on lots which front onto the inside of the curve. 2) Corner property line cut-offs shall be dedicated per City Standards. 3) A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval. 4) Reimbursement for improvements installed by others (including, but not limited to, one-half undergrounding for overhead utilities, street lights, curb and gutters, and median island) along the south side of Wilson Avenue, shall be paid to the City prior to final map approval or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. 5) Wilson Avenue (formerly 24th Street) shall be constructed and landscaped per both the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the Eftwanda North Specific Plan from Etiwanda Avenue to the projection of Hanley Avenue, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement, for those improvements installed by this development, to recover the cost of off-site improvements on the northerly side of Wilson Avenue and one-half the cost of median island and landscaping from future development as it occurs on the opposite (north) side of the street. If the developer fails to submit said reimbursement agreement within six months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 6) Provide a sidewalk easement dedication on Colt Drive. Revise City Drawing No. 1553, Sheet Nos. 1 and 2 to remove the curb-adjacent sidewalk on Colt Ddve, approved per Tract 12659, Phase 2, and install sidewalk in easement, pursuant to City Standards and ADA requirements. 7) Provide a sidewalk easement dedication on Canter Drive. Install sidewalk in easement pursuant to City Standards and ADA requirements. 8) Landscaped areas to be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance Distdct shall incorporate substantial areas of rock cobble, approximately PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-10 - CENTEX July 9, 1997 Page 5 40 percent, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Metropolitan Water District. 9) Where applicable, street trees shall continue themes established in earlier phases. 10) Driveways on Corner Lots 15 and 24 of Tract 12659, Phase 3; Lot 16 of Phase 4; and Lots 1, 18, and 29 of Phase 5 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. 11) All the conditions applicable from Resolution Nos. 89-188, 87-162, 85-168, 85-168A, and 85-168B of Tract 12659 shall apply. Fire Safety Division 1) The project shall be reviewed in accordance with, and may be subject to, the City's Wildland Fire Interface requirements, to the satisfaction of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY 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 9th day of July 1997 by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CON DITIONS PROJECT#: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-10 (TENTATIVE TRACT 12659~ PHASES 2 THRU 5) SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW FOR 92 LOTS WITHIN AN APPROVED 134 LOT SUBDIVISION APPLICANT: CENTEX HOMES LOCATION: SWC ETIWANDA AND WILSON AVENUES ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: ~. Time Limits Completion Date 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not __/__/ issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. 2. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, / / the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such existing District prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities Distdct within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void. This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts as a result of this project. 3. 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. SC - 5~97 ~ ~.~.~ Project No. DR 97-10 Completion Date B. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include / site plans, architectural elevations, extedor materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Etiwanda and Etiwanda North Specific Plans. 2. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be / submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for / consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 4. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, __ __/ all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 5. 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. 6. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with all receptacles shielded from public view. 7. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of' ublic view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry wails, herming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 8.All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 9. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and weed __ __/ control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and construct all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements. a Local Feeder Trails (i.e., pdvate equestrian easements) shall, at a minimum, be fenced with __1__1 two-rail, 4-inch lodgepole "peeler" logs to define both sides of the easement; however, developer may upgrade to an alternate fence material. b. Local Feeder Trail entrances shall also provide access for service vehicles, such as / / veterinarians or hay deliveries, including a 12-foot minimum ddve approach. Entrance may be gated provided that equestrian access is maintained through step-throughs. c. Local Feeder Trail grades shall not exceed 0.5% at the downstream end of a trail for a distance of 25 feet behind the public right-of-way line to prohibit trail debris from reaching the street. Drainage devices may be required by the Building Official. Project No. DR 97-10 Completion Date 10. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall not prohibit the keeping the equine __/__/ animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors of homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&R's. 11. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) and Articles of Incorporation of the / / Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 12. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all __/ / lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. 13. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall / / condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's perimeter. C. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles on __/__/ this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit parking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas. 2. Plans for any secudty gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho __/__/__ Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. D. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping __/__/__ in this case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in __1__1 accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. 3. A minimum of 2--0% of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box __/__/__ or larger. 4. 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. ProJect No, DR 97-10 .Completion Date 5. All pdvate slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater __/ / slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as -- -- follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 6. 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. 7. Front yard and comer side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code and/or Etiwanda SDecifi(; Pl{~r~. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 8. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included / / in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along Wilson Avenue. 10. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the / / design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 11. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. E. Environmental 1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer wdtten notice of the City Adopted Special Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. F. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: G. Site Development 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, Project No. DR 97-10 Completion Date ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to / / existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and / / prior to issuance of building permits. H. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City __/__/ Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to / / perform such work. 3. 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. /__/__ ~PLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, ~-OR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Fire flow requirement shall be 1 ,,500 gallons per minute. / / a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department __/ personnel prior to water plan approval. b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall / be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 2. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed __/ / and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. 3. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, __/ /__ if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a 4" and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted / / to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system. Project No. DR 97-10 Comoletion Date 5. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: ~' All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 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. Plan check fees in the amount of $0 have been paid. An additional $125.00 shall be paid: V' Prior to final plan approval. Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 8. Plans shall be submitted and approved pdor to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, __ UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: J. Security Hardware 1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. __ 2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within __ 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. __ K. Security Fencing 1. When utilizing secudty gates, a Knox box sub-master system secudty device shall be used since fire and law enforcement can access these devices. L. Windows 1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted __/__/__ from frame or track in any manner. M. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. SC - 5/97 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 9, 1997 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission, FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Mafia E. Perez, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: ]~NVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15519 - TEAK WAY ASSOCIATES - A subdivision of 1.6 acres of land into 4 parcels in the low residential district (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) and vacation of Jonquil Drive, east of Teak Way, located on the east side of Teak Way, south of Mignonette Avenue - APN 1076-081-05 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Reque~;ted: Approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map as shown on Exhibit "B". B. Surrounding General Plan Designations and Zoning: Single Family Residential (two to four dwelling units per acre) C. Surrounding Land Use: North - Single Family Residential (two to four dwelling units per acre) South - Agricultural East - Single Family Residential (two to four dwelling units per acre) West - Single Family Residential D.Site Characteristics: The property fronts Teak Way, is undeveloped and slopes to the south at four percent. E. Analysis: The parcel map will establish four lots to be developed with single family homes. Additionally, through the conditions of approval, Jonquil Drive will be vacated and a lot line adjustment with the property to the east will be processed to allow public access for the existing residence. The Teak Way frontage will be fully improved with a transition to the existing pavement south of the south project boundary. TTI~4 C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TPM 15519 - TEAK WAY ASSOCIATES July 9, 1997 Page 2 F. Erlvironmental Review: The applicant completes Part I of the Initial Study. Staff conducted a field investigation and completed Part II of the Initial Study. No adverse impacts upon the environment are anticipated as a result of this project. Therefore, issuance of Negative Declaration is appropriate. G. .C,.O.K.e.~Td~: 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. H. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of the Tentative Parcel Map 15519. If after such consideration, the Commission can recommend approval, then adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. Respectfully submitted, Senior Civil Engineer Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" - Tentative Map Exhibit "C" - Initial Study, Part II Resolution and Recommended Conditions of Approval I .~ HOLLY ST CITY OF ff~: vt~t~t~ ~p RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: TPM 15519 ..... ~NGINEERING DIVISION EXHIBIT: "A" TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 16619 APN NO. .1076-M1-05 ~-, ~~~ TRACT NO. 9352 ~'~ 47.~' - .~;.~- ~:==~.._ ~ ~. r ~=JJ.5 I VACANT LOT =d-,. ,:. _~.,.: ' ~~ 1 19 -- ~ ' ' '~''"-- ~~: "B" City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND Project File: Tentative Parcel Map 15519 2. Related Files: None 3. Description of Project: A subdivision of a 1.6 acre parcel into 4 single family residential parcels. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Teak Way Associates 456 W. San Jose Avenue, Suite B Claremont, CA 91711 5. General Plan Designation: Low, 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre 6. Zoning: Low, 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project is surrounded on four sides by land zoned low, 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre. The land to the north and west are fully developed with single family units. The land to the south is utilized as a Christmas tree farm. The land to the east is developed with three single family homes and various related outbuildings. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Maria E. Perez, Assistant Engineer (909) 477-2740, extension 2314 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None ITEM: Initial Study, Part II TITLE: TPM 15519 IDam3IT: "c" Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 15519 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ' The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics ( ) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (X) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been, avoided or_mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigatio,~ ~easums,.th~t are ir;nposed upon the proposed project. ,Maria E. Perez Assistant Engineer June 4, 1997 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 15519 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. I I S~n~anf I ~ Impact Less IP°tantially I un~..I Th.n I Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ITM I Mitigation ]slonir~nl I No ] I Impact I lnc2°rPcH'ated I Impact 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) b) c) d) I I sKa.ir, c.nt I I Impact Lass IP°mntially I Unaess I Than I I Issues and SuppoSing Information Sources: Isignif"cenf I Miligalion ITM I .o I I Impact lincalP°rated I Impact I Impeel ] 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal.' a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 15519 Page 4 Comments: a) b) c) I I Issues arid $upport~g Irdormatk~fi Sources: I ~ Impect Less IP°tenlially I Unless Than J Impact Ilnc°~P°ratedI impact J 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) b) c) d) e) g) h) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 15519 Page 5 I I Significant I I Impact Less IPctenti~lt'/ IUnlessI T~. I I luues at~d Supporting Info~'natiort Sources: Isignif'u:~n! I Mitigatio~ Is~r'cant I No I ~ Impact I tnc°rp°rated I Impact ] Impact 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater.'? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? () ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) b) c) d) e) 0 g) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 15519 Page 6 h) i) I I s~n~ I I Impact Less IPC~i"l~ I u.,,,. I.lul..rid SuPlx~ing Infoan.lion Sources: ISignificant I Mitig.lion Sign.~.n, I No I ] impact J lncoqx)rated Impact J Impeel J 5. AIR QUALITY. Wou/d the proposa/: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ' ( ) (x) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) b) c) d) I I s~.~.nf I I Impact Less Than Issues end Supporting Information Sources: IS~gnificarK I Mfliget~on I Impect I lncorP°rated I Impact [ Impact I 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 15519 Page 7 I I Impac~ Less IPotentiefiy I Unless I T~.~ I I Issues and S~ Inf~at~ S~r~s: 0 Conflicts with adopted policies suppoding alternative transpodation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: b) c) d) e) 0 g) ' I I I I Impm Less IP°~lefiy I U.m.. I Th*. I I Iss~s .~ Sup~g J 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the propose/ result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal poo~)? ( ) ( ) () (x) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 15519 Page 8 Comments: a) b) c) d) e) I I I Impact Less IP°"r"i""Y I Unless Is n,I .o I Imp~ I1~ated I Impa~ I Impa~ 8. ENERGY AND MINE~L RESOURCES. Would the proposah a) Conflict with adopted energy consedation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: b) c) S~t Iss~S a~ Su~ Inf~ali~ S~r~s: P~I~I~ ~ U~ss L~ Im~ I1~al~ I tmpa~ I Impa~ 9. HA~RDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Possible intedemnce with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 15519 Page 9 Sign~'~.an/ I I Impact Lass Ip°temially I Unless Than Issue. and Supporting Inform .tion Sou,ca.: ISignifican, I Mitigation ,ignifican, I No I I Impact I lnc~rporated Impact I Impact c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) b) c) d) e) I I I [ Impact Less IP°tenlielly I Unless Than I Issues and Supporting Infon'nation Sources: IS~gnif-~"ant I M,~.~ S~n~.~.nt I No ] Impact I lnc~ramd mpact [ Impact 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) b) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 15519 Page 10 I ~ Impac~ Less Ip°tentially I Unless I Than I Illues end Supporting Info,'marion Sources: ITM I Mitigation ITM I No I Impact Ilnc°rP°rated I Impact I Impact PUBLIC SERVICES. Wou/d the propose/have an effec! upon or resu/! /n a need for new or a/tered govemme.t se~ices /n any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x:) b:) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: c) d) e) ''-'"1II II I I Impact Less IP°lemmlly I Unless Thnn Issue, ar'~l Supporting Information Sources: ~$ignif'an, J ImpactIlnc°rp°ratedI ImpactIrapact 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power and natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 15519 Page 11 Comments: a) b) c) d) e) 0 g) I ] Impac~ Less IP°tentially I u.~s, i T~o I I Issues ~ $uppo~g Inlo~rnetmn Sources: J Impect Ilnc°rp°rated I Impact I Impac~ J 13. AESTHETICS, Would the proposal; a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) b) c) I I Impact Less IP°tenlially I u~,, I T~,. I Issues end Supporting Information Sources: Isignify'ant I Mitigation ISmnit, cent No I Impact Ilnc°qTM I Impact J rapact 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 15519 Page 12 J J Significanl J J Impac~ Less IP°lentially I Unless I Then Issues lad Supportm, g Information Sources: ITM I Mitigetior~ Isignjficent I No I ! ImpactIlnc°rPOreledI Impact d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) b) c) d) e) I I I I Impact Less IP°*""~'"y I Un~.ssI Than *.s~s ~d suppo.~*.fo,-m.t~o,~ so~ces: Is~r~.~ j M,~,ge~ ITM I No I Impac~ Ilnc°rp°raled I Irapeet J Impact I 15. RECREATION. Wou/d the proposa/: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) b) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 15519 Page 13 I ~ Significant ~ I Impact Lass IP°tenlially IUn,as,I Than I I I/sues and Suppo~a'tg InfOOllation Sources: ITM I Mitigation ITM I No J Impact Ilnc°rp°rated I Impact J Impact 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve shod-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A shod-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) b) c) d) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 15519 Page 14 EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (x) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) ( ) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) ( ) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) ( ) Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 18, EIR (SCH #93102055, certified June 15, 1994) ( ) Victoria Planned Community EIR (Certified May 20, 1981) ( ) Terra Vista Planned Community EIR (SCH #81082808, certified February 16, 1983) ( ) Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR (SCH #87021615, certified September 16, 1987) ( ) Etiwanda Specific Plan EIR (SCH #82061801, certified July 6, 1983) ( ) Etiwanda North Specific Plan EIR (SCH #89012314, certified April 1, 1992) ( ) Other: ( ) Other: Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 15519 Page 15 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 Signature: ~ Date: ~,//'~,//'~'_? ' Print Name and Title: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1. Brief Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 155!9 - TEAK WAY ASSOCIATES - A subdivision of 1.6 acres of land into 4 parcels in the low residential district (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) and vacation of Jonquil Drive, east of Teak Way, located on the east side of Teak Way, south of Mignonette Avenue - APN 1076-081-05 2. Name and Address of App!icant: Mr. Stan Stringfellow Teak Way Associates 456 West San Jose Avenue, Suite B Claremont, CA 91711 3. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the City of Rancho Cucarnonga has determined that the above project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. An Environmental Impact Report will not be required. 4. Minutes of such decision and the Initial Study prepared by the City of Rancho Cucamonga are on file in the Planning Division of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 5. This decision may be appealed to the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. A written appeal and filing fee must be received by the Planning Division no later than 5:00 pm ten (10) calendar days from the date of the Planning Commission decision. 6. This Negative Declaration is subject to the implementation of mitigating measures (if any) as listed on the attachments. Dated July 9. 1997 Meeting Date E. David Barker Planning Commission Chairman Title RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15519, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF TEAK WAY SOUTH OF MIGNONETTE - APN: 1076-081-05 WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 15519, submitted by Teak Way Associates, applicants, for the purpose of subdividing into 4 parcels, the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of Califomia, identified as APN: 1076-081-05, located on the east side of Teak Way South of Mignonette; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 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. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or public health problems or have adverse effects on abutting properties. 5. The vacation of Jonquil Ddve, east of Teak Way, is in conformance with the General Plan. 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: 1. 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. 2. Based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PARCEL MAP 15519 - TEAK WAY ASSOCIATES July 9, 1997 Page 2 3. 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. This Commission finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and further, this Commission hereby issues a Negative Declaration. SECTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map Number 15519 is hereby approved subject to the attached Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: Enqineerinq Division 1. Vacate the offer of dedication for Jonquil Drive, east of Teak Way, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2. The sidewalk on Teak Way shall be constructed parkway adjacent, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3.A lot line adjustment shall be processed concurrent with the parcel map to provide access to APN 1076-081-04. 4. A transition to the existing improvements at the south project boundary shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PARCEL MAP 15519 - TEAK WAY ASSOCIATES July 9, 1997 Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of July 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. Those items checked are Conditions of Aprroyal. A. Dedications and Vehicular Access __ 1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street u'ees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. ~ 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way for the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): ~:;C.~ total feet on -V~'Sg, V~_ i~ total feet on total feet on total feet on ,, 3. An irrevocable offer of dedication for roadway purposes shall be made for the private streets. 4. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. 5. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for approved openings: 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. All existing easements lying within future right-of-way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the final parcel map per the City Engineer's requirements. 9. Easements for public sidewalks anct/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City. 10. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final parcel map. I I. 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 easement shall be provided. 12. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests necessaD' 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 Sec. tion 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. This condition applies in particular, but not limited, to: % B. Street Improvements 1. All public improvements, (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc. ) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 2. 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 Other & Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Gutter Notes: (a) Median Island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) IFso marked, sidewalk will be curvilinear per STD. #114. (d) l[so marked. an in-lieu o£construction tee shall be provided for this item. 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 m.a'<imum of 200 feet apart, unless othenvis¢ 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 ofthe 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 Cid' 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 an>' 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. C. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final 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 f'Lnal 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: D. 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 necessary 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 shall 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 of the 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: t-t- C 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 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 requireed. 2. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed 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. 4. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. G. General Requirements and Approvals I. 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. 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 ajoint 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. 7. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. 8. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan Drainage Fees shall be paid prior to f'mal 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 Law Enforcement Community Facilities District shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to f'mal parcel map approval. Formation costs shall be home by the developer. 11. 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 of the final parcel map. Further, if'the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within p, velve 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 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 9, 1997 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission, FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Maria E. Perez, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15014 -AMIR DEVELOPMENT - A subdivision of 9.5 acres of land into 3 parcels in the General Industrial District of the Industrial Specific Plan, Subarea 8, located on the southwest comer of Arrow Route and White Oak Avenue and vacation of the non- vehicular access restriction on Arrow Route - APN 209-144-95 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map as shown on Exhibit B. Surrounding General Plan Designations and Zoning: General Industrial (Subarea 8 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan). C. Surrounding Land Use: North - Industrial South - Industrial East - Industrial West - Industrial D. Site Characteristics: The property is situated at the southwest comer of Arrow Rotue and White Oak Avenue. It is currently developed with a 118,600 square foot building, with the two new parcels proposed to front Arrow Route and White Oak Avenue respectively. E. Analysis: The parcel map will establish three lots. Parcel 1 is currently developed with a 118,600 square foot building. The frontages of Arrow Route and White Oak Avenue will be fully improved with transitions to the existing improvements to the west and south of the south project boundary. ITEM D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TPM 15014 - AMIR DEVELOPMENT July 9, 1997 Page 2 F. Environmental Review: The applicant completed Part I of the Initial Study. Staff conducted a field investigation and completed Part II of the Initial Study. No adverse impacts upon the environment are anticipated as a result of this project. Therefore, issuance of Negative Declaration is appropriate. G. 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. H. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of the Tentative Parcel Map 15014. If after such consideration, the Commission can recommend approval, then adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. Respectfully submitted, Senior Civil Engineer Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" - Tentative Map Exhibit "C" - Initial Study, Part II Resolution and Recommended Conditions of Approval '/52_ CITY OF ITEM: Vicinity Map RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE:TPM 15014 ~NGINEERING DMSION EXHIBIT: IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA [N~N~NNING: AR~A ~MMARY: Z~G/L~D U~: NO~: PR~O~D C~DI~S CO~NAN~ AND R[S~IC~S (C C (v~C~NT) F~ u ~ ~ ~. m M~.~D SURR~NDING ~NER~ PLAN/ DE~L~MENT C~E DE~A~S: .... City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Tentative Parcel Map 15014 2."' Related Files: None 3. Description of Project: A subdivision of a 9.5 acre parcel into three parcels. The existing 118,600 square foot building is within the proposed property lines of the larger parcel. The two remaining parcels are undeveloped and proposed to be 3.2 acres and 0.9 acres. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Amir Development 8730 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial 6. Zoning: Industrial Specific Plan, Subarea 8 7. Surrounding Lind Uses and Setting: The property to the north is zoned light industrial and developed with a post office. The property to the east is zoned general industrial and partially developed with various industrial uses. The property to the south is zoned general industrial and is vacant. The property to the east is zoned general industrial and is developed with an office building and various industrial uses. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Maria E. Perez, Assistant Engineer (909) 477-2740, extension 2314 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None ]~EM: !!11tjal Study, '~~ TITLE: TPM 15014 EXIIIBIT: "C" Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 15014 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics }.,Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (X) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) 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 pro'posed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation roeasur. es-that are imposed upon the proposed project. / ,/;. / Signed: '/',' / (~'~'66'~ ,~" ,/' ?'/'~"'(-~ ~ Maria E. Perez Assistant Engineer March 31, 1997 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 15014 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. ] ! Impact Less IP°tentially I Unless Than I ~mpact Imcorpoi'e~ecsJ Impact ! Impact 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) b) c) d) I I s~-~.~ I I Irnl;~lc~ Less Issues and Sul;)C)ort~ng Information S~s: ' IP°te~m~ I U~=s ~n I J~ I~'~~ I sm~ I Impa~ I 2. POPULATION ~D HOUSING. Wou/d the proposa/: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Induce substantial gro~h in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects i~ an undeveloped area or e~ension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 15014 Page 4 Comments; a) b) c) I I Ils.gel II'~ Sul:~l~'~l"~ Irafro'maim Sootc~s: j j JPolentJl~ J JS~nt J M~t=n IS~n~ JNo Im~ J . ~ J ImpureJl~i~ J tmpa~ J J 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Wou/~ ~he ~o~/ re~u/i /n or expose people to poleni/el/mpecl~/nvolv/ng: a) F~ult rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Seismic ground f~ilure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) g Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavmion, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) h) Exp~nsive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: ~) b) c) d) e) g) h) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 15014 Page 5 i) I J Irnp~c~ IP°~er~i~lly I Unmss ~n 4. WATER. ~1/ the proposal result in; a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage paEerns, or the rate and amount of su~ace water runoff? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Exposure of people or prope~y to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Discharge into su~ace water or other alteration of su~ace water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Changes in the amount of su~ace water in any water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction ~ of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ~ Change in the quantity of ground watem, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater othe~ise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Commen~: a) b) c) d) e) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 15014 Page 6 g) h) i) I I Significmnt JPotent~lly I ~.1 I Than J J 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) b) c) d) 6. T~NSPORTATIONICIRCU~TION. Wo~'d the proposal result in: a) Increased.vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp cu~es or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 15014 Page 7 I J impact Less 'ssuesandSuppo~luqglnforma[~onSources: I$ignificanlIM~tioati°~ IS~'~'=nt I "° I Impact IlnC~rl-~aied! Impact ! Impact f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) b) c) d) e) g) S~gnif.:am Impact Le~-~ issues an~ Supporting Information So,roes: IS~gnif":antI ~t,gat.3n S~nif.:ant No I impact I lnco~ed ! Impa~ I ~,~oac~ I 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Wou/d the proposa/ resu/t /n /mpacts a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus. windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 15014 Page Comments: a) b) c) d) e) J J impact ~ Impe~ ~ I~ted 8. ENERGY AND MINE~L RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with adopted energy consedation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Commen~: a) b) c) I s~ I Imp~ I ~ted mpa~ Imoa~ 9. HA~RDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 15014 Page 9 I I Irn~c~ Less Issues 8r~l Suppo~lrtg I~lt~ S~s: ~Polentmlly] U~ss c) The creation of any healt~ ~azard or potential ~ealth ~azard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ~) Exposure or people to existing sources of potential ~ealth hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Increased fire ~azard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) a) b) c) d) e) [ I Imp~cl Less ISSues ~'~ S~ Infol~rnat~"l $our~s: [Pol~t~l~ I Unmss ~n I ~ 0. NOISE. ~//~e ~) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ~) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) I Ipmentmlb'I Unless ~ssu~s ,no Su~)pon.~g Informm~on Sources: Isignif'csntI M~bg.Bo~ I$~gnlflc'lnlI No I I Impaci Ilnc°~°r"ted I hT, p~.~[ Imoa~ 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for. City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 15014 Page 10 I Potentially ~ Signif'~ant ~ Iml~aC~ PotentiallyIUn~ss Ils~s ~ S~ I~l~ S~s: ISign~t J M~t~ ITM I No I Imam I1~rmed I Im~a I Im~ b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Other governmental se~ices? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) b) c) d) e) S~ I I Im~ IPOtentroW I U~ ~n I~s ~ S~mg I~tK Sas: ITM I M~ ;~ No 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal ~sult in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power ahd natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ~ Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) b) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 15014 Page 11 c) d) e) 0 g) ] I Impac~ Less IP°t*"ti"~/ I uo~s i T~. I I ,. ~ Is~s a~ Sup~ni~ Inf~at~n S~r~s: I Sig~t I M~al~n ~S~n~m I No I 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) b) c) I lmp=~ L~ Ip°tential~I Un~ss ~an 14. CULTU~L RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb 'paleontologicaI resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? () () () (x) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 15014 Page 12 Comments: a) b) c) d) e) I I IP°tent~mty I Unless ~ssues anct Supponin~ I~orm.,t~on $ources~ ~S~r~r~an~ I Mmg.,t,on Is"0n~ant / Impa~ I lr~'°f'P°rate~ I Imosc~ 15. RECREATION. Wou/d the proposaL' a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) AffeCt existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) b) I I } ] Iml:)ac~ Less IP°ter~mly I Unles~ 'T~an ,ss~s ~ support.~ ,nfo..n.,~ so~ces: Isi~r'ca~ I M.ioat~ Is~'~"c=~ I I tmpa= I tnc=:~x~ate~I Impact 6. 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 populatio~ 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 impodant examples of the major periods of California histo~ or prehisto~? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 15014 Page 13 I I Impeel Less ~Potent~lly I Unless Than Issues ,rid Supporting ,nformatm~a Sources: IS~gmf'can' , M'~"t~on Is~n~r~n~ I No m ImpactI~nc°q~°r"mdI Impac~I Impact b) Sho~ term: Does the project have the potential to achieve shod-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A shod-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) () () ( ) (x) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects o~ other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Commen~: a) b) c) EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tie~ng, program EIR, or other CE~ process, one or more effects have'~en adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effe~s 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 utii~ed in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City o~ Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division o~ces, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): " (x) . General Plan EI~ (Ce~i~ed April G, 19~1) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 15014 Page 14 ( ) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update ' (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (x) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) ( ) Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 18, EIR (SCH #93102055, certified June 15, 1994) ( ) Victoria Planned Community EIR (Certified May 20, 1981) ( ) Terra Vista Planned Community EIR (SCH #81082808, certified February 16, 1983) ( ) Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR (SCH #87021615, certified September 16, 1987) ( ) Etiwanda Specific Plan EIR (SCH #82061801, certified July 6, 1983) ( ) Etiwanda North Specific Plan EIR (SCH #89012314, certified April 1, 1992) ( ) Other: ( ) Other: 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 °r mitigate thl e/r~eCts t~ a p°int where cleady n° significant envir°nmental effects w°uld ..~ Signature: Date: Print Name and Title: ' ~ ~- ~ ~' ~"¢d ~"~ ~::)A~-'~'"'~,/~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1. Brief Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15014 -AMIR DEVELOPMENT - A subdivision of 9.5 acres of land into 3 parcels in the General Industrial District of the Industrial Specific Plan, Subarea 8, located on the southwest comer of Arrow Route and White Oak Avenue and vacation of the non-vehicular access restriction on Arrow Route - APN 209-144-95 2. Name and Address of Applicant: Mr. Paul Amir Amir Development 8730 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 3. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the City of , Rancho Cucamonga has determined that the above project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. An Environmental Impact Report will not be required. 4. Minutes of such decision and the Initial Study prepared by the City of Rancho Cucamonga are on file in the Planning Division of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 5. This decision may be appealed to the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. A written appeal and filing fee must be received by the Planning Division no later than 5:00 pm ten (10) calendar days from the date of the Planning Commission decision. 6. This Negative Declaration is subject to the implementation of mitigating measures (if any) as listed on the attachments. Dated July 9, 1997 Meeting Date E. David Barker Planning Commission Chairman Title RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15014, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ARROW ROUTE AND WHITE OAK AVENUE, APN: 209-144-95 WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 15014, submitted by Amir Development, applicants, for the purpose of subdividing into 3 parcels, the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, identified as APN: 209-144-95, located on the southwest corner of Arrow Route and White Oak Avenue and WHEREAS, on July 9, 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 Industrial Area Specific Plan and the General Plan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or public health problems or have adverse effects on abutting properties. SECTION 2: Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: 1. 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. 2. Based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. 3. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PARCEL MAP 15014 - AMIR DEVELOPMENT July 9, 1997 Page 2 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. This Commission finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and further, this Commission hereby issues a Negative Declaration. SECTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map Number 15014 is hereby approved subject to the attached Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: Engineering Division 1. Drainage/flood protection facilities shall be provided for the project area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer as follows: a. The runoff (Q100) from the site shall not exceed the capacity of the existing public storm drain system to the south. The amount of on-site detention shall be based on a proration of available capacity of the undeveloped parcels on a per acre basis for the area tributary to the cul-de-sac at the south end of Vincent Avenue, just north of the A.T.S.F. railroad main line. Reference the hydrology/hydraulic study prepared for Parcel Map 12959 to the east on file with the City. b. Easements shall be delineated and inundation rights dedicated concurrent with the recordation of the parcel map. c. No public water shall be tributary directly to the inundation areas. d. In automobile and truck parking and maneuvering areas, ponding depths shall not exceed 12 inches and 18 inches, respectively, and shall not exceed 6 inches for more than 4 hours. e. The detention facilities shall be constructed concurrent with the respective development of parcels 2 and 3. 2. Install three 5800 Lumen HPSV street lights along the White Oak frontage. 3. Concurrent with the development of Parcel 2, the Arrow Route driveway shall be brought into conformance with the City driveway policy. 4. The non-vehicular access restriction on Arrow Route shall be vacated. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PARCEL MAP 15014 - AMIR DEVELOPMENT July 9, 1997 Page 3 Cucamonga County Water District 1. Existing site currently has water and sewer service connections. Any additional facilities shall be reviewed by the Cucamonga County Water District at the time of development. Also, Parcels 2 & 3 shall be reviewed pdor to development with respect to conformance with district policies. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY 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 9th day of July 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. Those items checked are Conditions of Aooroval. A. Dedications and Vehicular Access m 1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, coremunit3, trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way for the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): total feet on total feet on total feet on total feet on 3. An irrevocable offer of dedication for roadway purposes shall be made for the private streets. 4. Comer property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. 5. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for approved openings: ~( 6. 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. X 7. 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. 8. All existing easements lying within future right-of-way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the final parcel map per the City Engineer's requirements. 9. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City. 10. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final parcel map. I I. 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 easement shall be provided. 1 12. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests necessary to construct the required public improvements and, if he/she should fail to do so, the developer shall at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final 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 of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City. prior to commencement of the appraisal. This condition applies in particular, but not limited, to: B. Street Improvements I. All public improvements, (interior sweets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, iandscaped 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 Su'eet Comm. Median Bike Other & Pvmt walk Appr. Light~ Trees Trail Island Trail Gutter Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) lfso marked, sidewalk will be curvilinear per STD. # 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. 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 shah be posted and an a~eement 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: (1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets. a maximum ot'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 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 subminal 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 C. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final 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. Park-way landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautification Master Plan: D. 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 necessary 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 CiD' Engineer prior to final parcel map approval. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Cid' Engineer. 4. Adequate provisions shall 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 of the 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 =m'aded to convey overflows in the event of blockage in a sump catch basin on a public street. 4 E. lm_~rovement Comoletion 1. If the required public improvements are not completed prior to approval of the f'mal parcel map, an improvement security accompanied by an agreement executed by the Developer and the City will be required 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 f'mal parcel map, stating that they will be completed upon development for: F. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the UtiliD' Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet requirements of the Ctlcamonga County. Water District (CCW'D), 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. 4. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. G. General Requirements and Approvals I. 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. 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 cop3' of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (C C & R's) approved by the City Attome>' 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 vosted 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 finalization of any development phase, su~: .ent improvement plans shall be completed beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. 8. Eftwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secon0ary 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 si~ned consent and waiver form to join and/or form the Law Enforcement Community Facilities District shall be filed ~vith the City Engineer prior to f'mal parcel map approval. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. I1. Prior to recordation of the final parcel map, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment ofa Mello-Roos Community Facilities District ['or 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 dislxict prior to the recordation of the fmal parcel map. Further, if the affected school disn'ict 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 Ci~ 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 Cucarnonga 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 Determ~nanon (NOD) regardmg the associated environmental action '.wrt~ ed 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 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: July 9, 1997 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-03 - OLIVAS - A request to construct a new 7,011 square foot Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses on a 1.13 acre parcel in Subarea 1 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan in the Medium Residential District, located at the southwest corner of San Bernardino Road and Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-123-02 and 03. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zonino: North Vacant; Special Commercial (Subarea 1 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan) South - Multiple family residences and vacant land; Medium Residential (Subarea I of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan) East - Residential apartments; Medium Residential (Subarea I of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan) West - Office buildings; Office (Subarea 1 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan) B. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Medium Residential North - Commercial South - Medium Residential East Medium Residential West Office C. Site Characteristics: The eastern one-half of the site is currently developed with a 3,150 square foot Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses and related parking and landscaped areas, with curb and gutter along the frontages of the eastern parcel. The western parcel is currently void of any structures and is being used as a storage area by the property owner. The site slopes gently from northwest to southeast at approximately 3 percent. IT~ E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 97-03 - OLIVAS July 9, 1997 Page 2 D. Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Re(~uired Provided Church 7,011 1/4 fixed 83 83 (332 fixed seats seats) BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission held a Pre-Application Review Workshop on November 13, 1996, to consider the project. At that meeting, the Commission forwarded recommendations relative to site planning and architectural design, which have been incorporated into the revised plans. The Planning Commission reviewed and approved Vadance 96-09 on January 22, 1997. The Vadance allowed for a reduced setback between the proposed parking lot and the southerly property of the project area. Minutes from both meetings have been attached for your convenience (Exhibits "F" and "G"). ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is proposing to demolish their existing Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses facility and develop a new "double" Kingdom Hall on the two parcels currently owned by the congregation. The applicant has stated they have outgrown their existing facility and the demand for a larger facility with a larger seating capacity is now necessary. The facility is proposed to be in use seven days a week for services and Bible Study sessions; Monday through Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. and Sundays from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. No employees are anticipated to be hired in association with the project. Congregation elders will preform any necessary office related activities during the proposed hours of operation. The building has been oriented to the west end of the site so the entire field of parking is located in one large area; pdmadly east of the building, adjacent to the two street frontages. This plotting was recommended as an option by the Planning Commission at the original Pre- Application Workshop. Landscaped areas with berming, shrub hedges, and a decorative fence with pilasters is proposed along the streetscape to screen the parking areas from street view. Two vehicular accesses, one on each street frontage, are proposed in compliance with City driveway policies. The architecture has been designed in keeping with the context of the neighborhood. B. Land Use Comoatibility: The site is located in a 'transition" area where many land uses come together. The site itself is within a Medium Residential Development District and the same land use exists south and east of the site. To the north is undeveloped commercial land and to the west is an existing office complex on land that is zoned for office uses. Since the same use is already on site and no complaints related to the use have been reported, staff sees the existing development as a fair barometer and anticipates that no significant land use compatibility issues should arise as a result of the proposed new development on the property. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 97-03 - OLIVAS July 9, 1997 Page 3 C. Design Review Committee: On June 3, 1997, the Design Review Committee (Bethel, Tolstoy, Buller) reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to specific conditions of approval, all of which have been incorporated into the attached Resolution of Approval. Action comments from this meeting have been attached for your convenience (Exhibit "E"). D. Technical Review Committee: On June 4, 1997, the Technical Review Committee reviewed the project and determined that, with the recommended special and standard conditions of approval, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. The Grading Committee recommended conceptual approval of the project, with conditions, at their June 3, 1997, meeting. E. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study (Exhibit "F") and, the Environmental Checklist, and has determined that there could be a significant impact on the environment relative to water, transportation/circulation, and noise if proper mitigation is not incorporated into the project design. Proper mitigation measures relative to all environmental concerns have been incorporated into the project design or are listed in the recommended conditions of approval for the project. If the Commission concurs, then issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order. CORRESPONDENCl,: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 97-03 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and issue a mitigated Negative Declaration. City Planner BB:SH:taa Attachments: Exhibit"A"- Vicinity Map Exhibit"B"- Site/Grading Plan Exhibit"C"- Landscape Plan Exhibit"D"- Building Elevations Exhibit "E" - June 3, 1997, Design Review Committee Action Comments Exhibit "F" - November 13, 1996, Pre-Application Review Workshop Minutes Exhibit"G"- January 22, 1997, Planning Commission Minutes Exhibit"H"- Initial Study, Part II Resolution of Approval with Conditions SITE UTILIZATION MAP ~: ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR I I ~ APPLICM!I I ~ '" ,,~.. ~.,~,s.., I OWlIER ~ ~ '--, ~ u LEGAL DF.~J:~J~'I_OjJ ! ~. ~ SAN BERNAF~DlliO ROAD ~ s~.~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~" ' ' ~ ~--' PREPARED BT ~ . ~ i~ ~ ~ . ~. ~ I d ~ ~,,~'~:~ .~ l!~l ,~ ~, /, ,~, . -- - .... - ' " ~ I '~:l '~l~ "~ ""' '~~~'~i~, ~ ;;~ ...... ~ ','~ r , ......... "' ' I ' SITE PLAN I I I ~ I viciHiP, MAP K;~;:;n;; __ Prepl, ed By; PETER ARENCIBIA R.C.E. mh..I .0 ......... CUP NUMBER 97-03 .~ "' ~'~ --1 '-' l-'- [ ...... ,-. ,~.,,. ....... WEST ELEVATION $OU[tt ELEVATIOfl EASE ELEVATION ~6 ~ flORHI EI.EVATtOII .. ~, ~, ~,~: ~,,~ ~?.~ PETER AEEHCIBIA RC.[. ~lllgOOM t~LL ~,ov~O .~ s..,.:./~; ~ ' ' CUP IIUMBER 9/-0~ ~.~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:40 p.m. Steve Hayes June 3, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-03 - OLIVAS - A request to construct a new 7,011 square foot Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses on a 1.13 acre parcel in Subarea 1 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan in the Medium Residential District, located at the southwest corner of San Bernardino Road and Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-123-02 and 03. Desiqn Parameters: The eastern one-half of the site is currently developed with a 3,150 square foot Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses and related parking and landscaped areas, with curb and gutter along the street frontages of the eastern parcel. The western parcel is currently void of any structures and is being used as a storage area by the property owner. To the north of the site is vacant land that is zoned for Specialty Commercial uses. To the south is primarily vacant land with a four-plex of multiple family dwellings adjacent to the southwest corner of the site. To the east is existing apartments and to the west is a parking lot for an existing medical office complex. The site slopes gently from northwest to southeast at approximately 3 percent. Background: The Planning Commission previously reviewed this project at a Pre-Application review workshop on November 13, 1996. Minutes from that meeting have been attached for your convenience (See exhibit "A"). Revised plans and a formal application were submitted to the Planning Division along with a Variance application to reduce the required setback along the southern property line from 15 to 5 feet The Planning Commission reviewed and approved the Variance application on January 22, 1997. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. 1. The building has been re-oriented consistent with one of the options suggested by the Planning Commission at the Pre-Application Workshop. Per staff's recommendations, an outdoor "courtyard" area is proposed near the main entrance to give a sense of arrival to the entrance area and provide an esthetically pleasing focal point to the project. Given this, staff has no major site planning issues with the project. 2. The architectural concept has been significantly upgraded since the Pre-Application Review workshop. However, the level of detailing will be critical for the style of architecture proposed. Therefore, the following upgrades should be incorporated into the building, as follows: a. A layered fascia or upgraded cornice treatment; b. Additional use of trellises in blank areas on the south and west elevations. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. A landscape planter should be provided on the south side of parking spaces 25, 38 and 54 and the special paving strip for pedestrian access shifted southerly. In order to provide the planter with a internal width of 5 feet, the planter on the north side of parking spaces 13 and DRC COMMENTS CUP 97-03 - OLIVAS June 3, 1997 Page 2 26 can be reduced in width. Also, the special paving band on the east side of parking stall 63 should be shifted easterly in order to provide a raised landscape planter on the east side of this parking space. 2. Pilasters should be incorporated into the design of the proposed wrought iron fence. 3. A landscaped area should be provided on the east side of the trash enclosure, adjacent to parking space 64. 4. The screen walls flanking the sides of the main entrance should receive a stucco texture and cap treatment to match the proposed building. 5. Vining should be trained to grow up on the trellises throughout the project. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Special paving should consist of a more durable and decorative treatment such as brick pavers, exposed aggregate, or a combination thereof. 2. Evergreen shrubs, combined with the proposed berming and low walls, should be used in order to screen the parking areas from view of the major streets. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission with conditions as referenced above. Attachment Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Brad Buller, Bill Bethel, Peter Tolstoy Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee recommended approval of the project contingent upon the applicant continuing to work with staff to address the following issues: 1. The architectural appearance of the building should be upgraded by: a. Providing windows on the building in areas such as offices; or b. Introducing spandrel glass or glass block on the building as a prominent architectural element; or c. Provide architectural insets around the wall trellis areas. DRC COMMENTS CUP 97-03 - OLIVAS June 3, 1997 Page 3 2. Additional architecural treatmenfs from the options listed above should be provided in the blank wail areas on the south and west elevations. 3. The overhead trellis over the courtyard area should be extended easterly to approsimately the same point as the overhead trellises already on the east side of the building. In order to provide variation in the trellises, the overhead trellis over the courtyard could be taller or extend further easterly than the other trellises on the east side of the building. Large speciman size trees should be provided in areas where there are openings in the courtyard trellis. 4. The air conditioning units should be relocated to the west side of the building and an architectural appendage designed to screen the units from public view. 5. The support columns for the overhead trellises should receive a different exterior treatment, perhaps the natural river rock finish that is proposed on the fence pilasters or a pre-cast material. 6. The wought iron fencing selected for the perimeter fence should have a flat top as opposed to spikes on the top of the fence. 7. Major issue l(a) and all referenced Secondary and Policy issues mentioned in the staff report should be addressed to the satisfaction of staff and will become recommended Conditions of Approval for the project. .. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting November 13, 1996 Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 11:40 p.m. The meeting was held in the DeAnza Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, William Bethel, Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Bullet, City Planner;, Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. NEW BUSINESS A. PRl~-APpLICATION REVIEW 96-05 - UPLAND. CALIFORNIA CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES - Review of preliminary site planning for a proposed two-phase project at the southwest corner of San Bernardino Road and Red Hill Country Club Drive. Brad Buller, City Planner, opened the meeting by introducing the project to the Commission and briefly explaining the purpose and goals of the pre-application review process. Ralph Olivas, representative for the Jehovah's Witnesses congregation, explained the basic functions of the proposed facility and why a larger Kingdom Hall is necessary for this area. He went on to highlight the proposed phasing of improvements (both on and off-site). Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, summarized staff's concerns with the site plan and architectural elevations. Commissioner Macias noted his concerns with the proposed architecture and the "closed" and barrack-like appearance of the building given that no exterior windows are proposed. He felt some architectural solution will be necessary to compensate for the lack of windows and the elongated appearance of the building. He recommended that the building be re-oriented so as not to be directly in the middle of the site and that an outdoor congregation area be provided. Commissioner Bethel felt the lack of windows presents a safety issue and may induce curiosity as to the activities that may be occurring inside the building. Mr. Olivas stated that it is typical of all Kingdom Halls around the wodd not to have exterior windows. Commissioner McNiel agreed with Commissioner Macias that the building should be re-oriented and that the architecture appears dated and needs to be significantly upgraded. Commissioner Tolstoy expressed his pleasure to see an expansion of the existing facility proposed at this location. He too felt that the building architecture needs further embellishment, including varying roof lines and the addition of windows. Chairman Barker summarized that he generally agreed with the recommendations of staff and his fellow Commissioners. He asked the applicant how much parking is used on a daily basis. Mr. Olivas stated that about 80 percent of the parking would be used on a daily basis for about 3 to 4 hours a day. Chairman Barker asked if the applicant had considered the use of turf-block for some of the parking spaces. He stated that the applicant should look into materials (not necessarily windows) to upgrade the overall appearance of the building. Mr. Olivas asked the Commission for clarification as to the most important issues to resolve in revising the project design. Mr. Bullet indicated it is the site plan/building orientation. He also noted that the building architecture is a key issue. Mr. Olivas asked for comments regarding signage. Mr. Buller stated that this item would be under staffis review but noted that if a monument sign is proposed, staff would recommended one similar to that done at the Kingdom Hall on Church Street. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS There was no additional Commission business. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes ~._..:2/~ November 13, 1996 Mr. stated he had no problem with the agreement, but again asked for the City's help in getting the made regarding the 12-inch pipe. Motion: Moved by Bethel, Tolstoy, to ado )n approving Development Review 96-27, with modifications to wood siding subject to DRC approval and allow for phasing of the carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER MACIAS, TOLSTOY NOES: AI -carried PUBLIC HEARINGS C. VARIANCE 96-09 - OLIVAS - A request to reduce the parking setback from 15 feet to 5 feet along the south property line for a proposed Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses in the Medium Residential zone (8-14 dwelling units per acre), to be located at 8141 and 8171 San Bernardino Road. APN: 207-123-02 and 03. Related File: Pre-Application Review 96-05. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Peter Arencibia, Civil Engineer, 9320 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, reported the existing facility has, in places, as little as a 3 foot parking setback from the existing south property line, but noted there is a 6 foot high block wall with Oleander trees, and remarked the proposed changes will be an improvement. He pointed out existing residences are 30 feet south of the property line. Mr. Melvin Loofgoun'ow, 8773 Strang Lane, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owns the property to the south. He noted a 2-foot difference in elevation between the subject property and the property to the south. He asked Mr. Hayes to explain his reference regarding the flag lot and the future medical building. Mr. Hayes explained the property immediately to the southwest of the subject property is an existing medical facility with flag lot access to Red Hill Country Club Drive to the east, creating an additional 20 foot buffer towards any future residential development to the south. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated he and Commissioner Bethel had visited the property and he supported the project. Motion: Moved by Bethel, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Variance 96-09. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, BETHEL, MAClAS, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MCNIEL -carried Planning Commission Minutes ~.=?,~ January 22, 1997 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Conditional Use Permit 97-03 2. Related Files: N/A 3. Description of Project: 7,011 square foot Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses on 1.13 acres in the Medium Residential Distdct of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of San Bernardino Road and Red Hill Country Club Drive. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Ralph Olivas 590 E. Arrow Highway Upland, CA 91786 5. General Plan Designation: Medium Residential 6. Zoning: Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The eastern one-half of the site is developed with a 3,150 square foot Kingdom Hall of Jehovahs Witnesses and related parking and landscaped areas, with curb and gutter along the street frontages of the eastern parcel. The western parcel is currently void of any structures and is being used as a storage area by the property owner. To the north of the site is vacant land with a four-plex of multiple family dwellings adjacent to the southwest comer of the site. To the east is existing apartments and to the west is a parking lot for an existing medical office complex. The site slopes gently from northwest to southeast at approximately 3 percent. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Steve Hayes (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Cucamonga County Water District Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-03 Page ? ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The envirenmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning (X) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics (X) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality (X) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ( ) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. ^ NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. (X) I find that although the preposed project could have a significant effect on the envirenment, 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 envirenment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the envirenment, 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 eadier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ( ) I find that although the preposed project could have a significant effect on the envirenment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an eadier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: Steve Hayes,/)t~sociate Planner Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-03 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. I I Impact Less IP°t°""'"Y I U.~ess l Tna. I Issues end $ul:~oorting Informetion Sources: ~S~gmfman! ~ Mitigation IS~nifman~ ~ No ! impact I Incorpo~'atedJ ImpactI Impact 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) ~ Significant I I ~mpact IP°tentmlly I Unless LT~ Issues and Supporting Infom~at~on Sources: ITM I MitigatK)n ITM I .o I I ,rnp~ct Ilnc°rp°rated I Impact I Impact I 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) I I Sign~.ant Issues and Supporting Info~'mation Sources: I I Impact Less IP°~entiat~y I Un~. I 'rn.,~ I I Ision*r'cent IMitigation ITM IN°lmpact I I Impact Hnc°rp°ratedI ImpactI I 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-03 Page 4 ~ ~ Significant Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ! I Impact Less IPOtentially I Unless J Than I ITM I Uihgation ITM IN°lmpact J Impact I;n~,r-Forated ! Impact b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: Although close to the inferred location of the Red Hill fault, it has been determined that the site does not fall within the City adopted special study zone and will not be any more subject to geological hazards than other typical sites throughout Southern California. I I Significant I I Impact Leas IP°~t="y I un~,,, I T~,n I I Issues and Supporting Information Sources: IS~gnificant I Mitigation ITM I No /Impi~t Ilnc°rp°rate~ I I,~p~.~ I Impact 4. WATER. W/// the proposa/ resu/t /n: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-03 Page 5 I I Significant I I Impact Less IP°te~t~"y I u.~oss I Than J J Issues end Supl:x~'t~ng Information Sources: JSignifican! J Mitigation JSignificant J No J I Impam I lncorpm-ated J Impam I Impact J g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The absorption rate will be altered because of the paving and hardscape proposed. All runoff will be conveyed to approved drainage facilities. b) The site is within a Flood Zone "AO", which are areas within the affected boundaries of a 100-yearflood event. As mitigation, the new structure shall be required to be constructed in conformance with the City's Flood Ordinance or removed from the flood zone prior to occupancy. J J Impam Less IP°~'"'~' I Un~ss I 'men I I Issues and Supportrag Info,'matron Sourels: JS~nif'~ant J Mitigation JS~nificant J No J /Impac~ Ilncorporate~ J Impam J Impacl J 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal.' a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Signify:ant Impact Less olentmlly Unless J Than J J Issues and Supporting ~nformetion Sources: ISignif.:ant Mitigation J$~gni~cant J No J limpact Incqrporated I Impact I Impact I 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., · sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-03 Page I I Significant ~ I Impact Less IP°tentiajly I Unless I Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ITM I Mitigation ~Significant ! No I I ImpactIlnc°rPOratedI ImpactI Impam c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The project will generate additional vehicular movement in a localized area and at very specific times. The City's General Plan EIR and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR address the short-term and long-term cumulative impacts of traffic upon these streets. I I Signifmant · I Impact Less F°t'"t=~ I u.~,ss Than I Issues and Supporting Information Sources: JSIgnir~.,ant J Mifigabon ,q;Imf~.ant I NO limpact I Inco~orated Impact I Impact 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Locally designated species (e.g., hedtage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) VVildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-03 Page 7 I I Significant I I Impact Less IP°tentiallyI Unless I Than I I Issues end Supporting Information Sources: ITM I Mitigation ITM I No I I Impact Ilnwrp°rat~ I Impact I Impact 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) () (X) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?. ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) I Signlficarlt I~P°tenpa"y I Unless Issues and Sut:~porting Infon~at~on Sources: ~gnificant I Mitigation Is~gnhrmant I No /Impact Ilnc°"P°rat~ I Impact I Impact 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) ^ risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) I I I I Impact Less IP°tentially I Unless Than I I Issues and Supporting Info~'mation Sources: Isignh'~cant I Impact I lncoq3orated Impact ] Impact I 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The project will involve large gatherings of people and generate vehicle tdps which will increase existing noise levels, particularly for residents on the south and east Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-03 Page 8 sides of the proposed project area. The project design includes buffering in the form of landscaping, a block wall, and a 20-foot wide vehicular access easement that cannot be developed immediately south of the site to provide a buffer and effectively decrease noise levels to acceptable levels for the adjacent residential areas. I I Signifmant I I Impact Less IP°tentially I Unless I Than I I I~ues end Su~mg Informatio~ Sources: Is~'="~ I Mitigation IS~gnifmant I No I I ImpactItnc°q:)°rateelI ImpactI ImpactI 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Schools? () ( ) ( ) (X) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) I I I I Impact Less IP°tentialty I Unless I Than issues and Support~lg Information Sources: Is~nir~cant I MitlgatiOl-i ITM I No I Irnpa~tI lncorP°ratedI ImpactI Impact 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power and natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-03 Page 9 I I Signify. ant I I Impact Less Ip°tentially I Unless IThan I Issues end Supporting Information Sources: I S~gnff~cant I Mitigation ISignificant I No I Impact Ilnc°q~°r~ed I Impact I Impact 13. AESTHETICS, Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Comments: c) The proiect will include parking lot lights and various lighting on and around buildings which could create light or glare on surrounding properties, in particular the residential properties on the south and east sides of the project area. Light fixtures shall be shielded and directed away from residential areas. A detailed lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be prepared prior to issuance of building permits to provide proper shielding of light sources from adjoining properties. I s~r~.t I I ~mpact IP°tentielty I Unless Issues and Supporting Information Souroes: Is~gnir=ant I M~n Is~t I No I Im~ II~at~ I ~ I Im~a~ CULTU~L RESOURCES, Would the p~posal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Disturb amhaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Affect historical or cultural msour~s? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Have the potential to ~use a physi~l change which would affect unique ethnic cultural ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impa~ area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) I S~n~cant I impact Less 'ot®ntlally I Unless I Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ~gnificant I Mitigation ISignificant I No Impact IlncqrP°rated I Impact I Impact 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal.' a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-03 Page 10 I Significant I I Impact ~Potentially I Unless LT~ Issues and Supporling Information Sources: ITM I Mitigation ~Significant ! No I Impact I~r'c~P°rate<~limpact I Impact 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the affects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse affects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: c) The project will generate traffic, vehicle emissions, noise, and additional light and glare. These effects were accounted for in the City's General Plan EIR and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR and were found to be not significant or were found to be significant but irreversible and a statement of overriding consideration was adopted. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-03 Page 11 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 eadier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (X) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (X)Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH ¢¢88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (X) Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR (SCH # 87021615, certified September 16, 1987) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have reviseo 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. Signature: /~, /, Print Name and Tifle: 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 97-03 Public Review Period Closes: July 9, 1997 Project Name: Project Applicant: Ralph Olivas Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the southwest comer of San Bernardino Road and Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-123-02 and 03. Project Description: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PI~RMIT 97-03 - OLIVAS - A request to construct a new 7,011 square foot Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witness on a 1.13 acre parcel in Subarea 1 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan in the Medium Residential District. 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 Negate Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. July 9, 1997 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-03 FOR A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 7,011 SQUARE FOOT KINGDOM HALL OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES ON 1.13 ACRES OF LAND IN SUBAREA 1 OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAN BERNARDINO ROAD AND RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-123-02 AND 03. A. Recitals. 1. Mr. Ralph Olivas, elder of the Upland, Califomia congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-03, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 9th day of July 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng 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 July 9, 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 comer of San Bernardino Road and Red Hill Country Club Drive, with a San Bernardino Road frontage of 225 feet and a lot depth of 220 feet, and is presently improved with an existing Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses facility and related parking and landscape improvements; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant, the property to the south consists of multiple family residences and vacant land, the property to the east is developed with apartments, and the property to the west is an office complex; and c. The application contemplates the removal of the existing Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses facility on the property and the construction of a new "double" Kingdom Hall facility on both parcels owned by the applicant; and d. Associated with this application is Variance 96-09, which was approved by the Planning Commission on January 22, 1997, which allows for a reduction in the required landscape setback along the south property line from 15 to 5 feet; and PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 97-03 - OLIVAS July 9, 1997 Page 2 e. The application contemplates use of the new building from 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Sundays for group worship services and Bible study. 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 mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. 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 mitigated Negative Declaration for the proiect, 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 mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 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) The final exterior treatment of the columns supporting the overhead trellises shall consist of a contrasting material to the stucco surface proposed on a majority of the building and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 97-03 - OLIVAS July 9, 1997 Page 3 2) The wrought iron fencing and pilaster design proposed along the streetscapes shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 3) The final design of the cornice treatment on the building shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 4) A landscape planter shall be provided on the south side of parking spaces 25, 38, and 54 and the special paving strip for pedestrian access shifted southerly, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 5) A landscaped area shall be provided on the east side of the trash enclosure, adjacent to parking space 64, as shown on the conceptual landscape plan, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 6) Vines shall be used on columns to grow up on trellises throughout the project, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 7) Special paving shall consist of a decorative treatment, such as brick pavers, exposed aggregate, or other decorative and durable treatments. The final material, color, design, and locations of its use shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 8) Evergreen shrubs, combined with betming and low walls, shall be used to screen parking areas from public view along streets, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 9) Landscape planters in parking areas shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet in order to accommodate the growth of maturing trees. Engineering Division 1) Driveway accent-paving shall be located outside the public right-of-way. 2) Both street frontages shall be posted "No Parking." 3) The sidewalk on Red Hill Country Club Drive shall be constructed adjacent to the parking lot. 4) Sidewalks shall cross the drive approach at the zero curb face to provide additional public right-of-way as needed. 5) The driveways shall be constructed per City Standard Plan 101-C with radius returns. Building and Safety Division 1) The church shall be designed in accordance with the 1994 Uniform Building Code as A-3 or A-2.1 occupancy. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 97-03 - OLIVAS July 9, 1997 Page 4 Mitigation Measures 1) The project is located in a Flood Zone "AO." The new structure shall be constructed in conformance with the City's Flood Ordinance or removed from the Flood Zone prior to occupancy. 2) Light fixtures shall be shielded and directed away from residential areas. A detailed lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be prepared prior to issuance of building permits to provide proper shielding of light sources from adjoining properties. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY 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 o~ , ~e City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of July 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: Conditional Use Permit 97-03 SUBJECT: 7~011 Square Foot Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses APPLICANT: Ralph Olivas (for Upland Con~re~ation of Jehovah's Witnesses) LOCATION: Southwest Comer of San Bernardino Road and Red Hill Country Club Drive ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT, APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. 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 pdor 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, extedor materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 2. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be __/__/__ submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for __/__/__ consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. SC - 6/97 Project No ¢UP 97.03 C0ml~letlon Date 4. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, __/ / all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be / / located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berTning, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 8. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, __/__/ including proper illumination. C. Building Design All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. D. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall / / contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). 2. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided __/__/__ throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/recreational uses. 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 4. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more / / parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall, whichever is greater, of the total number of stalls for use by the handicapped. 5. Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more / / parking stalls. Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feet. 6. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily __/__/__ residential projects or more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first 50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of the SC - 6/97 2 / Project No, CUP 97-03 Completion Date 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. VVhere this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater, the number shall be rounded off to the higher whole number. E. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in this case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in / / accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. 3. A minimum of 20% of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box / / or larger. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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, irngated 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. 7. 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. if. 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. 8. For multi-family residential and 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. 9. 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. Project No. CUP 97-03 ComDleUon Date 10. 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. 11. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the / / design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 12. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of __/ / Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. F. Signs 1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. __/ / Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. G. Environmental 1. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of __/__/ implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $719, prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final certificate of occupancy), the applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. H. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location /__/__ of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. Site Development 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical __/ / Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. SC - 6/97 4 Project No. CUP 97-03 Completion Date 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition / / to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and / / prior to issuance of building permits. J. Existing Structures 1. Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed, filled and/or capped to comply with the __/ / Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Building Code. 2. Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for building __/__/__ permit application. K. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City __/__/__ Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to / / perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the / / time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. __/ /__ APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): 30 total feet on Red Hill Country Club Drive / / 2. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. / / 3. 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. M. Street Improvements 1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: __/__/ Project No. CUP 97-03 Comoletion Date Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Corem Median Bike Other Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail San Bernardino Road C e v' v' Red Hill Country Club V' e t/' i/ Drive Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per STD. 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. (e) Driveways per City Standard 101-C - Radius Returns. 2. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights__ __/ on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or pdvate street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a __ __/ construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and __ interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction __ __/ project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: (1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City __/__/__ Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with __/__/__ adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure perm'~s are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be / / installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. SC - 6/97 6 Project No. CUP 97-03 Completion Date h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. __/ 3. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in / accordance with the City's street tree program. 4. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with / adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. N. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting __/__/ Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. O. Utilities 1. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. __/ /__ 2. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the / Cucamonga County Water District (CCVVD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. p. General Requirements and Approvals 1. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all __ new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Q. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Fire flow requirement shall be 3,000 gallons per minute. / a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department __ personnel prior to water plan approval. b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall__/__/__ be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 2. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed __/__/ and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. 3. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, __/__/__ " if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire Distdct standards require a 6" riser with a 4" SC - 6/97 7 Project No. CUP 97-03 Completion Date and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted / / to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system. 5. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final__/__/ inspection. 6. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: ~,' Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. / / ~' Other: 1994 UBC. / / Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, flammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. 7. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of __/ / sprinkler system. 8. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: I," Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. / / V' California Code Regulations Title 24. / / 9. 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. / / 10. Fire department access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apparatus. __/__/ 11. Emergency secondary access shall be provided in accordance with Fire District standards. / 12. Emergency access, a minimum of 26 feet wide, shall be provided, and maintained free and clear / of obstructions at all times, during construction in accordance with Fire District requirements. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15, Gated/restdcted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 16. Plan check fees in the amount of $O have been paid. An additional $ 64~5 shall be paid: SC - 6/97 8 Project No. CUP 97-03 Completion Date I," 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. 17. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 U BC, U FC, / / UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. R. Special Permits 1. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use, as noted below: a. Places of assembly (except churches, schools, and other non-profit organizations). __/ / APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: S. 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. / T. Security Hardware 1. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within / / 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. U. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. V. Alarm Systems 1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and __ employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in turn save dollars and lives. SC - 6/97 9 · ~T?-z, _ ................. : ~, . ........ - r- EAST ELEVA~O~~ ' ................. 7'.- ) ' ~ EA8T ELEVATION LOO~IN6 FRO~ ROCHESTER AVENUE ' ~[tllIIIIIIIllIIIIIIIIIIU:~ ~._:~ ~ ~ _ J~ ~ '~~l~"~ I I~[ I I I I J t I I t BI- Illll III III I I IAI I IX~' __~ ...... ?;c ' t.' ' ' :"¢4" ' ! -,~~,,~~ .r..~.?~;.~,.:~¢~,~ · ,:?,~ ..,:S~ -%.%%~ ..-- ~.;~ ,,,.~. ........................ · .X?_~, "'.- '__ · .... '~ ' -~ , .< · , ...... ' SOU111EIEVATION IOOKtNGFRSMFOOTIttll IlOlIIFVARD I IIIv,~IIC)Ns ~ I I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 9, 1997 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-16 - OSF INTERNATIONAL, INC. - A request to construct a 12,664 square foot restaurant with a full bar facility on a 3.16 acre pad located in the Terra Vista Promenade Shopping Center within the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-39. Related File: Tentative Parcel Map 15016. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Retail home improvement center and vacant land; Community Commercial (Terra Vista Community Plan) South - Restaurant and other retail businesses; Industrial Park (Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan) East Vacant land; Office West Retail businesses and vacant land; Community Commercial (Terra Vista Community Plan) B. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Community Commercial North - Community Commercial South - Recreational Commercial East - Office West - Community Commercial C. Site Characteristics: The site has been rough graded, hydroseeded, and irrigated for erosion control. No structures or significant vegetation exists on the property. Included within the parcel is the existing fountain and flagstone wall plaza element, which will not be altered with this proposal. Generally, the site slopes gently from north to south at approximately 2 percent, except adjacent to the street perimeters, where slopes have already been graded and landscaped. D. Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Restaurant 13, 564* 1/100 136 185 * (includes 900 square feet of outdoor patio) PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 97-16 - OSF INTERNATIONAL, INC. July 9, 1997 Page 2 ANALYSIS: A. General: The restaurant includes extensive dining and banquet areas, a full bar, and a 900 square foot outdoor waiting area with seating on the south side of the restaurant. The building has been oriented consistent with the guidelines established for buildings within Activity Centers along Foothill Boulevard; the main entrance and main storefront elevation faces Foothill Boulevard to bring the building more of a pedestrian scale and greater curb appeal from the main street. The project will take vehicular access from existing driveway approaches on Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. Originally, the Master Plan for the shopping center showed two buildings flanking the on-site Activity Center extension area with the intent that the area would attract pedestrian-oriented tenants and become a viable activity area. With the current proposal, this building becomes the only building next to the plaza and has been plotted to be directly adjacent to the existing plaza improvements. Since the restaurant will not have any doors or an outdoor eating area introduced into the plaza area, the area will now have a more passive appeal. The plaza area has been significantly reduced in size from the original Master Plan. However, the Planning Commission did note during the processing of the original Master Plan that the applicant was proposing an on-site focal element that went far beyond the Commission's expectations and that which was previously done at other on-site Activity Center extensions. Staff believes, even in its current state, that the focal element exceeds that provided in other developments within Activity Centers along Foothill Boulevard. Furthermore, the applicant has stated that they may construct an outdoor eating area on the east side of the building in the future. As part of the original approval for the Master Plan, an art piece was contemplated within the on-site extension of the Activity Center. Since that time, the art piece has been designed for this area. However, it was designed assuming that future development would occur more consistent with the plotting of buildings shown on the Master Plan (see Exhibit "B"). The applicant has stated that they are still deciding whether or not to design a new art piece which is more complimentary to the building at this location and place the constructed one, which is currently completed and sitting in a warehouse, in another location on the site in the future. Staff will continue to work with the developer on this issue. Associated with this project is Tentative Parcel Map 15016, which will create the parcel for this applicant as well as for a future development immediately north of this site. The parcel map will be scheduled for a Planning Commission meeting in the near future. B. Metal Roofing: The applicant is proposing a "Signature" architectural concept based on a "Heritage" style of architecture that was envisioned for this Activity Center per the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. One of the primary r, .~terials used in the building design is a standing-seam, metal roof treatment. Planning Commission policy has been to pursue an integrated design fr oad buildings within shopping centers and, in general, to discourage the use of metal roofs. However, recent Planning Commission approvals have allowed for compatible styles of architecture that do not necessarily match and co-exist within shopping centers. Metal roofing was originally proposed as an element in the Design Guidelines for the Terra Vista Promenade shopping center but then eliminated as a majority of the Planning Commissioners at that time discouraged its us~ The applicant strongly believes that a metal roof is the right material for this building and has included in their submittal a written response to Design Review Comments that the only metal roof that should be considered would be copper. Staff has considered the applicant's response to alternative roofing material and PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 97-16 - OSF INTERNATIONAL, INC. July 9, 1997 Page 3 believes that the use of the metal roof is complimentary to the overall building architecture. Although copper roofing would be an excellent material, other coated metal roofs would also complement the building's architecture. Staff feels that such a determination should not set a precedent to allow metal roofing City wide. Furthermore, staff feels that the overall "Heritage" architectural theme is compatible with other existing buildings in the shopping center and consistent with the type of architecture anticipated for the site. C. Desiqn Review Committee: On June 3, 1997, the Design Review Committee (Bethel, Tolstoy, Buller) reviewed the project and recommended that it be forwarded to the full Planning Commission for further discussion on the proposed metal roofing material. The Committee members have determined that, of the possible types of metal roofing material available, the type and color proposed on the current plans is the most acceptable. As to all other design issues, the Committee felt that the recommendations of staff and the additional comments included in the attached action comments (Exhibit "H") were acceptable to recommend approval of the project, pending a conclusion to the metal roof issue. D. Technical and Grading Review Committees: On June 4, 1997, the Technical Review Committee reviewed the project and determined that, together with the recommended special and standard conditions of approval, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. The Grading Committee reviewed and recommended approval of the project at their meeting on June 3, 1997. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners with a 300-foot radius of the site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 97-16 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bulle~ City Planner BB:SH/jfs Attachments: Exhibit"A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" - Approved Master Plan Exhibit"C" - Site Plan Exhibit"D" - Landscape Plan Exhibit"E" - Grading Plan Exhibit "F" Building Elevations Exhibit"G" - Floor Plan Exhibit "H" - Design Review Committee Action Comments dated June 3, 1997 Exhibit "1" Applicant's Letter Regarding Metal Roof Exhibit "J" Examples of existing Old Spaghetti Factory buildings w/metal roofs Resolution of Approval with Conditions JllllllllllllllJJ ---] s,. ~^ -'-' ' .... ""~,-,g",T,'?,' ' ,, ~'~,IOR T[11~ VLSI^ MAJOR MAJOR (~ ..~ ~ 1 3 s*..,so ,-', .dl~l '~ JZ~]) !--j-r__= " ('111111iil Ii I-(J~111111: 81TE PLAN ~1111111111lllllllJ" F ~'~)-~ III L L BOULEVARD - ~o~o a,r_.~c4 M,~ "' The Old ~ Spaghetti Factory ~)~o at Promenade Concept~l L~cape P~ ~ ~' ~:' ' N DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Steve Hayes June 3, 1997 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-16 - OSF INTERNATIONAL, INC. - A r( ;st to construct a 12,664 square foot restaurant with a full bar facility on a 3.16 acre pad within t,'.~ Terra Vista Promenade Shopping Center within the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue- APN: 227-151-39. Design Parameters: The site is a vacant pad within the Terra Vista Promenade directly behind the fountain and activity center improvements at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. To the north and west are vacant pad areas within the shopping center. On the east side of Rochester Avenue is a vacant area that is zoned Office and to the south across Foothill Boulevard is the Masi project, with Denny's Restaurant directly across the street. The pad has been rough-graded and hydro seeded and slopes gently from north to south. No significant vegetation of structures exist on the property. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. 1. Is a metal roofmateria~ appropriate? The applicant is proposing a "signature" architectural concept, with a standing seam metal roof as a primary design element. Planning Commission policy has been to pursue an integrated design for pad buildings in shopping centers and, in general, to discourage the use of corrugated metal roofs. Metal roofing was originally proposed as an element in the design guidelines for the Terra Vista Promenade Shopping Center but eliminated as a majority of the Planning Commissioners at that time discouraged its use. However, in this situation, staff feels that the use of the metal roof is complimentary to the overall building architecture, but by no means should represent a precedent-setting situation for future buildings throughout the City. Staff feels that the architectural style is in keepinq with the heritaqe type of architecture recommended for pad buildin(is in the center. 2. Is the plaza size and shape adequate? The approved Conceptual Master Plan for the shopping center showed two smaller buildings flanking the on-site focal point feature (see Exhibit "A"i. The dimensions of this feature per the previously approved plans are shown on the .enlargement of this area (Exhibit "B"). With the proposed layout under the new application, this area' will be significantly reduced. However, during the processing of the Master Plan for the shopping center, the Planning Commission noted that the developer was proposing an on-site focal element that was far beyond the Commission's expectations and that something more to the scale that has been proposed on other Activity Center corners was anticipated. Staff feels the plaza meets the intent of the Foothill Boulevard Desiqn Supplement and the Terra Vista Community Plan. 3. Should the outdoor dining area be relocated to adjoin the Activity Center plaza? The public entrance faces Foothill instead of the plaza. Staff recommends that the "activity center" be reinforced by shiftinq the outdoor dining. This would create a lively, people filled space, improve privacy of dining area by moving it away from main customer access to restaurant, improve traffic noise sound attenuation by proximity to the soothing water sounds of the fountain, and give a greater sense of spaciousness to the dining area. DRC COMMENTS CUP 97-16 - OSF INTERNATIONAL, INC. June 3, 1997 Page 2' 4. Does the building architecture feature 360 degree treatment? The north elevation of the building has large areas of blank wall. Staff recommends that the north elevation be upgraded to the same level of treatment and detail as the other elevations. 5. Should landscaping be provided along north and west elevations? These elevations have very little landscaping and are characterized by an abrupt transition from large parking lots to sidewalk, to building walls. Staff recommends additional landscaping, particularly trees, alonq these elevations to soften the buildinq and provide a setting appropriate for a siqnature restaurant. For example, the sidewalk along the north side of the building could be eliminated and replaced with a landscape planter large enough to accommodate specimen size trees. Secondary_ Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. An alternative location for the art piece should be considered by the Committee, since staff feels the style of the art is not compatible with the proposed building architecture. Further, the art piece will be much closer to the building than in the original scheme. 2. Additional pedestrian lighting should be provided in the activity center frontage area. 3. Roof-mounted signs are not allowed by the Sign Ordinance. Alternative sign locations should be explored consistent with the Uniform Sign Program and Sign Ordinance. 4. Special paving should be used at the two access points to the parcel and within the handicapped parking spaces. In addition, a regular curb should be used to separate the parking spaces from the walkway adjacent to the building, as opposed to the wheel stops shown in this area. Landscaping should be provided at the end of the north/south parking row on the north side of the building as well as in the finger of special paving at the end of the parking row near the northwest corner of the building. 6. The wall on the west side of the stairs leading down to the Foothill Boulevard Activity Center sidewalk should have the flagstone material applied that is used on the existing fountain. 7. Vines should be provided to grow over the overhead trellis in the outdoor eati'ng area to provide additional shade. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. Materials such as, but not limited to, trellis columns and members, fence and wall materials, special paving, light standards, trash enclosures, etc., should be applied consistently as already used in the shopping center and identical with those materials already used throughout the shopping center and the approved design guidelines. '?_. The proposed transformer should be screened from view through the use of low walls, landscaping, or a combination thereof. 3. A combination of berming and a low flagstone wall should be used to screen the new parking areas from Foothilt Boulevard. DRC COMMENTS CUP 97-16 - OSF INTERNATIONAL, INC. June 3, 1997 Page 3' Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission with conditions as outlined above. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Brad Buller, Bill Bethel, Peter Tolstoy Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee directed the applicant to work with staff on the following issues in preparation for the Planning Commission public hearing: 1. The proposed metal roof element was not acceptable as presented. The Committee directed the applicant to look into the possibility of providing a copper roof on the building or,if that option is not cost effective, a revised roof scheme be designed. 2. The Committee accepted the proposed signs on the east and west elevations of the building. However, on the south elevation, the corporate logo sign should be used near the southeast corner of the building. 3. The shopping center developer agreed to look into alternate locations for the designed art piece already considered for the fountain/gathering area. A different piece of art more complimentary to the architectural concept of the proposed building could be provided in the area where the original art piece was to the provided. 4. The proposed outdoor waiting area was found to be acceptable in its proposed location. However, if an outdoor eating area is pursued in the future, the Committee recommended that it be adjacent to the outdoor focal point area on the east side of the building. 5. The door to the electrical panel should be relocated to a wall face that does not directly face the parking lot on the north side of the building. 6. The blank face of wall on the north elevation closest to the parking lot should be upgraded architecturally, possibly by introducing the small recesseed window elements. Also, along the north side of the building, two parking spaces in front of the blank wall area should be removed and planters provided in these areas that area large enough to accomodate speciman size trees. 7. Additional landscaping should be introduced in areas along the west side of the building, such as plants trained to espaliers that can grow up the sides of the building. 8. The shrub hedge already used along the edge of parking areas within the shopping center should be sufficent to screen new parking areas from view of the public streets. 9. Secondary issues 2, 4, 6 and 7 and Policy issues 1 and 2 will be incorporated into the recommended Conditions of Approval for the project. OSF International, Inc. PORTLAND, OREGON 97201 June 20, 1997 Mr. Brad Buller · City Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Dear Mr. Buller: As Steve Hayes is currently on vacation, we are contacting you regarding our O.S.F. project. To summarize the Design Review Committee meeting of June 3"~, the Commissioners objected to the use of metal roofing because of a concern that the roof's appearance would deteriorate after an unspecified period of time. At that time, we discussed the existing roof on the City Hall building and Applebee's restaurant and agreed to look into the possibility of using real copper rather than the Kynar 500 coated roofing material we proposed. We have looked into the cost of changing the proposed Kynar 500 coated metal roof to real copper. Initially, we attempted to contact the company that installed the copper roof on your City Hall. Unfortunately, that company has gone out of business. We then contacted the contractor that installed the roof system at our San Marcos, California unit. Their estimate to switch from Kynar 500 coated metal roofing to real copper would increase our cost from around $6 per foot installed to $10 per foot installed. This translates into an increase of about $50,000 for our project. We then contacted the contractor who installed our roof system at our new Tanasbourne, Oregon store. Their estimate resulted in an increase from $7 per foot to $I 1.20 per foot, or again, about a $50,000 increase. Because two separate contractors have provided similar estimates, we believe the numbers are valid. We have also looked into tile roofing. The problem with tile is two-fold; we would need to completely re-engineer the building for the increased dead-load weight of tile versus metal roofing, and we would need to increase the pitch of the two lower sloped roof areas to accommodate the tile, resulting in a major redesign of the building. Our construction budget for this project is very tight. The land cost for this site is higher than we have paid in the past. The favorable construction costs that we experienced on the San Marcos project (a southern California location) were a major factor in convincing us that we could make the numbers work in Rancho Cucamonga (another southern California location). However, these numbers did not include copper roofing. OREGON: Portland Clackamas Tanasboume WASHINGTON: Seattle Spokane Tacoma CALIFORNIA: Concord Duarte Fresno FullerIon Hollywood Newport Beach Oakland Rancho Cordova Riverside Roseville Sacramenlo San Diego San Jose San Marcos COLORADO: Denver GEORGIA: Atlanta HAWAII: Honolulu INDIANA: Indianapolis KENTUCKY: Louisville MASSACHUSETTS: Boston MINNESOTA: Minneapolis MISSOURI: Kansas City St. Louis OHIO: Cincinnati TENNESSEE: Nashville UTAH: Salt Lake City Midvalley ARIZONA: Phoenix INTERNATIONAL: Tokyo-(2) Nagoya-(2) Chiba-(2) Sagamihara Kobe KJshiwada 'lff B. Buller June 20, 1997 ,, Page Two Based upon our research into the cost of copper, the problems associated with a tile roof and our budget constraints, we propose the following changes as a solution to both our budget concerns and to your design concerns: 1. Eliminate the metal roofing material at the two sides of the building and replace with drivit and the concrete base detail. 2. Eliminate the metal roofing from the high side wall areas on the east and west elevations (behind the signs) and replace with drivit. 3. Change the color of the remainder of the metal roof and cap metal to Copper Penny. This is the material that Applebee's used for their roof. I am enclosing a sample of the Copper Penny color and material and some information on Kynar 500 coatings. The Kynar 500 system is a baked-on Polyvinylidene Fluoride resin. The system comes with a twenty-year limited warranty against fading. Kynar 500 is the premium coating offered in the industry and is used on the most expensive coated panels. It is more than just a "painted metal roof." Copper Penny utilizes Ultranet lI coating technology and is a premium color within the Kynar 500 color palette. Material with Ultranet II coatings cost about 20% more than standard colors (our original proposed Burgundy is a standard color). For your review, I have also enclosed photographs of our Clackamas and San Marcos restaurants showing the metal roofing, and photographs of an existing 9-year old Copper Penny Kynar 500 roof on a shopping center in Spokane, Washington. Please note the superior condition of this roof. We would greatly appreciate it if you would present this information and potential solution to the Design Review Commissioners. We will await your feedback before proceeding with any plan changes. I will follow this package with a telephone call early this week. Please contact either Mel Kroker or myself if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you very much for your help in this matter. Best Regards, Bob Marti/n Vice President-Development /jea Enclosures cc: David Cook Mel Kroker (/- ....PVF2 (Polyvinylidene Flouride): Our premium paint system. the Kynar 500 (70%) resins, provides the ultimate resistance to color change and chalking. The PVF2 also offers excellent resistance to weathering, abrasion, and most chemicals and solvents. Twenty year limited warranty available. Technical Data: Exterior paint finish includes a baked-on epoxy base primer (.2 rail.) and a baked-on PVF2 finish coat 1.8 rail.) totaling a nominal 1.0 mil. dry film thickness. Interior finish consists of .15 rail. epoxy pdmer and .35 rail. off white backer. 1. Weathering--No checking, blistering or adhesion _loss when tested for 5,000 hours in accordance with ASTM G-23-69. 2. Chalking -- Will not chalk greater than #8 rating when tested for 2,000 hours in accordance with ASTM D-659. 3. Fading--Color change will not exceed 5NBS unites when tested for 5,000 hours in accordance with ASTM-D-224. 4. Humidity-- Shall be less than 5% of #8 blisters when tested for 500 hours in 100% humidity at I00 degrees F. in accordance with ASTM-D-2247. Salt Spray Resistance-- No more than 3/16" creep or tape off from scribe and less than 5% ,~6 blisters when tested for 1,000 hours in 5% salt fog at 95 degrees F. in accordance with ASTM D- 3363. 6. Flexibility-- No rupture of coating when subiected to a 180 degree bend over 1/8" diameter mandrel in accordance with ASTM D-1737. 7. Hardness m Will be F-2 pencil hardness when tested in accordance with ASTM D-3363. 8. Formability Test--When subjected to a 180 degree bend over a 1/8" diameter mandrel, in accordance with ASTM D-1737, exterior coating film shall be flexible to the point of metal rupture without separation of the coating from the substrate. 9. Abrasion Resistance -- Coating system shall withstand a minimum of 65 liters of falling sand before appearance of base metal per ASTM D-968. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-16 FOR A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 12,664 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT WITH A FULL BAR FACILITY ON A 3.16-ACRE PAD IN THE TERRA VISTA PROMENADE SHOPPING CENTER WITHIN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OF THE TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ROCHESTER AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-151-39. - A. Recitals. 1. OSF International, Inc., has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-16, 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 9th day of July 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 the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on July 9, 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 northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue with a Foothill Boulevard street frontage of approximately 480 feet and lot depth of approximately 239 feet and which is presently improved with curb, gutter, sidewalk, and an on-site Activity Center extension with a fountain and landscape improvements; and b. The properties to the north, east, and west of the subject site are vacant and the property to the south consists of a commercial recreation center with restaurant; and c. The application contemplates the construction of a 12,664 square foot sit-down restaurant with a full bar facility and a 900 square foot outdoor waiting area; and d. The application contemplates the modification or relocation of an art piece that was planned for the on-site Activity Center, but the originally approved position will now conflict with the improvements proposed under this application; and e. The building proposed under this application has been architecturally designed and plotted consistent with the intent and policies within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan for buildings within Activity Centers. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 97-16 - OSF INTERNATIONAL, INC. July 9, 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. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the project identified in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Division 1) The final design, color, and matedal of the proposed metal roof shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of building permits. 2) The signage utilized on the south elevation of the building shall consist of the corporate logo on the area of blank wall near the southeast corner of the building. The sign shall be designed to meet the requirements of the Terra Vista Promenade Uniform Sign Program and the Sign Ordinance, as applicable. The final design of all signage for the business shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 3) If any outdoor eating area is contemplated in the future, then the area shall be placed on the east side of the building, adjacent to the outdoor plaza for the shopping center. 4) The door for the electrical panel shall be relocated to a wall face that does not directly face the parking lot on the north side of the building, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 5) The blank face of wall on the north elevation of the building shall be upgraded architecturally, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. In addition, two parking spaces adjacent to the blank wall area on the north side of the building shall be removed and planters provided large enough to accommodate specimen size trees, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. V; O PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 97-16 - OSF INTERNATIONAL, INC. July 9, 1997 Page 3 6) Additional landscaping shall be introduced on the west side of the building, such as plants trained to espaliers that can grow up the walls of the building, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 7) Shrubs in the form of a dense hedge shall be used to screen the parking areas from the view of perimeter streets, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 8) Additional pedestrian lighting shall be provided in the Activity Center frontage area, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 9) Special paving shall be used at the two vehicular access points to the parcel and within the handicapped parking areas, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 10) The wall on the west side of the stairs leading down to the Foothill Boulevard Activity Center sidewalk shall have the same flagstone material applied that is used on the existing fountain. 11) Vines shall be provided to grow over the overhead trellis in the outdoor waiting area to provide additional shade, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 12) The proposed transformer shall be screened from view through the use of low walls, landscaping, or a combination thereof. 13) A paved and marked vehicular turnaround area shall be provided north of the northern extension of the proposed parking area, to the satisfaction of the City Planner and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. Engineering Division 1) The traffic signal at Rochester Avenue and Chervil Street shall be installed upon any development within Phase 2 of the Terra Vista Promenade (CUP 95-11). The signal shall be operational prior to occupancy. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall cedify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 97-16 - OSF INTERNATIONAL, INC. July 9, 1997 Page 4 ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of July 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CON DITIONS PROJECT#: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-16 SUBJECT: 12,664 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT APPLICANT: OLD SPAGHE'I-I'I FACTORY, INTERNATIONAL LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ROCHESTER AVENUE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Time Limits Completion Date 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not __/__/ issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. 2. Prior to recordation of the final map or 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 Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 2. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for / consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. SC - 6/97 1 Project No. CUP 97-16 Completion Date 4. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, __/__/__ all other applicable City Ordinances, and ap[~,i~ble Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be / / located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 8. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. C. Shopping Centers 1. 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 shopping center/the project). b. 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. d. Roll-up doors. e. Trash bins with counter-weighted lids. f. Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis. g. Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of the enclosure and designed to be hidden from view. 2. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. / 3. 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. 4. All operations and businesses shall be conducted to comply with the following standards which shall be incorporated into the lease agreements for all tenants: a. 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. Project No. CUP 97-16 Completion Date b. 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. 5. Textured pavement shall be provided across circulation aisle, pedestrian walkway, and plaza. __/__/ 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 prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. 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. D. Building Design 1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or __/ projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall / contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). 2. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/recreational uses. 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 4. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall, whichever is greater, of the total number of stalls for use by the handicapped. 5. Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more parking stalls. Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feet. 6. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily residential projects or more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first 50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of the required automobile parking spaces. Warehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle storage spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent on the required automobile parking spaces with a minimum of a 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. Project No. CUP 97-16 Completion Date F. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in this case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in __/__/ accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. 3. A minimum of 20% of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box / or larger. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. ' 7. 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. 8. For multi-family residential and 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. SC - 6/97 4 Project No.., CUP 97-16 Completion Date 12. 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. G. Signs 1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. / / Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. H. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location / / of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. Site Development 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical / / Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition / / to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and / / prior to issuance of building permits. J. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to / / perform such work. 3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: ~,~ General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. / / SC - 6/97 5 Project No. CUP 97-16 Completion Date a.A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 2. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed I__1__ and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. 3. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, __/ /__ if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a 4" and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted __/__ to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system. 5. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final __/__ inspection. 6. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: ,/' All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. __/__ 7. Plan check fees in the amount of $0 have been paid. An additional $125.00 shall be paid: / Prior to final plan approval. __/__ Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 8. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, __/__ UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909} 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. Security Lighting 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. __/__ These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with __/__ direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. __/__ SC - 6197 6 Project No, CUP 97-16 Completion Date Security Hardware 1. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within / / 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. N. Windows 1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted / / from frame or track in any manner. O. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime __/ / visibility. P. Alarm Systems 1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and __/__/ employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in turn save dollars and lives. SC - 6/97 7 F2,d' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: July 9, 1997 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-15 - CLIGNETT - The proposed development of a 2,550 square foot, three-bay, quick- service oil change facility adjacent to the existing Deer Creek Car Wash service facility, located within the Community Commercial designation (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, on the east side of Center Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 1077-401-34. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North Vacant; Industrial Park (Subarea 17 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan) South - Full-service car wash and gas station facility; Community Commercial (Subarea 3 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan) East - Deer Creek Flood Control Channel and commercial shopping center; Flood Control and General Commercial West - Vacant land; Community Commercial (Subarea 3 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan) B. General Plan Desiqnations: Proiect Site - Commercial North Industrial Park South Commercial East Flood Control/Utility Corridor and Commercial West Commercial C. Site Characteristics: The site is within an undeveloped part of the Deer Creek Car Wash facility. This portion of the site is currently vacant and does not contain any structures or significant vegetation. The site slopes from north to south at less than 2 percent. D. Parkinq Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Auto Service 2,550 3 plus 2/bay 9 49* * The proposed parking areas are intended to serve both this use and provide parking for future buildings that may be constructed in association with the Conceptual Master Plan. ITEH G PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 97-15 - CLIGNETT July 9, 1997 Page 2 ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is proposing to develop a quick-service oil change facility at the north end of the existing Deer Creek Car Wash facility. The current ownedoperator of the car wash and gas station is expected to operate the proposed oil change facility as well an any future buildings that may be developed on the balance of the site. The remainder of the site has been conceptually master planned to show that future buildings could be constructed along the northern boundary of the site. The building will take access from the existing driveway on Center Avenue which currently serves the existing automotive-related facilities. The building is proposed to be oriented with the service doors facing east/west with extensive landscaping, overhead trellises, and recessed doors to minimize the impact of the doors facing Center Avenue. The proposed architecture has been designed to be consistent with the material use, colors, and details of existing buildings within the complex. B. Desiqn Review Committee: On June 17, 1997, the Committee (Bethel, Coleman) reviewed the conceptual development plans and recommended approval with conditions, pending some minor plan revisions. The revised plans were again reviewed by the Committee (Bethel, Coleman) on July 1, 1997, and the Committee found the requested revisions acceptable and reinforced their previous recommendation of approval. C. Technical and Gradinq Review Committees: On June 18, 1997, the Technical Review Committee reviewed the project and determined that, together with the recommended special and standard conditions of approval, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. The Grading Committee reviewed the project originally at their meeting on June 17, 1997, at which time it was recommended that the applicant provide additional information. This information was received and the project was again considered by the Grading Committee on July 2, 1997, at which time it was recommended for approval by the Committee. D. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study was completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study, the Environmental Checklist, and found that there could be a potentially significant impact on the environment in areas such as water, transportation/circulation, and aesthetics, unless proper mitigations are incorporated into the project design or become recommended Conditions of Approval for the project. All of the recommended mitigations have been, or will be per the recommended conditions, incorporated into the project design. If the Commission concurs, then issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices were sent out to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the site. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 97-15 - CLIGNETT July 9, 1997 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 97-15 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration. City Planner BB:SH/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" Vicinity Map Exhibit"B" - Site Plan Exhibit"C" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "D" - Grading Plan Exhibit"E" - Building Elevations Exhibit"F" - Floor Plan Exhibit "G" - DRC Action Comments dated June 17 and July 1, 1997 Exhibit "H" - Initial Study, Part II Resolution of Approval with Conditions ' ! 1, , ~,--ir-.~'='.~t~ ~;,~; ......1 ~.") .......... !...~.,~ ..... ~ ....... '~ --~ I0 ~ I '"; q' ~'i"' *'"' '"*', ~ ~; INDUSTRIAL ~f. , ..... ,,~ ,, ~ ,,i. " *.~*c ~ -..;~ ..... . ........ ~ ............... ~, .;% o~Ec' ,,.~. '.~"~ ~..;~.'.'.;.=: ........ : ........ .~ ....... .~ ....... ~ 1 ~ / ¢ INDUSTRIAL ~' ' Deer Greek Car Wash , l),¢r F.r.e..c.~.l,,duslri.t Pa,k (P,oposcd) PUTU~e BgI~DINO , FUTURE ~UILDING J J ~ VICINI~ MAP I ..... ....... _, ...... ,. ] ~ -..__. ~-~ -:~!: ~ .... ~ ,....] I I 1 ~TATION ' '""~ ....... .... 7I .......... Deer Cre]k Industrial Park (roposed) -. ' ' I I I FUTURE BUILDING FUTURE B, UILDING I / / / /// ' ] EXISTING ~] Deer Creek Car Was~ SOUTH Deer Creek Car Wash ~ 10340 Foo{hal Bod, evard Rancho Califamla 91730 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS EAST _, ..... ~,.~ , ~ , ~ ~-~,, , , ~.~_~_.~_~._~ NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ~-~ 85'-0' ~ LUAIT'G ' ' I ~LUNC::~ ~'~ BAY-I BAY-2 . BAy-~ " ~ 14'.,-O" I - 14'-O' 14'-,~' 14'-0' ST-O" 14"0" B$'-O' FLOOR PLAN Deer Creek Car Wash 10340 F oothllt Boulevard Rancho ~a California 91730 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:00 p.m. Steve Hayes June 17, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-15 - CLIGNETT - The proposed development of a 2,550 square foot, 3-bay quick-service oil change facility adjacent to the existing Deer Creek Car Wash service facility, located within the Community Commercial land use designation (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, on the east side of Center Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 1077-401-34. Desiqn Parameters: The site is adjacent to property zoned Industrial Park to the north, which was recently approved for development of a nine-building, multi-tenant industrial park. To the south is the existing Deer Creek Car Wash and gas station facility, which this new building will share access with from the existing drive approach on Center Avenue. The Deer Creek Flood Control Channel is immediately east of the site and to the west is vacant commercial land. The site slopes gently from north to south and is proposed to be graded to tie in with the existing grade of the car wash facility. No significant vegetation or structures exist on the property. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. 1. Staff generally feels that the architectural concept, which is similar and uses the same materials as existing buildings in the complex, is acceptable. However, the same level of detailing (such as cornices, finish treatment around roll-up doors, etc.) should be utilized throughout the project. 2. Trellises should be introduced over the roll-up doors on the west side of the building for the same distance westerly as previously done with the trellis over the gas pumps at the car wash entrance to give the building more substance and reduce the prominence of the doors. 3. Additional planter areas, including trees, should be provided around the building wherever possible to soften the building mass from Center Avenue. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. A more significant landscaped area (5 feet or wider) should be provided between the storefronts of the future buildings shown on the Master Plan and the drive aisle to the south. 2. Additional areas of special paving should be provided in conjunction with development of the new building, to the satisfaction of staff. The existing special paving should be adjusted to line up with the back of the proposed parking spaces near the existing vehicular entrance to the site. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. Berming and landscaping should be used, in a similar fashion to that already used along Center Avenue, to screen the parking areas from view. 2. All colors, materials, and exterior finishes should match that already used at the existing car wash facility. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission with conditions. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brad Buller The Design Review Committee recommended approval subject to the following changes: 1. Trellis should be provided on the west side of building, either freestanding or attached. Trellis design should be compatible with existing trellis at car wash. Further, it was suggested that the driveway throat could be narrowed to provide additional landscaping to help screen the service bays. 2. Roll-up doors should be recessed. 3. All of the above staff comments shall be incorporated into the revised plans. The revised plans should be reviewed by DRC as a Consent Calendar item. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE CONSENT CALENDAR ACTION COMMENTS JULY 1, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-15 - CLIGNETT - The proposed development of a 2,550 square foot, three-bay, quick-service oil change facility adjacent to the existing Deer Creek Car Wash service facility, located within the Community Commercial land use designation (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, on the east side of Center Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 1077-401-34. Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee recommended approval of the project with the inclusion of the overhead trellis, additional landscaping, and recessed service bay doors as requested by the Committee at the previous meeting. City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Conditional Use Permit 97-15 2. Related Files: N/A 3. Description of Project: 2,550 square foot quick-service oil change facility adjacent to the existing Deer Creek Car Wash facility, located north of Foothill Boulevard, east of Center Avenue. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Robert Clignett 12520 Pacoima Road Victorville, CA 92392 5. General Plan Designation: Commercial 6. Zoning' Community Commercial (Subarea 3 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is adjacent to property zoned Industrial Park to the north; to the south is the existing Deer Creek Car Wash and gas station facility, which is zoned Community Commercial; the Deer Creek Flood Control Channel' is immediately east of the site; and to the west is vacant commercial land. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Steve Hayes (909) 477-2750 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-15 Page 2 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Cucamonga County Water District, San Bernardino County Flood Control District, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Management District. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning (X) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (X) Aesthetics (X) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ( ) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. · A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. (X) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation~_a~es th~r~r~..~posed upon the proposed project. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-15 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. Polenlially I Signif cant ~ Impac~ Less ~Poten[ially ~ Unless Than ~ ~ Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ]S~gnifcanf ] Mitigation Significant ~ No ] ] Impact ~lncorporatecl rnpact ~ Impact ] 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: c) The proposed oil change auto se,-Jice use will be approximately 400 feet away from existing homes across the stre(., the use is physically separated from residential areas by industrial and commercial properties. I I S~gmficant ~ Impact Less IP°tenfia~y I Unless I Than I ' Issues and Supporting Information SourCeS: ITM I M,t,gation ITM I No I Impact J lncorporated ~ Impact ~ Impam 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-15 Page 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ~ ~ Impact Less IP°tentially IUnlessI ~rha~ I ITM I Mitigation ISignificantINo ~mpact ! Impact I lnc°rp°rated I Impact ! 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: Although close to the inferred location of the Red Hill fault, it has been determined that the site does not fall within the City adopted special study zone and will not be any more subject to geological hazards than other typical sites throughout Southern California. I I Significant I I Impact Less ~Potentially Unless ~ Than ~ Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ~Significant ~ Mitigalion ~Significanl ~ No I Impact ]Incorporated J Impact I Impact 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-15 Page 5 Potentially Significant Impact Less Potentially Unless I Than ~ Issues and Supporting Information Sources: IS~nincant Mitigation ISignif~ant ~ No I Impact Incorporated I Impact I Impact e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The absorption rate will be altered because of the paving and hardscape proposed. All runoff will be conveyed to existing private drainage facilities which have been designed to directly overflow into the Deer Creek Channel. b) Since the Master Plan Storm Drain for Foothill Boulevard, adjacent to the project site, has not been installed under existing conditions, this property could be exposed to flooding in a 100-year storm. Additional development will increase runoff to an existing problem area, which primarily impacts the site. Development of Tentative Parcel Map 15029 (Development Review 97-01) directly north of the project site will mitigate their own impacts, thereby reducing the problem in this area. As mitigation, this project shall not precede development of Tentative Parcel Map 15029, or shall install Master Plan Storm System to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. I Potentially I I Sign~.ant I Impact Less Potentially J Unless I Than Issues and Supporting Inforr,',ation Sources: Significant I Mitigation Isignificant I No rnpact I ncorporated I Impact 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Expose sensitive recaptots to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-15 Page 6 I I Potentially I ~ Significant ' ~ Impact Less Potentially~Unless J Than issues and Supporling Information Sources: Significant~Mitigation]Significant[ No Impact ~lncorporatedI Impa~ I Impact c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Comments: d) With automotive uses, activities such as car engines idling will create potentially objectionable odors. However, the scope of the concentrated odors will be limited to a minimal area in the immediate vicinity of the building and will be negligible with proper emission controls on all vehicles. I I Significant I ~ Impact Less IP°tent'a"yIUnless Than I Issues and Supporting Information Sources: lSigmficant~Mifigabon Sign~,ant No } I Impact I Incorporatedrapact Impact I 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)' f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) Development of a vacant site will increase vehicle trips, but will not exceed the projected traffic for the street classification in the General Plan, which is based on the currently permitted land use. The project will be required to install frontage street improvements in their ultimate configuration, per City Ordinance, and to pay Transportation Development Fees. Impact is considered less than significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-15 Page Potentially J I I Significant I I Impact Lass Ip°tentiallyIUnless I Than I Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ITM I MitigationITM I No I Impact I lnc°rP°ratedI ImpactI Impact 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) I I S,gmficant ~ Impact Less lPotentiallyI Unless I Than Issues and Support,rig Information Sources lS,gmficantI M,t,gat,on{SignificantI No I [Impact l lncorporatedIImpactIImpact I 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict witr, adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the reside"',; of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) I IPotentially Less Signnqcant Impact PotentiallyUnless Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ISignificant~ MitigationSignificantNo I Impact I Incorporatedmpact rapact 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-15 Page 8 ~ ~ Signify. ant ~ ~ Impact Less IP°tentially I Unless I Than I I Issues and Supposing Info,marion Sources: JSignificanl J Mitigation JSignifican! J No J J Impact JlncorporatedI Impact J Impact J b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The project may involve the storage of potentially hazardous and flammable materials. Compliance with all applicable building and fire codes reduces the potential impact to less than significant. I Potentially Less I I Significant IP°tent'a"Y I Unless I Than I I Issues ancl Supl:)or~ing Information Sources: ITM I M,tigation ITM I No I Impact Ilncorporated ] Impact I roDact J 10. NOISE. Wi// the proposa/ resu/t in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The project will generate vehicle trips which will increase existing noise levels, particularly for residents on the west side of the proposed project area. However, since the project is located adjacent to an existing developed site with automotive related uses, the impact of adding one additional use and building to the much larger site should result in no overall impact. The project design includes buffering in the form of landscaping and block walls along the site. Further, the site's proximity to Foothill Boulevard will result in the project's noise being masked by the existing traffic noise associated with this major arterial. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-15 Page 9 I I Significant I Impact Less IP°tentia'l¥ I UnlessT. an I I Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ITM I Mitigation SignificantI No I I Impact I IncorporatedImpact I Impact I 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Schools? ( ) () ( ) (X) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) PotentiallyLess I IImpact IPOtent'allyIUnless Than I Issues and SuppoSing Infon'nation Sources: ~S,gn~cantIM~tigahon S~gnificent~No I [ Impact JlncorporatedJrapact rapact 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following ut/lities: a) Power and natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? () ( ) ( ) (X) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Signor~,ant Impact Less Potent,allyUnless ~ Than I Issues and Supporting Information Sources: SignificantMitigation~Significent]NO rapact ncorporaled~Impact ~Impact 13. AESTHETICS, Would the proposaL' a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-15 Page 10 Significant Impact Less I Potentially Unless I ~en I I Issues and Supporting Information Sources: I SignificantMitigationISignificant~ No I ~ Impact ncorporatedI Impact I Impact J c) Create light or glare? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) Comments: c) The project will include parking lot lights and various lighting on and around the buildings which could create light or glare on surrounding properties; in particular the residential properties on the west side of the project area. Light fixtures shall be shielded and directed away from residential areas. A detailed lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be prepared prior to issuance of building permits to provide proper shielding of light sources from adjoining properties. Potentially Lass ~ Significant ~ Impact lPot entially~ Unless Than Issues ancl Supporting Information Sources: lSignificantI MitigationSignificanl~No ~ I Impact JlncorporatedJrapact J rapact 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) I Potentially Lass ~ Significenl ~Impact Potentially~Unless Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant~MitigationSignificantNo rnpact ~ncerporaledmpact rapact 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-15 Page 11 I I Srgnmcant I I Impact Less IPOtenQally I Unless I Than I Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ITM I Mitigation ITM I No ! Impacl I lncerP°rated I Impact I Impact 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project haw environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: c) The project will generate traffic, vehicle emissions, noise, and additional light and glare. These effects were accounted for in the City's General Plan EIR and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR and were found to be not significant or were found to be significant but irreversible and a Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-15 Page 12 EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQ^ process. one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (X)Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (X) Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR (SCH #87021615, certified September 16, 1987) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study 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. ~/,~~ :,,~ Date: ,~~~~Z- 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 2~092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: CUP 97o15 Public Review Period Closes: July 3, 1997 Project Name: Project Applicant: Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the east side of Center Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 1077-401-34. Project Description: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97- 15 - CLIGNETT - The proposed development of a 2,550 square foot, three-bay, quick-service oil change facility adjacent to the existing Deer Creek Car Wash service facility, located within the Community Commercial land use designation (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: ' [] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project fiie 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. July 9, 1997 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-15 FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A 2,550 SQUARE FOOT, THREE-BAY, QUICK-SERVICE OIL CHANGE FACILITY ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING DEER CREEK CAR WASH SERVICE FACILITY, LOCATED WITHIN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION (SUBAREA 3) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, ON THE EAST SIDE OF CENTER AVENUE, NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APN: 1077-401-34. A. Recitals. 1. Mr. Robed Clignett has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-15, 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 9th day of July 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 the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on July 9, 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 on the east side of Center Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard with a Center Avenue frontage of approximately 125 feet and lot depth of approximately 495 feet and which is presently improved with a full-service car wash and gas station facility immediately south on the same site and vacant land in the area of proposed development; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant, the property to the south consists of an existing full-service car wash and gas station facility, the property to the east contains a flood control channel and commercial shopping center, and the property to the west is vacant; and c. The application contemplates the construction of a 2,550 square foot, three-bay, quick-service oil change facility that will expand the limits and uses within the existing Deer Creek Car Wash facility to the north; and d. The application contemplates vehicular access for the new facility being shared with the existing automotive uses to the south; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 97-15 - CLIGNETT July 9, 1997 Page 2 e. A cor~eptual Master Plan has been prepared in conjunction with the application to provide a possible sce ~io as to how future buildings could be constructed on the remainder of the parcel. 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Cornmiss q hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Sta~'~dard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Division 1) The driveway throat shall be narrowed in order to accommodate additional landscaping to screen the service bays, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 97-15 - CLIGNETT July 9, 1997 Page 3 2) Additional planter areas, including trees, shall be provided around the building wherever possible to soften the building mass from Center Avenue, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3) The future building pads in the Master Planned area are shown in concept only and will require formal application(s) for development at such time development is contemplated. A more significant landscape buffer shall be provided between the building fronts and the adjacent parking lot with any future buildings on the north side of the project area with any formal future applications for development of this area, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 4) Additional areas of special paving, consistent with that already used within the Deer Creek Car Wash complex, shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 5) Berming and landscaping shall be used in a similar fashion to that already used along Center Avenue, to screen new parking areas from public view, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 6) All colors, materials, and exterior finishes shall match those already used at the Deer Creek Car Wash facility, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 7) All future pad areas shall be hydroseeded and irrigated for dust and erosion control, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Concrete mow strips or curbs shall be used to separate the proposed parking lot and drive aisles from the hydroseeded areas. 8) Landscaped planter areas shall have a minimum interior dimension of 5 feet to promote mature tree growth. 9) Any future trash enclosures shall be designed per City Standards and be architecturally compatible with the building. Engineering Division 1) If you wish to retain a median in the northerly driveway, the drive approach shall be reconstructed 50 feet wide, with a 10-foot median per the City's Driveway Policy. 2) Although the northerly driveway meets our "stacking" minimum (per the City's Driveway Policy), if parking requirements are not impacted, a greater separation between Center Avenue and the first perpendicular parking stall is suggested. 3) Process a parcel merger after Parcel Map 15029 records and prior to building permit issuance. 4) Install frontage public improvements on Center Avenue. Revise existing improvement plans as needed. Processing and plan check fees will be required. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 97-15 - CLIGNETT July 9, 1997 Page 4 Building and Safety Division's Fire Prt.~ .,~tion/New Construction Unit Emergency secondary access shall be provided as deemed necessary, to the satisfaction of the Fire District. Mitiqation Measures 1) This project shall not precede development of Tentative Parcel Map 15029 or a Master Plan Storm System shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2) Light fixtures shall be shielded and directed away from residential areas. A detailed lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be prepared prior to the issuance of building permits to provide proper shielding of light sources from adjoining properties. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY 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 9th day of July 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CON DITIONS PROJECT#: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-15 SUBJECT: 2,550 SQUARE FOOT, QUICK-SERVICE OIL CHANGE FACILITY APPLICANT: ROBERT CLIGNETT LOCATION: NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, EAST OF CENTER 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. The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the District's property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. 3. 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 Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. SC - 6/97 1 Project No. CUP 97-15 Completion Date 2. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be __/__/__ submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for __/__/__ consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 4. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, __/ /__ all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 8. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. C. ,.4uilding Design 1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. D. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall __ contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). 2. Textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided as shown on the development __ plans. 3.All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, __ and exits shall be striped per City standards. 4. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for comm~ ~al 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. ' Project No. CUP 97-15 Completion Date 5. Motorcycle par.king area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more parking stalls. Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feet. 6. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily residential projects or more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first 50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of the required automobile parking spaces. Warehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle storage spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent on the required ~.utomobile parking spaces with a minimum of a 3-bike rack. In no case shall the total number oI 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. E. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in this case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in /__ accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's ........ recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. 3. A minimum of 20% of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. For multi-family residential and 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 matedal shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. 7. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 8. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the /__ perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 9. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the __/__/__ design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. Project No. CUP 97-15 Completion Date 10. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and approval __/__/__ prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall enccurage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 11. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of __/__/ Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. F. Environmental 1. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of __/__/__ implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $to be determined, prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final certificate of occupancy), the applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. G. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location __/__/__ of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: H. Site Development 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tractJparcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. SC - 6~97 4 Project No. CUP 97-15 Completion Date Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City __ Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to __ perform such work. 3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: J. Street Improvements 1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Corem Median Bike Other Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Center Avenue / v' v' ,/ ,/ / 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. 3. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction .... project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. SC - 6/97 5 L~ Project No, CUP 97-15 Completion Date Notes: (1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City __/__/__ Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours dudng construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. __/ / 4.Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. 5. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. K. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. L. Drainage 'and Flood Control 1. A permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way. M. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable 'IV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. .. Project No. CUP 97-15 Completion Date General Requirements and Approvals 1. The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into one __/__/ parcel prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way: San __/ / Bernardino County Flood Control District. 3. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the Law Enforcement Community Facilities District shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the Developer. 4. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: O, General Fire Protection Conditions 1. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: ~' Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. __/ Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, flammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. 2. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: ,/ Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15~ 3. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: ,/ All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. 4. Fire department access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apparatus. __/__/__ 5. Emergency secondary access shall be provided in accordance with Fire District standards. __/__/__ 6. Emergency access, a minimum of 26 feet wide, shall be provided, and maintained free and clear __/ of obstructions at all times, during construction in accordance with Fire District requirements. 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. A tenant use letter shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for the proper form letter. SC - 6/97 7 Project No. CUP 97-15 Completion Date 9. Plan check fees in the amount of $0 have been paid. An additional $645 shall be paid: / 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. 10. 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. Garages. Motor vehicle repair (H-4). APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Q. Security Lighting 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. R. Security Hardware 1. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. S. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 9, 1997 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: TRACT 14534 - WILLIAM LYON HOMES - A request to install above-ground utility boxes within a 121-lot subdivision in the Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) designation of the Victoria Community Plan, located at the southeast comer of Victoria Park Lane and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-091-31. BACKGROUND: Planning Commission policy requires utility boxes within single family residential tracts to be located underground because of the obvious aesthetic impact of having the boxes above ground. To staff's knowledge, no single family tract has been permitted to use above- ground utility boxes. The policy was questioned by the Edison Company in 1988, at which time the Commission re-asserted the need for undergrounding (see attached Staff Report and Minutes). William Lyon Homes is requesting to install ten utility transformer boxes above ground just behind the back of the sidewalk. According to the applicant, the Edison Company has begun requiring fees on the order of $4,000 per transformer for undergrounding. This would mean an added cost of $40,000 for the subject tract to underground the utility boxes consistent with Planning Commission policy. The Design Review Committee considered the request on June 17, 1997, and recommended denial. The Committee also recommended that the applicant explore other options with the Edison Company including surrounding the transformers with landscaping and locating them further back from the street to provide greater opportunities for screening (see Exhibit "F" - DRC Action). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the existing policy requiring utility boxes be undergrounded. i~~bmitted' City Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Proposed Utility Box Locations Exhibit "B" - Typical Landscaping Exhibit "C" - Section Exhibit"D" - Sample Photographs Exhibit "E" - February 24, 1998, Planning Commission Staff Report & Minutes Exhibit "F" - DRC Action Comments dated June 17, 1997 IT~4 H I IEDGE TYPE PIAN}ING PROVIDED BY DEVELOPER WITH FRON[ YARD 4.5' LANDSCAPING CENTERED 'ON LOT UNE (1YP.) UNLESS OTHERWISE ~I o,~ SHOWN ON PLAN. _0.7~" 3.0' 0.75' ~" 4.0' 5.0'  SIDEWALK , , ,,, EDISON ., ,', ,,,";- TRANSF. ORMER · ,,~, ,$.c-a , 1, , ,~,~,x-,~-~ .. .. .... .. .. . -: .i L"'------ · ~/, /~,, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA s Arr rog DATE: February 24, 1988 : ,-_. TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission ~_ 7 U > FROM: Brad Bul ler, City Planner 1977 BY: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner SUBJ EC T: ED I SON TRANSFORMERS I. BACKGROUND: Staff has received the attached letter from the Southern California Edison Company indicating that, as of January 1, 1988, all new installations of electrical transformers will be padmounted type {above ground). In the past, these transformers were placed in underground vaults within single family residential neighborhoods. Above ground, pad mounted transformers will definitely have an impact on the streetscape of a typical single family neighborhood. Staff has contacted SCE and asked them to attend tonight's meeting to answer any questions that the Commission might have. Staff does have serious concern with this new policy and will be working with Edison in reviewing this policy and possible alternatives. According to SCE, these types of transformers are typically "located on private property, eight feet behind curb and within three feet of the {front) property line." Screening is allowed subject to Edison's minimum distance requirements. The attached drawing indicates that any wall, fence or landscape screen must be at least 18 inches away from the sides and rear of the transformer. The most significant restriction on screening is that no walls, fences or landscaping would be allowed within eight feet of the front of the transformer. One of the difficulties of attempting to deal with transformers is that their final location is not determined until after the City's design review process has been completed. Edison approves the locations using their criteria which do not address the aesthetics of the transformers. Typically the City has no input into transformer locations, however staff does attempt to screen them, as required by the standard conditions of approval, through the landscape plan check process. II. RECOMMENDATION: This item has been brought to the Commission for your information on)y -- no action is necessary. However should the Commission feel strongly about this item your comments will be forwarded to the City Council and eventually to Southern California Edison. i ty BB:DC:vc Attachments: Letter from SCE Southern Ca/iforn/a Ed/son Company ,= 0 Box5~3 C,"TYc .... 1351 E. FRANCIS STREET .... ONTARIO. CALIFORNIA 91761 January 29 1988 Brad Buller Planning Manager City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Mr. Buller: Per our conversation on January 21, 1988, this letter is to notify you that, as of January 1, 1988, all new installations of underground transformers in a residential application will be the padmounted type (above ground). These types of transformers will typically be located on private property, eight feet behind curb and within three feet of the property line. The demensions for these transformers are; height 44", width 42", and depth 42". These transformers may be screened by a brick wall or other types of landscape, as long as, the structures meet Edison's minimum distance requirements (see enclosure). If you have any questions in regards to the enclosed information, or if you would like to meet with Cheryl Karnes and myself, please contact me at (714) 947-8227. Sincerely, /~,, .~ MicHael D. Beard Customer Service Planner MDB: ad cc: W. N. Mc Neil C. A. Karnes ' ^" 5-85 _1 I RETAINING WALL FOR PADMOUNTS Greg Gage stated that one of the conditions o~f~the~-~'solution is to supply evergreen plantings on the eastern an~d ~western boundaries. Commissioner Chitlea moved to approve Item P, Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMi~SIONERS: NONE AB ~NT~.' COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY --carried OIRECTOR 'S REPORTS Q. EDISON TRANSFORMERS Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and a slide presentation regarding the padmounted type transformers. Bill Silva, Deputy Civil Engineer, stated these transformers would be put into public utility easements that would be outside the limits of the right-of-way. These would be required to be placed further from the curb where there would be space where they could be screened. Cheryl Karnes, Area Manager for Southern California Edison, introduced other repres~.~t'-.tives for Southern California to answer concerns and questions Planning Commission. Mr. Bill McNeil, Planning Manager, presented background on why Southern California Edison is going to the padmounted transformers versus the underground installations, stating several reasons including erosion problems, corrosion, availab(lity, costs, and maintenance for the decision. Screening can be done on an individual basis with a developer and Edison feels it is necessary for very selective placement preferable along property lines. The policy of going to padmounted transformers will be initiated with new tracts that are being developed. If a problem with an existing underground, or bird transformer arises, they do not anticipate replacing it with a padmounted transformer. Mr. McNeil also presented a slide presentation on padmounted transformers. Chairman McNiel stated he did have objections to the padmounted transformers. Since he strongly believes in the undergrounding of utilities to beautify the city, he feels this is a giant step backwards because regardless of how the transformers are screened they are unsightly. Though he understands the reasons why Edison is going to the padmounted transformers, he is highly concerned with the issue and has difficult: ~..:~porting it. Mr. McNeil stated Edison is willing to.work with the Planning Commission and the Planning Department on mitigating the problem trying not to Planning Commission Minutes -21- February 24, 1988 create an adversary position. They are the utility company, but they understand the Planning Commission wants a beautiful city. They want to propose locations in their initial layout and include them in their landscaping plans. Commissioner Chitiea agreed the padmounted transformers are going against everything the City is trying to do to upgrade the City and move in a forward direction aesthetically. She stated that one of things that she feels destroys and detracts from the aesthetics of a number of apartment complexes is the placement of utility boxes. They also can destroy the streetscape. Commissioner Chitlea suggested that selected placement of the boxes or partial screening is not satisfactory. Mr. McNeil stated that the grates placed around the transformers are for ventilation purposes and this cannot be made solid. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned Edison if there is a problem with graffiti on the transformers. Mr. McNeil stated that in this area typical residential and in apartment type structures, they have not had a serious problem. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it used to be that lines and poles were placed in the back of the property and now the majority of the lines go in in the street. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned what would happen if the transformers be put in the back of the property. Mr. McNeil stated that a if a problem with the transformer arises, it would take a 200-250 foot crane to reach in the back yard to lift it out. Typically they cannot gain access to a back yard. Maintenance or repairing a cable can be very disruptive to the property owner's backyard. Commissioner Tolstoy stated' he agreed with Chairman McNiel and Commissioner Chitiea stating this is a step backwards for the City. What happens when there is a small lot neighborhood where they is hardly any space between curb and building or zero lotline type situation, where do the transformers go in that situation? Mr. McNeil stated this would be reviewed on a case-by-case situation and continue putting in a bird transformer. They would not put this in to obstruct a driveway or someone's yard. Commissioner Emerick concurred with the other comments of the Commi ssi one rs. Commissioner Chitiea stated that for consistency sake residents with larger lots and more expensive homes would want the same aesthetic consideration that small lots would have. Mr. McNeil stated that Edison's attempt to go back to a more economical and effective system is very difficult. Planning Commission Minutes -22- February 24, 1988 Commissioner Chitlea stated that better educating the homeowner as to not only the proper function but the maintenance of the padmounted transformer would help Edison' s needs. Chairman McNiel stated that the comments of the Commission would be forwarded to the City Council. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the placement of the boxes is never known by the Planning Department until they are put in. If the City does have to inherit the boxes, what provisions could be made to know where they were and try to do some design in screening. Mr. McNeil stated that perhaps Edison could submit the maps directly to the Planning Department or the developer submit them. Commissioner Tolstoy stated it is hard to plan ahead for the mitigation of appearance if they don't know where the boxes will be. Mr. McNeil stated there probably could be a mechanism put in place to satisfy the concerns. Chairman McNiel questioned Mr. Michael Beard, Customer Service Planner regarding the padmounted transformers and new installations. Mr. Beard stated it is their goal to install padmounted transformers in new installations, but this would be taken as a case-by-case, especially in the Rancho Cucamonga area. Edison feels that padmounted transformers are economi:~l and they are also looking at the ratepayer, the customer. Their preference is a. padmounted transformer and it is their direction that in new tracts there will be padmounted transformers. Commissioner Chitlea stated that one of the many reasons that people come to the City of Rancho Cocamonga to live is because many of the utilities are undergrounded and this leaves a very pleasing skyline and streetscape. Mr. Beard stated they are flexible where the boxes are going to go and the aesthetic value and they appreciate the City's concerns about this aesthetic value. Cheryl Karnes stated the overall reasons for installing the padmounted transformers is to reduce Edison's costs, the outage time to the customers, and the costs to the ratepayers. They are trying to hold down the cost of their product to the ratepayers and this is one way they can do it. They would be glad to take to City Council a report on the proposal of padmounted transformers. Chairman McNiel stated that the Commission's comments would be forwarded to City Council. Planning Commission Minutes -23- February 24, 1988 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:40 p.m. Brent Le Count June 17, 1997 TENTATIVE TRACT 14534 - WILLIAM LYON HOMES - A request to install above-ground utility boxes for a previously approved 121-1ot subdivision in the Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) designation of the Victoria Community Plan, located at the southeast corner of Victoria Park Lane and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-091-31. Background: William Lyon Homes is requesting to 'install ten utility transformer boxes above ground, just behind the back of sidewalk. According the applicant, the Edison Company has begun requiring fees to provide underground utility boxes. Detailed plans showing utility box locations relative to planned home locations and landscaping will be provided at the meeting. Planning Commission policy prohibits above-ground installation. To staffs knowledge, no other residential tract has been permitted to use above-ground utility boxes. Staff Recommendation: Staff strongly recommends that the Design Review Committee uphold existing Planning Commission policy requiring the utility boxes to be underground. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brent LeCount The Design Review Committee recommended denial. Prior to Planning Commission the applicant was directed to explore options with Southern California Edison, including, but not limited to: a. Reverse plotting transformers so that access panels face away from street and/or surrounding all sides with landscaping. b. Plotting transformers further back from street to provide screen hedge on street side. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT -- DATE: July 9, 1997 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING THE OPERATION OF ALBERTSONS SHOPPING CENTER AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE ABSTRACT: The purpose of this report is to provide a brief background of the subject so that the Commission could discuss the issues with Dave Thompson and representatives of Albertsons. BACKGROUND: At the June 25, 1997, meeting under Public Comment, the Commission received input from resident Dave Thompson about the operation of Albertsons store. Exhibit "A" is a copy of the correspondence received at that meeting. Mr. Thompson spoke about the nuisance problems he and his neighbors have experienced since Albertsons opened for business in their new location. The nuisance problems he cited were: noise from truck deliveries, trash compactor, and parking lot sweeper at very early or late hours of the day and loss of privacy and the use of their backyards. He requested help on the nuisance problems. A BRIEF HISTORY AND A SUMMARY OF CHRONOLOGY OF THE SITE: The shopping center was approved by the County and the City in June of 1978 (seven months after incorporation) and under the County development standards. There were very few records of the approval. Staff did not find conditions of approval. Staff first learned about the nuisance problems in January of 1996. Staff had contacted representatives of Albertsons between February and March 1996 to encourage them to address the nuisance problems and emphasized the importance of being a good neighbor. Albertsons voluntarily compressed their delivery schedule to be between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. and removed the unnecessary wall pak light fixtures and provided shields to existing ones to prevent light and glare to residents. Staff also arranged a meeting on June 26, 1996, between Albertsons and the adjacent residents to facilitate discussions of the identified problems and possible solutions. At that meeting, Albertsons agreed to continue the compressed delivery schedule and require their truck drivers to turn off their engines and the refrigeration units while loading and unloading. Staff reminded Albertsons to provide an action plan in October of 1996. Albertsons did not respond to staffs request. No complaints were received after October of 1996. Exhibit "B" is a detailed chronology of the site. ACTION TO DATE: Staff contacted Scott Thayer of Albertsons, informed him of the continued problems, and invited him to be at this meeting. Staff also requested Albertsons to prepare a Noise Study to determine the extent of the impact and develop mitigation measures such as extending the perimeter wall higher. IT~4 I PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ALBERTSONS DISCUSSION July 9, 1997 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the item be on the July 23, 1997 meeting for further discussion if needed and direct staff to continue to work with Albertsons in resolving the identified problems. City Planner BB:NF:gs Attachments: Exhibit "A" Correspondence received from Dave Thompson on June 25, 1997 Exhibit "B" Chronology of Albertsons Center Exhibit "C" Performance Standards for Commercial Center Exhibit "D" Vicinity Map Exhibit "E" Site Plan October .3C.',~ 199',f RECEIVED $ ]}ave F,:um 1 ey D i s t r .~AS o u1 b e r t s o n s .,t h e r nc t C aS a !1 ie sI n cf o M a n.r n i aa g e rD i v i s i o nCily 0{plannin~Ranch0D~k~nCucamonga 1180 West Lambert Rd. P.O. Be;.,' 7500 Brea, CA. 92&,22-7500 Dear fdr. Rumley: I am o.~'~e of your nei_~hbors to the east of the stor~, i~'~ Rancho [::ucamon:_.]a a~: Basetin~.s and Archibald. ~.iy l..,±fe and ! purchased this in 197~: when the lot on which yc:ur building is located ~,.,as ¥ac:al":t. As you know the building you currently occupy was a Bu)_lders Empori,~m} for a numbc{.)r of years. The intrusion of D:uilder.::. into and upon our life and t_hc~.:ir affect upon our living conditions was minimal. I wish ! cot~Ic:t say the same for your occupancy of this building. Prior to the grand opening o~: the store, and during the construction phase, we were able to live ~ith the disturbancE. because w,.~ ',':hou,..:~,ht it ;.,,ould not last forever. The probls, ms assc, ciated with ti','Ls type of co~:~mcercia! use however bs, gan to b~come focused just to an,L] dur~n,~ the grand opening. During this time there v..==._~ a rc~fric~er-aC:s.d truck parka~ at the leading dock that ran t~-.~ent':,,-fc~L,r [-,.:~u:-s a day until my ~.,i'fe & i complained by teieph,~ne and in ~,~ith th= ~tc, re management. The constant intrusion of de. livery trucL:~., bc-~nnin,~ in the early morning hours and continuing throu~]h,~uE ~:ho Once the realiza~:ic~n hit my ~if~.:and I that this prc~bl,~.m ~as n,:::,t. ~oin,:~ to so, ire itself, ~e began to document the c)ccurrences that c~,.~.ts.~.de of' c:r close to being violations c)f the city c, rdl"~ances ,..; i 't'. h noise J: have enc:lc)sed a copy of 't:.he Ic}~ for' October to dmmc:,c~strat~:, th..{~:. &n-~pact your cc:,mpany's occupancy of thi.~ I~bilding has had and will obvic~usl]... continue t.o have c)n the quality of life that my family can e::.~p~.:-ct frc. m this situation as it now e)[ists. ! '~{n~arstar).::; that you have a grocery stors~ to opecaE~:e, but i ul-~d?z, rstan,:] tha'!:. we have lae,~,n sent,ance~ by your presence to a future of noise, visual disturbance, and area lightin.:~ that i11um~.nates our backyard izke a baseball stadium. My home is not wc)rth the curtcant market value because of your presence. ~.;ho would wan'l: to buy a hom~s. with' the constant and nev'e.r ending it:true. ion o9 delivery ~rucks with their refrigerators operatin:~, doors slamming and workers being loud and no.~.sy as they arrive at and depart from wc~rk. I do not know what the solution is, but I do know the situation is something that we need to discuss. We will await your reply. Sincerely your-s ~ David & F'amela Thompson 739(]) London Ave. Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 (9(;)9) 989-1924 enc ]. osu r'~e co: Albertson's. ~" ' -~ .~, Drug St,-,re _. ~ ~ O ~.~ _.. 9775 Baseline Rd. Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. ~:~'1730 RECEIVED JUN 2 5 1997 Albertson ' s Log - OctoberC_~¢bRancho Cucamo~a Planni j Division date day time vehicle description/action 1C)-02--95 Mon 5:52 am Albertson's delivery truck arrived, Pamela called store, spoke with Mike, the shift manager, he saic he didn't know truck was there, would contact distributor 10--03-95 Tue 6:32 am employees car alarm turns on 6:40 am employees car alarm turned off L0-03-95 Tue 6:42 am Albertson's delivery truck ~01--1-41 ].0-04-95 Wed 11:30 pm lot sweeper cleaning parking area 10-07-95 Sat i2:02 am lot sweeper cleaning parking area 10-08-95 Sun 8:30 am Chino Ice Service-refir truck 10--09-95 Mon 6:50 am Miller Beer delivery truck 10-09-95 Mon 6:58 am Albertsons truck ~x)1-107 !0-10--95 TL,.e '7:0C am Alb,z-rtsons truck :~C:,1---i07 arrived !(])-10-95 Tue 8:30 am truck ~ 01-107 pulls out from loading dock and par along our common wall-departed 8:4.5 am 10-!1-95 Wed 2:20 am lot sweeper cleaning parking area i0-1!-95 [.,Jed 5:59 am e,T, ployee arrives and parks on east side of buiidir radio turned up and shouting at other' emp]o'ye~ ant sets car alarm 10-11-95 Wed 6:34 am Swiss Dairy delivery truck f~ 640 i0-!2-95 Thur afternoon R.C. fire department ask permission to enter props: to check common wall area for possible contaminatl, from toxic spill in parking/loading area 10-13--95 Fri 6:.'.%5 am Coke delivery truck arrives, truck idles and at 6:56 am 10-!3-95 Fri 11:24 pm lot sweeper cleaning the parking area LC,-16-95 I'!on 6:56 am Albertson truck arrives ~ not noted 10-17-95 Tue !~:02 am employees parking on east side o9 buildin9 making noise upon arrival, F'amela called Mike, shift man~ again and informed him of early arrival of trucks employee parking, Mike said he would try to corr-e~ and preven{ in future !(]-17-95 Tue 11:15 pm Pamela called, spol::,~ with Robbie concerning a mote of some type running on the south side of buildin~ motor was {urned off shortly after our call ].0-].8-95 Wed 11:35 pm lot sweeper cleaning the parking a~.~, iC,--i9-95 Thu 6:30 am same motor running as noted on 10-1'7, called .spol,:~ with Mike, no change noted 10-~.9-95 Thu 6:50 am Coke delivery trLtck 6:51 am Albertsor~s delivery trLtEk '~ 0!-'"132, called Mike 1 C,-- ]. '~ .9 =, _ '~ ~ ~.-:~ 'Fh~t 1i:u .... pm lot sweeper cleanin,~ the parking area 10-2C~-95 Fri 6:54 am A].beF~sons delivery trL~l-:: ~ ].0--20--95 Fr"i t2:36 pm !o~ sweeper cleaning the parking area 10-21-95 S.a~ 7:08 am Albertsons delivery truck ~¢ 0i-702 . _ :.~o pm A-Tre delivery ~l.-Ltc[' w/refiF parked along common for ten (10) minL~tes pr&c.,r to backing into loadin~ dock area, ~-~e were si~ting on our patio with frieF and had (o move into the house because of the nois Pamela called store at 9:C, 8 pro, spoke with person charge, no response, ~rLtEk departed 9:56 pm Albertson Log - continued date day time vehicle description/action ,--'...'.-,-,~, Mon 7:01 am Alber'tson delivery truck .~ not noted ~ - 10-25-95 Wed 7:04 am ..w~,ss Dairy truck ~l~ 640 arrives 10-26-95 Thu 6:47 am Albertsons delivery truck ~ 01-665 .-=o-~, Sat 7:04 am Alber{sons delivery truck ~ 01-106 10-7~0-95 Mon 6 ' -~o ,. ...... am diesel delivery truc~. departed loading dock area 10-30-95 Mon 7:03 am Gate City truck arrives 10-30-95 Mon 7:04 am Albertsons delivery truck ~ 01-16~ Albertsons* a e c E t v E 2 1997 City of Rancho Cucamonga November 20, 1995 P~ann~ng Divis~n David and Pamela Thompson 7390 London Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Thompson: I have read your letter in regards to our Rancho Cucamonga store. You can be assured that after reading your letter, I have discussed this whole incident about deliveries with the Store Directolr, Mike Hirz. I have notified our Distribution Center about making sure Albertson's trucks do not deliver before 7:00 am. They have agreed to move our delivery time to 8:00 am and will try not to deliver anything after 9:00 pm. Mike Hirz is notifying all of his vendors and asking them not to deliver before 8:00 am. I also have asked Mike to talk with his landlord about the parking lot sweeper to request that they not clean late at night. I hope this will help solve some of the problems you have had since we moved into our new building. I 'know that you not asked for anything, but I am enclosing a $30.00 gift certificate to show my appreciation for taking the time to let me know about this matter. Please feel free to contact me again if any problems should occur. Thank you for your time and patronage. Sincerely, Dave Rumley District Sales Manager Southern California Division DR/lp Enclosure cc: Mike Hirz #606 ALBERTSON'S, INC. / SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DIVISION / 1180 WEST LAMBERT ROAD /~ P.O. BOX 7500 / BREA, CALIFORNIA 92622-7500 714-671-6100 December 27, 1995 ~ly ~, r~¢i]0 Brad Buel let ~a~r~ing Divisior~ Director- of Planning City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91729 Dear Mr. Bueller: This morning ! spoke with Richard Alcorn of your Department of Code Enforcement concerning a number of topics, several of which he referre~ me to you. The situation is thi~. I reside at 7390 London Ave.. My property is to the east c~f {he new Albertson's store on ~.,E corner' of Baseline and Archibald ! am enclosing a letter i S. eF~t tD Albertson's on Oct. 30, 1995 with a log fc)r the Month of October detailing the O~CL!rrences that were outside of or close to being violations of the city ordnances ~ealing with noise and public disturbances. I am also enclosing a copy of ~ response I receive~ from Albertson's. ! must. ad,T, it, that since my letter the extreme early morning an~ late night deliveries have been rain!real. They do seem to have compressed their delivery schedule more toward the middle of the day. i'~r. Alcorn advise~ me to call the F'o!ic,~ when any fu. tLtre disturbance OCEL~r before 7 am or aftel'- t0 pro, and then to follow up '),our next wc, rking day with a pl'-,on~ call to Code Enforcement notifying thrum of the occurredice. F!u..=.~ , . areas that have not been --,..~',,,:.- therE, a~e severa~ addressed t. hat i feel I need to have remedy from. First t!-,,s~ continu~,d and constant scene of semi trucks pulling up alor',g the common wall between c, ur properties to begin their backing into the loading dock area. Because of' the cc)nfiguration approved by your department for the loading dc, c!::~ the trucks, and as many as 10-18 a day and six days a ~ee!:;, provide a great deal of noise, they peer down over my back yard and rob my family of any privacy what-.~o-ever. i would propose as a solution a sound barrier wall ample height to eliminate to some degree the intrusion and disturbance of the trucks in terms of sound and unsight].iness I believe the additional height on their existing wall would be a great improvement in dealing with the sound as well as with the area lights that were installed at the -time of the remodeling. The wattage of these lights seems to be ~um_nate our back yard arid shin,= rf, L[Ch g~ ~=~ '-~. as they i 1 ~ ~ ' u~,~ ~_,,_~P, our upstairs n ,ws constantly. I appreciate the security factor the lighting provides, but I do believe the fixtures need to be adapted or changed so that 'their area lighting does not intrude into my property. Mr. Bueller, I understand that Albertson's is a commercial venture that provides much needed revenue to our city. I also believe that professionals such as yourself and the people who work for and with you should act as my advocate during the pla~ning and design phases of this and other projects to eliminate the possibility for any negative impact those projects may possibly have on the adjacent property owners. But in approving the configuration for the loading dock for this project, my property and my right. s were not advocaLed for. I am nc, w looking for a remedy Lo that situation . I ~.~ill forward copies of this lettee to Mr. Rumley of Albertson's as well as to the Store Director, Mike H~rz. I would appreciate your assistance and will await your reply. Sincerely yours, David ]-hompson 7390 London Ave. Ra:-,cho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 cc: Dave Rumley D ' ,- ~ -ic t i =. ~.~- Sales Manager A1 bet tson ' s Store Director Store Director f~606 T H E C I ' T Y O F 2'A NC NO C U C A M 0 N O A January 22, 1996 ~ E 0 ~ ~ V E D JUN 2 5 1997 David and Pamela Thompson 7390 London Avenue City at Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Planning Division SUBJECT' NUISANCE PROBLEMS FROM ALBERTSON'S LOCATED AT SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE Dear Mr. and Mrs. Thompson: The City received your letter dated December 27, 1995. In your letter, you stated you have experienced nuisance problems and intrusion on your privacy from Albertson's supermarket. The nuisance problems and intrusion you raised are: constant truck noise, very early and late hours' delivery, disturbances, and excess light and glare that spill over into your property. In response to your concerns, I am investigating the site to determine if Albertson's has violated any City codes. After my initial investigation, I plan on contacting representatives of Albertson's to review any identified code violations and nuisance problems, and to determine the mitigation and control measures to ensure their business operation would not negatively impact the adjacent residents. If you are interested in participating in any of the meeting(s) I plan on having with representatives of Albertson's, please let me know. If you ha~)e any questions, please call me at (909) 477-2750. Sincerely ...... COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLA,~DIVIiI% Nancy Fang, A~CCP " Senior Planner NF:mlg cc: Brad Buller, City Planner 'l~ ' Mayor William J. Alexander Councilmember Paul Blanc Mayor Pro-Tern Rex Gutierrez Councilmember James V. Curatalo Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager Councilmember Diane Williams 10500 Civic Center Drive · P.O. Box 807 · Rancho~c[a~)~ga, CA 91729 · (909) 989-1851 · F.AX (9CR) 987-6499 tRECEiVED ~Y U~lannin~ ganchoDiws~ ncamo~a Na~y Fong~ S~ni~r F'l~nne~ Community Development Department Planning Division City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91729 Dear l";s. Fong: Thank you for arrangi~-~ the ,,~:~etJng c)c~ 'Tiburon. day, Ju~ myself, Robert Brush and Paul & Patti Davies with 'L'.h.~-~ representative from Aiber"~sons. ]"he to~ics an,5 items discussed A) The security problem c:f y~ung people jumpir~cj Ehe wall on east side of the Albertson's store and our properties, and the exposure that represe~',ts ?or us and A! bertsons. B) The noise, pollution anG v.;.sual disturbance creat~d by the delivery trucks as they arrive at the S/E corner o~: building, pull along the common wall between our propert.ies and the shoppin.~] center, and attempt to back Znto the{- loadin:i~ c~ock area and unload. C) The practice of trucks parking along the common ~.~a]l the east side of Albertsons and idling plus op,~rating the refrigeration units while waiting to unload and durir~.:~ un loading. D) The operation of the compressor or motor unit on the. trash compacting machine which is located outside of the buil.:Jic, g on the southeast corner at 'Eimes that do nob. cot)form to e~xisting city codes. E) City codes ~or weekend deliveries is ~ am and not 7 an it is during the week. F) The habitual viola~ioi-,s of city codes by the lot sweeping ,:ompany of working after the 10 pm deadline and the tra~sh col!ecEing company o~~ working before 7 am. Possible solutions discussed were: A) To realign the loading dock area so that truck tr'a'~f:;.c v,~ould stay on the south side of the Albertsons building. B) To have the property owner install a. vegetation barrier along our common wall that would deter climbing the wall. C) To install signs on the west side of the ~ail telling] people to not climb and trespass. D) Albertson's representative said he would instruct the store management to opera~:e the compactor durin~ legal code hour{: She ~tora end.t.o post sign~o~hat affect on the machine F) Call the police when disturbances occur and then follow up with notification to the City Code Enforcement department about the infractions. G) That you will meet with the representatives from Albertsons to discuss possible mitigations to these concerns and inform us of possible solutions. We appreciate your assistance with this process and will await your response. Sincerely yours, David Thompson Paul & Pattie Davies Robert Brush 7390 London 7398 London 7380 London cc: Dave Rumley District Sales Manager Albertsons Mike Hirz Store Director Albertons T H E C I T Y 0 F .... A N C H O C U C A A October 3, 1996 JUN ,3 ~ EFJ7 Mr, Scott Thayer Albertson's, Incorporated C~[y of Rancho Cucamonge 1180 West Lambert Road Planning Divisiorl Brea, CA 92622 .... SUBJECT: ALBERTSONS STORE NO. 606 - LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE (MDR 94-17) Dear Mr. Thayer: On June 27, 1996, we had a meeting at the subject store to discuss and review several nuisance problems, which had been identified in the April 4, 1996 letter to Mr. Rumpley, District Sales Manager. Present at the meeting were Mr. Thompson, Mr. and Mrs. Davies, and Mr. Brush, who are property owners adjacent to the shopping center. At the meeting we discussed several solutions that may address some of the nuisance problems. They were: Post signs along the east property boundary wall to prohibit loitering activities; post signs to remind truck drivers to turn off truck engines and their refrigeration units while loading and unloading; investigate changing the truck route for backing into the loading dock; develop a schedule for Albertson's employees to collect shopping carts along theeast side and south side of the store; provide security guards monitoring the area east and south of the store; etc. In a later phone conversation, you agreed to immediately begin to work on some of the above-mentioned solutions. In August and early pad of September, staff continued to receive complaints from the adjacent owners regarding noise from truck engines and their refrigeration and compressor units. I would like to receive a program of action with a time line for completion to address the identified nuisance problems. The purpose is to find long term solutions to address the nuisance problems so that the operation of the supermarket and the shopping center would be compatible to and harmonious with the adjacent residential areas. This program of action should include, but is not limited to, the following: 1. The types of signs that have been or will be posted on the east and south property boundary walls and/or on building walls. 2. A detailed schedule of truck delivery hours for the store. The City's code allows delivery between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. I understand that Albedson's voluntarily compressed the delivery hours in an attempt to address the complaints from the adjacent property owners. Staff recommends that Albertson's continue the compressed delivery schedule. 3. A daily schedule for Albertson's collecting of the shopping cads within the shopping center and especially around the east and south side of the store. ' 4. Proposed solutions to reduce the noise from the compressor and trash compactor. Mayor William J. Alexander Councilmember Paul Bione Mayor Pro-Tern Rex Gutierrez Councilmember James V. Curotolo A,,_.R CiW Manager Councilmember Diane Williams Jack Lorn. ~'"' i05.30 Ctv!: Center Drive · P.O. Box 807 · Ran ,riga. CA 91729 · (909) 989-1851 FAX (909) 957-6499 MR. SCOTT THAYER - ALBERTSON'S INC. MDR 94-17 October 3, 1996 Page 2 5. Investigate the possibility of reorienting the loading dock. 6. Contact the property owners and investigate the possibility of providing a landscape buffer along the east and south property boundaries. 7. Contact the property owners and investigate the possibility of raising the height of the existing block walls along the east and south property boundaries. 8. Contact the property owners and investigate the possibility of having security guards monitor the shopping center. Please submit this program of action on or before October 21, 1996. Staff believes that items 1 through 3 could be implemented immediately. As for the other recommended solutions, staff would be more than happy to meet with you and the representatives of the shopping center property owner to discuss them if you need further assistance. We encourage Albertson's to be sensitive to the adjacent residential areas and continue to be a good neighbor. We appreciate your cooperation in advance and look forward to hearing from you If you have any questions, please call me at (909) 477-2750. Sincerely. COMMUN,,~Y DEVELOP_~j.MENT DEPARTMENT Senior Planne~/ NF:taa cc: Brad Buller Richard Alcorn Mr.& Mrs. Thompson - residents Mr. & Mrs. Davies - residents Mr. Brush - resident Mr. W. Craig Dootson, Property Manager Frank H. Ayres & Son - Property Owner RECEIVED JUN 2 5 1997 Albertson's Log - November '95 to present Oily of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division date day time vehicle/action/activity 1!-1-95 Wed 6:45 am Albertson refrig ~0i-124 11-1-95 Wed 9:15 pm Albertson truck ~01-137 -departed 9:55pm 11-4-95 Sat 6:54 am Albertson truck ~01-102 11-5-95 Sun 8:48 am Albertson truck ~13-404 -refer running 11-5-95 Sun 7:10 pm Albertson truck ~1-140 11-6-95 Mort 6:36 am employees park blk Camary sedan c~,n s~de of building-noisy, loud,~ 'they a~.,,aken Lhe dogs in neighborhc, o(] w~icn barks for five to ten mi. nu~'.c,n 1!-6-95 Mot', 7:r',._.'~J. am Swiss ...~air.~ ~",.~ci-' '~::f:,4E~ - refer runnin~ 1i-7-95 Tues 8:00 p~"~ ~-~['~gr-:~c]p ',~ruck arrives - departs 9:05 pm !!-i~:,--.95 Wed ..i, : '~,.4 ,..~ !c,t sweeper arc,yes li-9-9b ;'.-;ur'~ ;.1:.72 ~:.m lot sweeper arrive~ J.J.-.].;i;~;-'.:;.i.x;..n .:;,'.-J., arn ;Albertson truck ~!: 0i-J75 )_]-'-';..q.-'~;'5Tues li:30 pm lot sweeper ar"r-ivem .;.:.-i15-':.~'5 Wed 6:4.8 am A!bertsc, n truck .J:~: 0!-il. 10 arrives i!-i5-95 Wed 7:02 a.m Albertson truck arrives 1!-16-95 Thurs !].:32 pm lot sweeper arrives !!-17-9r~, Fr'i ii:15 pm lot sweeper arrives. ~" !I-23-q5 Thurs 9:56 pm Thanksgiving evening - ]c)t s,-~eeper i2-!0-95 Sun 11:4.0 pm Albertson truck :'~0i--J. 6! .1..7:-'26-95 Tues !C,:05 pm Albertson truck ~'~ 0!-.I. 35 arrive~:-,ziep~,rt~ .!.0:07 pm !o2 z-.weeper arrives J..2-.2'~-95 Thu.,rs (~:50 am unmarked r-eYe:- truck arrive~ .t3'--27"--5'5 Fri '6':35 p,T, Albertsor, true!:: ~01-140 arrives-~zep:i~.rzs 2.2-2'-~'-~:5 FrJ. !JL:3C:' pm Dick Simon truck parks along corers,on ~.~a!i-'cruci.. idling-called pe!zce-di. spatcher tqevotn':/ ,.-~eul~ send unit but tna~ 9rocer'-:~.' st::,r'e~ could receive de!iverie~ unti. 1 !2 midnight-~ruck c!eparts 1i:'42pm i-2-96 ]'ues ._._~' .=lied Richard A!corn's offZce-spoke with Nancy Sasse-she reiterated that ordinance states 7am tc '~c.~.).pm-she sal,5 she would communicate with sheriffs o~'fice re: misinformation-gave list of occurrences during Dec,-she will share Alcorn and they ,-..~i!l respond ~,~iLh ;~.~!~:,~-);-~'..~(:,;') c:en ters management 4.-20-96 Wed 9:55 pm Albertson truck arv':.ve~..-.cali police-they say the] will resp,::r),n-truck: Oeparts i0:07 pm 4--i2-96 ['hur~ 7:45 am Aiber'~i~:on ~ruck ~ 0!-132 arrives Albertson truck ~ 01-338 arrives 4-.-i!-9.5 'i-hurt: 7:50 ._,,::. ,.=, called Albertsons-spoke ~..~ith i'Izke-h,~,~. -stated that he knows the verbal commitment ~.~as after 9am but dispatch Zs done 9rom Brea .so he has no 5-!9-96 Sun ii:00pm two cars racing zn lot' area and evenUuaii,.' in loading dock area-called Albertscan ~pc,~::e Oames-he stated hc could rio nothing becaus~,:~ they were private cz~:icens-cars depart ~.~ith tires s:iueaJing at li:iipm-i wat. ched and never c~xd see B n y c,n ,~..., approBch RECEIVED JUN 2 5 1997 Albertson log - continued City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 6-6-96 Thurs 1,.']l:24pm lot sweeper arri,.,es-ca].led Albertsons-Scott ~e, id he woL~ld go tell them to leave 6-9-96 Sun 10: .... pm lot sweeper arrives-called Albertsons-spo .... with c, E o t t 6-10-96 Mon 8:5(} am I called Albertsc~n-s. poke with Mike-he stated he was busy & wouid call me bacl.:: 6-10-96 Mort '=~' am called Nanc,/ F'ong-messa~e 'left in voice mail E)-i8-96 Tu~,s i',~ar';cy Fc, ng returned call-will set meeting with Albertson rep and let me know time & date ICr-ito Lay trucl:; arrives Diet Coke truck arrm',,,es ;:ul, 6:15 am trash compa~ctc, r machine opera=~ 7--2-~-,',-, rues 6:15 am employee p~, ~.:.= car on ea='P side of building-radi~' blasting-awakens neighbors dogs which bark 7-6-'96 Sat. 6,:~,= am Dairy Fresh a ~tuuk arrives-driver has difYicult') ~ - · ~-"_ ...... ~ attempts before successful ~ ....... !1 10 PM lot sweeper arrives ~' 14-96 Wed ~,:00 trash compactor c, perat~ng ,_, lo-~ Fri 10:25 pm t ..... compactor opmrating-cal~ed-spoke wi~-h I ~.~ I . ~ ,-, .- ~-' '~'? ~" Ro ,~--~/-':~6 Tues. .3:00 p,T, cal ].ed Nancy Fong--messag~ l~:t on ,.,o~ce mail 9-2-96 ~ .... 3: - ~u,n 21 am lot sweeper- arrives-called polire-O3:ficer O'~i'.-.,'as called bacl-:: & said the sweeper can be there because that is the only time he can clean the parking lot. I called dispatch again and requested call from the sargent or, duty to have him cite code that allows this activ.try 9-3-96 Tues E',:iC, am called Richard Alecorn-cited Code 17.02.120 E ~-~6 (noise associated witIn maint. over 55 decibels) 9-3-96 Tues 'R:45 am called sheriffs-].eft ~T, essage for Watch Commander ~.-.:.--~,:) Tues E;:~,~_) am called Nancy Fong.-,'nessage left on voice mail '9-7.;-'.';'6 Tums Sgt. Austin returned call-stated they tic:, not hav~ the monitoring equipment necessary to determine if noJ==. exceeds == decibels. He wc, uld speak w:i. th Code Enfor-cement to determine best solut.~.on to situation 9-3-96 Tu,~s ]_.~:30 am Sgt. Austin called again-he had spoken with Nanc') in Code Enforcement & they will handle s.ituation and not the police-We should ,call with each infraction and they will responcl 9-5-96 Tl'-,urs called I..~,~uy Fong-she said she had beer-, 'v'erv bus,, & hadn't completed letter to Albertson yet but would do so and forw'ard copy to us & neighbor~ no positive response from letter then the Planning Commis~.ion would be next step .;-')~9-~A c., ,~ 6: 45 am ~.ot sweeper arrives 9-30-96 Mon 6:30 am lot sweeper arrives RECEIVED - JUN 5 1997 Albertson Log - continued Cily of Rancho Cucam0nga Planning Di~isi0n 9-30-96 Mort 8:20 am called Richard Alcorn & informed him of arrival times of the lot sweeper 9-5~C)-96 Mon 8:50 am called Nancy Fong-she stated letter was approx. 1/2 completed-will coordinate with Code Enforcement & prepare remaining text 10-3-96 Thurs Nancy Fong called me at work-letter to Albertson completed-will send copies to myself and neighbors Davies and Brush 10-5-96 Sat 6:35 am lot sweeper arrives 10--6-96 SLtn 6:42 am lot sweeper arrives 11--!2-96 Tues 6:2:(]) am Pepsi trLtck arrives A CHRONOLOGY FOR ALBERTSONS SHOPPING CENTER SWC OF BASE LINE ROAD AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE DATE COMMENTS/STATUS 12-93 to present A review of the Code Enforcement files show that the site has been plagued with nuisance problems such as graffiti and illegal dumping of trash. Code Enforcement staff has worked with the property manager, Craig Dootson, to have the graffiti and trash removed in a timely manner and develop a plan of action to discourage the nuisance. 2-94 Staff met with representatives of Albertsons. They proposed to take over the unoccupied Builders Emporium building at the east side of the center because they needed a bigger facility. The existing Albertsons store at the west side of the center would have to be closed. They stated that Albertsons still has a long term lease for the existing store and it would be in their interest to sublease their building. To use the Builders Emporium building, they would have to modify the loading area and enclose the outdoor nursery area. Staff informed them that the use is permitted and the expansion would need a Minor Development Review application. 8-94 Albertsons submitted a Minor Development Review application (MDR 94-17). 9-94 Staff reviewed three alternatives to the parking scheme in the back of the store submitted by Albertsons. 10-6-94 City Planner approved MDR 94-17 with conditions. 10-19-94 Albertsons submitted revised design to the loading area. The revised loading area showed it to be at an angle. 3-15-95 City issued building permits for tenant improvements. 9-95 Albertsons store in business. 1-8-96 Planning Division received a letter dated December 27, 1995 from Dave Thompson. He described the nuisance problems consisting of constant stream of trucks and their noises, very early and late hours of deliveries, disturbances, and excess light and glare that spill over his property. He attached a copy of the time log for the nuisance problems in October and his October 30, 1995, letter to Albertsons. EXHIBIT "B" DATE COMMENTS/STATUS 1-22-96 Staff responded with a letter to Mr. Thompson and informed him of the pending investigation on whether Albertsons has violated the City's performance standards. 2-96 to 3-96 Staff reviewed files and conducted site investigations. 4-4-96 A letter to Albertsons. Staff identified the code violation of excess light and glare from the wallpak light. Staff cited the intense frequency of delivery trucks, which would create an adverse impact to the adjacent residents. Staff suggested mitigation for the noise impact and encouraged Albertsons to look into long term solutions. 5-96 to 6-96 Staff spoked with Dave Rumley, Albertsons District Sales Manager, and Scott Thayer, Real Estate Manager, several times. Staff requested their cooperation in being a good neighbor. They agreed to continue the compressed delivery schedule, reduce the light bulb wattage and provide shields to prevent light and glare spillages. Staff also requested a meeting with Albertsons to discuss long term solutions. ...... 6-10 through 6-18-96 Staff continued to receive calls from adjacent residents. 6-27-96 Staff arranged a meeting with Mr. Thayer of Albertsons and the adjacent residents, Dave Thompson, Bob Brush and Mr. and Mrs. Davies, at the site. The residents told Mr. Thayer of their concerns. Mr. Thayer agreed to work with staff on finding solutions to meet the residents' concerns. 7-96 to 8-96 Staff had several phone conversations with Mr. Thayer about setting up a meeting to discuss some suggested mitigation such as reorienting the loading area, providing a landscape buffer and/or raising the height of the block wall. Mr. Thayer stated that he would like to have a trial period of the continued compressed delivery schedule and requiring their truck drivers to turn off their engines and the refrigeration units while loading or unloading. He stated that Albertsons is reluctant to change the orientation of the loading dock because of their interior floor plan. He believed that the property owner should address the landscape buffer and the block wall. EXHIBIT "B" DATE COMMENTS/STATUS 9-3-96 Code Enforcement Division received a complaint from Mr. Thompson about the parking lot sweeper's coming too early in the morning (6:45 a.m.) Code Enforcement staff contacted the property manager, Mr. Doorson, who stated that the new contract services started last week and that he would inform them of the restricted time (between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.) for sweeping the parking lot. 9-30-96 Another complaint regarding the parking lot sweeper. Code Enforcement contacted Mr. Dootson. He stated he has hired another company for sweeping the parking lot. 10-3-96 Because of repeated complaints, staff sent another letter to Albertsons requesting an action plan to address the nuisance problems. Albertsons has not responded to the letter and has not provided an action plan as outlined in the attached letter. 10-96 to 6-25-97 Staff did not receive any further complaints from residents regarding noise issues. 6-25-97 Mr. Thompson spoke at the Planning Commission about the continued nuisance problems Attachments: Letter to Dave Thompson dated January 22, 1996 Letter to Dave Rumpley of Alberstons dated April ,4, 1996, July 1, 1996, Memo to file regarding meeting of June 26, 1996 Letter to Scott Thayer of Albertsons dated October 3, 1996 EXHIBIT "B" T H E C I T Y O F DA NC C UC A MONG A January 22, 1996 David and Pamela Thompson 7390 London Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 SUBJECT' NUISANCE PROBLEMS FROM ALBERTSON'S LOCATED AT SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE Dear Mr. and Mrs. Thompson: The City received your letter dated December 27, 1995. In your letter, you stated you have experienced nuisance problems and intrusion on your privacy from Albertson's supermarket. The nuisance problems and intrusion you raised are: constant truck noise, very early and late hours' delivery, disturbances, and excess light and glare that spill over into your property. In response to your concerns, I am investigating the site to determine if Albertson's has violated any City codes. After my initial investigation, I plan on contacting representatives of Albertson's to review any identified code violations and nuisance problems, and to determine the mitigation and control measures to ensure their business operation would not negatively impact the adjacent residents. If you are interested in participating in any of the meeting(s) I plan on having with representatives of Albertson's, please let me know. If you hax;e any questions, please call me at (909) 477-2750. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNIN/~ DIVI?ON Nancy Fong, A~ICP Senior Planner ~ NF:mlg .~ cc: Brad Buller, City Planner Mayor William J. Alexander Councilmember Pc:u[ Biane Mayor Pro-Tern Rex Gutierrez Councilmember James V. Curatalo Jack Lorn, AICP, Ci~ Manager Councilmember Diane Williams 10500 CMc Center Drive · P.O. Box 807 * Ranci- nga, CA 91729 · (909) 989-1851 · FAX (909) 987-6499 T H E C I T Y 0 F i ANCHO CUCANONGA April 4, 1996 Mr. Dave Rumley, District Sales Manager Albertson's Inc. P.O. Box 7500 Brea, CA 92622 SUBJECT: ALBERTSON'S STORE No. 606 - LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE Dear Mr. Rumley: The City has received correspondence from an adjacent resident who complained about constant truck noise, early morning and ate even ng hours of de very, and br ght lights glaring over his property. One of our Code Enforcement staff has contacted your Store Manager to inform him of a City Code violation, that is, no delivery between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Your company has responded immediately by compressing the delivery schedule toward the middle of the day. We appreciate your effort [o address this concern. Staff found that there are wallpak light fixtures installed on the east and south sides of the building. This type of light fixture together with a high wattage light bulb will produce glare and a brightness that w~11 spill over to the adjacent properties. The Development Code recl. uires all lighis to be shielded and directed downwards so that they will not negatively impact the adjacent residents. We would recommend changing the wallpak to a shoe-box type light fixture where the light source is pointed downwards and changing the light bulbs to a lower wattage for minimizing the brightness and the g are. One foot candle for the light fixtures would meet the minimum safely requirements. As you know, delivery trucks especially the ones with refrigeration will produce noise. An intense frequency of delivery trucks will result in an increase in the ambient noise to a level that will impact the adjacent residents. There are mitigation that could reduce and alleviate the noise impact. Examples of mitigation are: extending the height of the existing block wall providing a 10-foot wide landscaped buffer area modifying the location and design of the loading area, etc. I would like to have a meeting with you to discuss and rev ew the above suggested no se mitigation. While we are working toward a long term solution to mitigate the noise impact, I would strongly encourage Albertson's to continue ~[o maintain the compressed schedule for the delivery trucks, and address the glare and the bright lights from the lightfixtures of the store. I will be calling you to arrange for a meeting. If you have any questions, please call me at (909) 477-2750. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT _Nancy F_0r~/.~ICP / Senidr P lar~er-'----.~ cc: Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor David and Pamela Thompson Moyor Williota J. Alexchalet Councilmember Poul Bione Moyor Pro-l'em Rex Gutierrez Councilmember Jomes V. Curotolo Jock Lorn, AICR Ci,~/ Monoger CouncitmemDer Dione WiIt:oms 10500 Civic Center Drive * P.O. Box 807 · Rancho~o'~il~P~j~, CA 91729 · (909) 989-1851 · FAX (909)987-6499 7 .H E C I T Y O F NC HO C UC k HONC A October 3, 1996 Mr. Scott Thayer Albertson's, Incorporated 1180 West Lambert Road Brea, CA 92622 SUBJECT: ALBERTSONS STORE NO. 606 - LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE (MDR 94-17) Dear Mr. Thayer: On June 27, 1996, we had a meeting at the subject store to discuss and review several nuisance problems, which had been identified in the April 4, 1996 letter to Mr. Rumpley, District Sales Manager. Present at the meeting were Mr. Thompson, Mr. and Mrs. Davies, and Mr. Brush, who are property owners adjacent to the shopping center. At the meeting we discussed several solutions that may address some of the nuisance problems. They were: Post signs along the east property boundary wall to prohibit loitering activities; post signs to remind truck drivers to turn off truck engines and their refrigeration units while loading and unloading; investigate changing the truck route for backing into the loading dock; develop a schedule for Albertson's employees to collect shopping cads along the east side and south side of the store; provide security guards monitoring the area east and south of the store; etc. In a later phone conversation, you agreed to immediately begin to work on some of the above-mentioned solutions. In August and early part of September, staff continued to receive complaints from the adjacent owners regarding noise from truck engines and their refrigeration and compressor units. I would like to receive a program of action with a time line for completion to address the identified nuisance problems. The purpose is to find long term solutions to address the nuisance problems so that the operation of the supermarket and the shopping center would be compatible to and harmonious with the adjacent residential areas. This program of action should include, but is not limited to, the following: 1. The types of signs that have been or will be posted on the east and south property boundary walls and/or on building walls. 2. A detailed schedule of truck delivery hours for the store. The City's code allows delivery between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. I understand that Albertson's voluntarily compressed the delivery hours in an attempt to address the complaints from the adjacent property owners. Staff recommends that Albertson's continue the compressed delivery schedule. 3. A daily schedule for Albertson's collecting of the shopping carts within the shopping center and especially around the east and south side of the store. 4. Proposed solutions to reduce the noise from the compressor and trash compactor. Mo,/or William J. Alexander %4.'~~ Councilmember Paul Biane Mayor Pro-Tern Rex Gutierrez Counc;imember James V. C,JrOtclo Jack Lain. AICP. Ci,-y Manager Councilmember Diane Wiltiotas .Civ;c Center D'.ve - P.O· Box 807 · Roncho~~a, CA 91729 · (909) 989-1851 · FAX {909) c/~7-6z:99 MR. SCOTT THAYER - ALBERTSON'S INC. MDR 94-17 October 3, 1996 Page 2 5. Investigate the possibility of reorienting the'loading dock. 6. Contact the property owners and investigate the possibility of providing a landscape buffer along the east and south property boundaries. 7. Contact the property owners and investigate the possibility of raising the height of the existing block walls along the east and south property boundaries. 8. Contact the property owners and investigate the possibility of having security guards monitor the shopping center. Please submit this program of action on or before October 21, 1996. Staff believes that items 1 through 3 could be implemented immediately. As for the other recommended solutions, staff would be more than happy to meet with you and the representatives of the shopping center property owner to discuss them if you need further assistance. We encourage Albertson's to be sensitive to the adjacent residential areas and continue to be a good neighbor. We appreciate your cooperation in advance and look forward to hearing from you. If you have any questions, please call me at (909) 477-2750. Sincerely. COMMUN, J~Y DEVELOP~/~.ENT DEPARTMENT Senior Plannei~/ NF:taa cc: Brad Buller Richard Alcorn Mr.& Mrs. Thompson - residents Mr. & Mrs. Davies- residents Mr. Brush - resident Mr. W.Craig Dootson, Property Manager Frank H. Ayres & Son - Property Owner Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Sections 17.10. 040 & 17.10. 050 8. Wails for the purpose of screening commercial activities from more sensitive land uses and for sound attenuation shall be required. Height, placement, and design of walls shall be considered as it relates to the surrounding area. D. Proiections into Yards 1. Eaves, roof projections, awnings, and similar architectural features when located at least 8 feet above grade may project into required yards a maximum distance of 3 feet, provided that such feature shall be at least 5 feet from a property line. 2. Fireplace, chimneys, bay windows, balconies, fire escapes, exterior stairs and landings, and similar features may project into the required yard a maximum distance of 2 feet, provided that such features shall not occupy more than 25 square feet of each required yard, and shall be at least 5 feet from a property line. E. Proiections Above Heiqht Limits. Flues, chimneys, antennas, elevator, or other mechanical equipment, spires, or belltowers, or similar architectural, utility, or mechanical features may exceed the height limit by not more than 15 feet, provided such feature shall not be used for habitable space and appropriate screening is provided, if necessary. F. Use of Required Yards 1. Street yards. Except as otherwise permitted, a street yard shall be used only for landscaping, pedestrian walkways, driveways, or off-street parking. 2. Rear and Interior side yards. Except as otherwise permitted, these yards shall be used only for landscaping, pedestrian walkways, driveways, off-street parking or loading, recreational activities or facilities, or similar accessory activities. G. Trails. All new developments are required to provide trails consistent with the adopted trails map of the General Plan. Developments within the equestrian overlay district may be required by the Planning Commission to provide local feeder trails for continuation of a local system. Further, within the Equestrian Overlay District, non-residential development shall consider the use of amenities for equestrian, pedestrian, and bicycling activities such as hitching posts, benches, rest areas, drinking fountains, and bicycle stands. -~' S~ c~t, o n 17.1_.._....~. 0 - Pe.,'fc ,..me ncc S ~.-. d, rrt-,'-__..~' The conduct and operation of all uses in the office and commercial districts shall comply with the minimum standards of performance set forth in this section. A. Noise. All operations and businesses shall be conducted to comply with the following standards. 1. All commercial and office activities shall not create any noise that would exceed an exterior noise level of 60dBA during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and 65dBA during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 2. Loadinq and Unloadinq. No person shall cause the loading, unloading, opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or similar 17.10-16 3/96 Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.10. 050 objects between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area. 3. Vehicle Repairs and Testing. No person shall cause or permit the repairing, rebuilding, modifying, or testing of any motor vehicle, motorcycle, or motorboat in such a manner as to increase a noise disturbance between the hours of 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. across from a residential area. B. Liqhts. All lights and glare associated with operations and illuminated signs shall be shielded or directed so as to not illuminate adjacent businesses or cause glare to motorists. C. Smoke. No operation or activity is permitted to have operations which emit excessive smoke, fumes, or dust or which exceed the requirements or levels as specified by the Air Quality Management District (AQMD). D. Maintenance of Open Areas. All open areas shall be landscaped, surfaced, or treated and maintained permanently in a dust free condition. E. Vibration. No operation or activity is permitted which will create vibration noticeable without instruments at the perimeter of the subject property. F. Mechanical and Electrical Equipment. All such equipment, including air conditioners, antennas, pumps, transformers, heating, and ventilating equipment shall be located and operated in a manner that does not disturb adjacent uses and activities. Electrical Interference. No operation or activity shall transmit, generate, or otherwise cause any electrical, magnetic, or electromagnetic radiation disturbance that affects the operation of any use, equipment, or process employed by any use beyond the boundary of the site. H. Fire or Explosive Hazard. All operations or activities shall conform with the miramum requirements of the Uniform Fire Code, as adopted and amended by the Foothill Fire District, and with the provisions of Title 19 of the California Administrative Code. Liquid and Solid Wastes. There shall be no discharge at any point into any public or private sewage disposal system or stream, or into the ground, of any liquid or solid materials except in conformance with the regulations of the Cucamonga County Water District and Building and Safety Division. J. Outdoor Storaqe, Trash Areas, and Service Areas. All areas for storage of maintenance equipment or vehicles, refuse storage, and collection areas and service areas, shall be enclosed or effectively screened from public view by use of a fence, wall, landscaping, berming, or a combination thereof. K. Air quality. No operation or activity shall cause the emission of any smoke, fly ash, dust, fumes, vapors, gases, or other forms of air pollution which can cause damage to health, animals, vegetation, or other forms of property, or which can cause excessive soiling on any other lot. No emission shall be permitted which exceeds the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District or the requirements of any Air Quality Plan adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 17.10-17 3/96 ..... Rancho Cucarnonga Development Code Section 17.10.050 L. Heat or Cold. No operation or activity shall emit heat which would cause a temperature increase or decrease on any adjacent property in excess of 10 degrees Fahrenheit, whether the change is in the air, on the ground, or in any structure. M. Odors. No operation or activity shall be permitted to emit odorous gases or other odorous matter in such quantities as to be dangerous, injurious, noxious, or otherwise objectionable and readily detectable without the aid of instruments at or beyond the lot line. N. Fissionable or Radioactive Materials. No operation or activities shall be permitted which result at any time in the release or emission of any fissionable or radioactive materials into the atmosphere, the ground, or sewerage systems. O. Vehicle Parkinq. The parking of vehicles in all commercial/office and industrial districts shall be subject to the following provisions: 1. The design guidelines and regulations for parking facilities shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 17.12 of the Development Code and any applicable provisions of the Industrial Specific Plan; Vehicle parking shall be within buildings, garages, or other required or authorized off-street paved parking facilities; 3. All parking facilities within public view from the street, public right-of-way, or adjacent ....... property shall be paved with a permanent paving material. Such area shall be maintained in a usable condition free of potholes and broken sections sufficient to prevent mud and/or dust, without accumulation of loose material or other deterioration; 4. No vehicle shall be parked for the purpose of displaying such vehicle for sale or other commercial activity, including, but not limited to, lease, hire, advertising, etc. unless such vehicle is parked by, or with the written permission of, a business on the property which is permitted, licensed, and approved to display vehicles for such purposes; 5. No vehicle shall be parked for the purpose of repair or maintenance unless: (1) such work is performed on vehicles owned or operated by the on-site business within an enclosed building or yard area screened from view from the street, public right-of-way, adjacent properties and required off-street parking facilities with public access; or (2) in connection with a current on-site business permitted to perform repair or maintenance of vehicles and only during established business hours; 6. No vehicle which is disabled, unlicensed, unregistered, inoperative, or from which an essential or legally required operating part is removed or missing shall be parked within public view from the street, public right-of-way, adjacent properties, or required off-street parking facilities with public access; 7. No commercial vehicle exceeding a gross weight of 1~ tons, or exceeding a width of 80 inches, or a trailer or semi-trailer shall be parked within a commercial/office district unless: (1) it is screened from public view from the street, public right-of-way, and adjacent properties; (2) it is actively involved in making pick-ups and deliveries; or (3) in 17.1 O-18 3/96 Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Sections ! 7. ! O. 050 & 17.10. 060 connection with, and in aid to, the performance of a service to, or on, the property where the vehicle is parked, while actively involved in such activity; 8. "Vehicles" as used in this section shall include, but not be limited to, commercial vehicles, automobiles, trucks, trailers, motor trucks, semi-trailers, motorcycles, mopeds, campers, camper shells, boats, or other large portable recreational or commercial equipment; 9. Violation of any provision of this subsection shall be punishable as an infraction. Section 17,10,060- General Design Guidelines A. Intent. The intent of the guidelines is to assist the designer in understanding and complying with the City's standards for building and site design. The guidelines are based upon community design goals as expressed in the General Plan and encourage the orderly and harmonious appearance of structures and property along with associated facilities, such as signs, landscaping, parking areas, and streets. The guidelines establish a high standard for design quality but are flexible enough to allow individual expression and imaginative solutions. B. Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to all commercial and office districts, unless otherwise specified herein. Any addition, remodeling, relocation, or construction requiring a building permit within any commercial or office distdct is subject to Development/Design Review pursuant to Chapter 17.06. C. Guidelines. These guidelines are under the two major categories of site plan design and building design. The structure and its relationship to other structures, uses, views, existing site condition, and pedestrian orientation, should be the dominant factors in the design and orientation of buildings. Architectural statements, while being strong, should not conflict from site to site or building to building. 1. Site Plan Desiqn a. Existinq Site Conditions. Existing site conditions such as mature vegetation, slopes, drainage courses, rock outcroppings and views should all be considered as possibilities for inclusion in the project. Use of valuable existing site elements will assist in formulating a focused design theme. b. Buildinq Orientation. Placement of the buildings shall be done in a manner compatible with surrounding existing and planned uses and buildings. The setback from streets and adjacent properties is directly proportionate to the scale of the proposed building and those around it. Larger buildings will require more setback area for a balance of scale and for the protection of solar access to the proposed building and adjacent sites. Lastly, placement of the building should provide the most aesthetic public views. c. Access/Circulation. The access and circulation of a development should be designed to provide a safe and efficient system, both on and off the site. Points of access shall be designed in conformance with the City access regulations. The circulation system shall be designed to reduces conflicts between vehicular and pedestrian traffic, minimize impacts on adjacent properties, combine circulation and .. 17.10-19 3/96 : Har-v' $ Cleaners · 972:1 othest Ole's 9775 Alber tson ' s ~ / 9759 OCT 17 '~ 1~:3~ FROM ALBERYSONSX3S00 Di~ .... '""" / ~st-lt~ brand f~ ~ansm~ttal memo ~ CO. eDuo~eon0 oqJu~ ~o,pt. OMPACTOR ~J <"v ~ 93' J cv o ~ EME. RGENCY/EXITS (EXISTING BLDG.) I 228'X 152' 260' ~ HANOIOAR Pi~RCEL J CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF RF PORT DATE: July 9, 1997 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Alan Warren, Associate Planner SUBJECT: FOOTHILL BOULEVARD ACTIVITY CENTERS BACKGROUND: Included with this Staff Report are excerpts from the Foothill Boulevard Design Supplement and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan which address the Activity Center provisions for the City. The specific Activity Center references are shown by an "~, with support information included to properly place them within the Specific Plan design concepts. Res~ d Buller City Planner BB:AW/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Excerpts from Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Exhibit "B" - Excerpts from Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Design Supplement Exhibit "C" - Photographs of Activity Centers CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA _ ~ ,,~,, _ _ __ .~ ~.¥~ ',..~_~ ~ "The city of Rancho Cucamonga is a community committed to excellence. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan is a long term commitment for the development of this vital corridor.' ........... ·FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN SUMMARY The Cily of Rancho Cucamonga is a community committed to excellence. The City's development and design review process places heavy emphasis on quality, long term viability, and support of community goals in all development projects. WHAT IS THIS PLAN ABOUT ? Foothill Boulevard is the most significant commer- cial corridor in the City. Established as a major east/west commercial thoroughfare, the corridor is an important pan of the developing regional business area for the West Valley. The Boulevard's pan in this potential commercial growth will be all the more significant with the de- velopment of the regional mall at Foothill Boule- vard and the I-15 Freeway. The purpose of this Plan is to provide a balanced and unified pattern of development along Foothill Boulevard by taking advantage of opportunities in future community growth. SUBAREA I SUBAREA 2 SUBAREA 3 'Bear Gulch' i 'Vineyard' I 'Old Cucamonga' Activity Center, I COMMUNITY DESIGN The Plan aims to visually unify the entire corridor. To do so, the Plan calls for a series of highly identifiable activity centers and gateways which are linked by a unifying suburban parkway design as follows: Activi _ty Centers: Activity Centers are points of interest located at' major intersections and/or landmarks along the Corridor. They are to provide individual identity by concentrating commercial activity at the following areas: * Foothill at Bear Gulch * Foothill at Vineyard Avenue * Foothill at Archibald Avenue * Foothill at Turner Avenue * Foothill at Eftwanda Avenue These activity centers are generally more urban in nature, with buildings closer to the street and a ~eater emphasis on building design. The essence of the Plan is to facilitate the devel- Because the conditions along the corridor vary opment of projects and public improvements significantly, the Plan and its which meet these criteria: Development Standards are divided into four subareas. Each of these planning areas have ' Provide high quality standards unique problems and opportunities: ' Help unify the communitiy's image SUBAREA 1 "Bear Gulch" Grove to Cucamonga Creek ' Reflect the communities heritage SUBAREA 2 "Vineyard" * Strengthen the economic viability Cucamonga Creek to Hellman Ave. of the corridor SUBAREA 3 "Old Cucamonga" * Provide a balanced mix of land Hellman to Deer Creek uxes or tenants SUBAREA 4 "Etiwanda" ' Deal effectively with traffic and I-15 to East Avenue safety problems WHY A SPECIFIC PLAN ? Development Standards unique to each subarea are used to provide the necessary guidelines for The Specific Plan is a tool that combines development. The Foothill Boulevard Specific traditional zoning with detailed design and Plan includes four major elements: development standards tailored to specific ' Community Design conditions. It is a comprehensive document which contains all policies and development ' Circulation standards necessary for the design of any project within the Foothill Boulevard ' Land Use Corridor. The Specific Plan examines the needs of the commercial and residential area and ' Implementation implements the policies of the General Plan. SUBAREA 3 , SUBAREA =Old Cucarnong&' · ] 'Etlwenda' ; II ~ ~ ~ c t These areas link the activity centers with a less formal streetscape design to include meanderin~undulating sidewalks and informal landscaping. Buildings in these areas have deeper setbacks and are often separated from the street by landscaped parking areas. Architecture: One of the more recognizable aspects of a community design image is its architectural style. This Plan recognizes the importance of the community's heritage and identifies significant historical structures and x~ architectural elements along the boulevard. THOMAS BROS. WINERY ~'~'-/'/~~ CIRCULATION A major concern to which the Plan must provide solutions is that of future traffic congestion. The traffic analysis predicts an ultimate daily traffic count of 50,(K)0-60,000 cars. This means that the importance of adequate traffic control measures cannot be over-emphasized. This Plan calls for the construction of Foothill Boulevard as a six lane divided arterial, with: * Synchronized signalization at all intersections. * A continuous median island, with openings limited to major intersections and selected additional locations. * Selected access location points on Foothill Boulevard based on a restrictive policy for driveway locations and minimum spacing. * Multiple left-turn lanes and separate right-turn lanes at critical intersections. The Plan also l~rovides criteria under which additional median openings or access points may be ...... considered. However, it must be recognized that the corridor is an integral part of the City-wide and regional circulation system and that all traffic control measures must work in concert with one another. 'The desire to provide additional median openings or points of access to localized areas must be weighed against the Boulevard's ability to carry safely the projected volumes of traffic. ~ Special _ty Commercial (SC) In an effort to establish the Corridor as a viable This designation was incorporated into the Plan to regional commercial area the plan provides for facilitate specialized development of landmark significant commercial opportunities along the and activity centers along the corridor. The intent boulevard. The land use designations and here is to provide high quality, pedestrian-off- activities have b~en carefully selected to enhance ¢nted activity areas, with eating establishments, the community design concept and improve its" entertainment and specialty shopping. The 1oca- commercial viability. tion of this designation is at key areas, as follows: The Plan is tailored to unique opportunities and constraints of selected areas, and contains special * Bear Gulch land use provisions highlighted b~low: · Vineyard Avenue Intersection Re~onallv Related Commercial (RC) (Thomas Brothers Winery) This category is located immediately adjacent to * Archibald Avenue Intersection the east side of the I- 15 Freeway to take advan- tage of the land's freeway exposure and close In addition, the Plan calls for more traditional proximity to the regional mall. The intent is to commercial, office, and residential developments, provide available environment for retailers of re- with focus on quality, balance, and community gional nature that will not locate within the mall identity. 'tself. IMPLEMENTATION To ensure that the plan area develops successfully, the implementation section provides suggested methods of f'mancing for needed public improvements. Cost estimates and proposed phasing of improvements are provided. This section includes a lot consolidation program which provides incentives for small lot owners to work together with the Redevelopment Agency to improve development potential at certain target areas. The Plan also recognizes the need to bring high sales volume businesses into the City, and this section suggests certain incentive to attract these strong market performers. In addition, it is recognized that the existing businesses along the corridor need to be helped in the corridor's revitalization with a small business assistance program with the Redevelopment Agency, Small Business Administration, and other programs. ~ Uniclueness. This quality can be 5.3.2 derived from a single feature, a Suburban Parkway Transitions district-wide theme reflecting ethnic or historical themes, or an event It is recognized that the Foothill which is staged in a special place Boulevard Corridor will not become a each year. totally pedestrian oriented environment. Therefore, the five pedestrian oriented o A sense of place in a shared past, activity centers listed above, will be which gives people a sense of linked tocjether by "suburban parkway" belonging. transition areas. These parkway transi- tion sections will consist of informal 5.3 COMMUNITY DESIGN VOCABULARY landscape treatments, dominated by drifts of London Planes, California Sycamore, In an effort to provide a unique corn- and Purple Plum trees. Other parkway munity image for the Foothill Boulevard characteristics include rolling turf berms Corridor, a variety of existing or pro- and meandering/undulating sidewalks, de- posed image enhancement elements will be signed to complement informal landscape provided or enhanced, designed to in- treatments. crease corridor identity. Vocabulary of these image giving elements include the 5.3.3 fol low i ng: Landmarks ~~:3t'i~it¥ C ente~ ........ ~,} Specific elements of the environment that exhibit and promote an individual or uni- que identity include landmarks. Because ctivity Centers are points of inter- g-.,,, landmarks are, by definition, unique and section at major streets or landmarks ~ distinct, they are also few in number. along the Foothill Boulevard Corridor. ~ Landmarks are typically associated with As such, they are points of concentrated ~) historic structures/features or prominent activity which give identity to individual ~/ land forms which exhibit memorable qual- subareas. ~ ities and project a strong identity or image. Major Activity Centers located contiguous~.,, to the Foothill Boulevard Corridor include ~) Landmarks located contiguous to the the areas surrounding the following ~/ Foothill Boulevard Corridor include: intersections: 2 o The Sycamore Inn : o ~oothill at ~n Bernardino ~ o The Oso Bear Monument o oothill at ineyard Avenue o The remnants of the Cucamonga o Foothill at Archibald Avenue ~, China Town o Foothill at Turner Avenue ~) o The Thomas Brothers Winery o Foothill at Etiwanda Avenue ~) o The Virginia Dare Winery o The First U.S. Post Office site in The injection of small doses of urbanity ~, Cucamonga at these key activity centers is suggested ~ o John and George Klusman Houses method for creating a more interesting, ~/ o Mitchell House formal and diverse impression of the "~ o Mandala House L~.Foothill Corridor. The Activity Center at ~/ o Bell House Foothill and San Bernardino is a more j o Guidera House k... rural informal, viH~ o Sacred Heart o Aggazzotti Winery 11-5.2 S,0 COMMUNITY DESIGN CONCEPT S.1 INTRODUCTION o Key Existing Community Design Feature (5.q), identifies a variety of This section of the Specific Plan estab- existing community design features lishes parameters within which the com- including prominent building struc- munity character for the entire Foothill tures, and natural features. These Boulevard Corridor can be created. To elements hold potential for the do so, a number of issues and design Foothill Corridor. concepts have been previously explored. However, at the core of all discussion o Overall Community Design Concept and investigation has been the attempt to (5.5), describes overall design define community character in an accu- concepts related to subarea struc- rate, comprehensive, and pragmatic ture, activity center and suburban manner. The Community Design Plan is parkway definitions, architecture, primarily focused on the creation of aes- and landscape architecture. thetic character. It's purpose is to create a visual environment that evokes a S.2 IMAGE ENHANCEMENT FEATURES distinctive and unifying image which is unique to Rancho Cucamonga. To accore- Community image is related to the way plish this task, the Foothill Boulevard people experience the City - driving Corridor must first distinguish itself from through it, observing its natural qualities other major thoroughfares in nearby com- and the character of it's buildings, walk- munities; and second, it must serve as a ing through commercial areas, and visiting visually unifyin9 concourse that links the specific destinations. entire community of Rancho Cucamonga. Last , it is important to have a design The best communities have the following statement for the Foothill Boulevard memorable image enhancement features: Corridor with each contributing communi- ty design element skillfully orchestrated o A clear sense of arrival through a to promote a contiguous, cohesive, distinct change in landscape, hard- community design image. scape, built areas, or special entrance monumentation features. The community design section consists of the following components: o A civic, commercial, or cultural public urban open space, which de- o Image Enhancement Features (5.21, fines the activities, history, corn- define common community design merce, or natural/manmade features qualities which enhance community which the community as a whole image and identity. values. Typical public urban open spaces consist of plazas, courtyards, o Community Design Vocabulary [5.3), urban paseos, market streets, defines and describes various image historic landmarks, and publicparks. enhancement features including nodes/activity centers, suburban o A clear orc~anization of streets, parkway transitions, landmarks, identifiable districts, and landmarks gateways, and views. which gives people a sense of direc- tion and orientation. The extent of J I ,~ . . I confusion in traffic circulation, and -~ i'~" ~' the amount of congestion increasing- ~ ly figures in people's perceptions of _ -~ cities. COMMUNITY DESIGN CONCEPT This intersection is located at the center The Sycamore Inn activity center is dom- of the Foothill Boulevard Corridor and inated by a quality sit-down restaurant, holds potential for establishing a major, L complemented by small specialty oriented ~, urban oriented, activity center. Develop- restaurants, shops, and support offices. ment surrounding this intersection will promote pedestrian oriented retail ser- Originally established in the 1880's this vices designed to serve the specialty L large two-story structure was constructed needs of the community. Major redevel- as an inn/stage stop in the area com- opment on all corners, excluding the / munity known as Bear Gulch. The Millers Outpost Center, will promote architecture is characterized by chateau active commercial uses within a pedes- ~x~ and craftsman details. The building is trian dominated context. The opportunity~ sheathed in vertical wood siding and has of establishing a "commons" or public / a moderately pitched gable roof with a urban open space should be explored, de-/-~ native stone chimney. The building and signed to reinforce and promote ) site are enhanced by the presence of pedestrian usage. ~ numerous mature California Sycamore trees. 5 .a, .q ~ :p ?~ .:= :a ~ Macjic Lamp Restaurant ...... ~_~ u L1 ~-~-~ ', 'l .~ ~ The Magic Lamp Restaurant is located in an eclectic building which is character- ized by brick walls, and a unique clay "':J tiled hip roof. The roof of the structure :'~. is composed of a variety of roof tiles , stacked in such a fashion as to provide a rich textured effect. The restaurant lies ~ iJ within the Bear Gulch activity area. ] ~ -:a ~ -J 5 ~. - Eucalyptus Windrows ' The remnants of a windrow are found on either side of Foothill Boulevard, east of the Southern Pacific Railroad bridge · 25' URBAN SETBACK crossing which traverses the boulevard. The trees are mature and appear healthy, ~ · PEDESTRIAN LEVEL ARCHITECTURE although are not maintained and set a STEPPED TO UPPER LEVELS distinctive open space character along · FORMAL LANDSCAPE ARRANGEM Foothill Boulevard. · URBAN STREETSCAPE VOCABULA ~ · MAJOR URBAN DESIGN STATEMENT ALONG FOOTHILL · PUBLIC PLAZA SPACE · PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES $.$OVERALL COMMUNITY DESIGN ~ Activity Centers CONCEPT The overall Community Design Concept is r Each subarea within the planning area is comprised of a hierarchy of urban design punctuated by an urban oriented activity components which range from the devel- center. Typically located at major inter- opment of large subareas, to specifically ~ sections, these activity centers function located district activity centers. The to provide a district level focal point intent of the Community Design Concept which ultimately increases district level is to provide a broad-brushed overview of density. The activity centers will be general design components which ulti- composed of urban oriented specialty mately lead to the development of // commercial uses, designed in such a man- specific design guidelines. net as to accommodate pedestrian orient- ed activities. Individual structures and The overall Community Design Concept large commercial shopping centers will be consists of the following components: designed in such a manner as to promote f an urban oriented "Rancho Winery o Subarea structure Revival" the..me complemented by higher r~ o Activity centers ',ntens,t~ ~~/~J o Suburban parkways o Overall architectural concept o Overall landscape architectural concept 5.5.1 Subarea Structure In an attempt to provide individual district identity. the planning area has been segmented into four distinct sub- areas. Each subarea contains an activity center or focal point. such as a concen- tration of urban oriented specialty uses. which is intended to increase the "image- ability" of each individual subarea. These separate subarea identities will promote a sense of place for the residents and visitors to the Specific Plan area. and will ultimately enhance property values. 11-5.8 .......... ~ .~/~£,w,,F,~~ .'J~f.,'g~..,d~. ,~'f~' X,,/,dzd~ ~,~ ~f,,r.,¢~'/..,~,~Z ~, ~ ~ / / ,~w,~v.,d.r/x ,.~"',,~,~,w,~.,~ .,,vf~';~-~'_,,~'_r/~,,~. .~.~f/ / ;': 'i': ':.t COMMUNITY DESIGN CONCEPT 11-5.9 5.5.3 Suburban Parkways Suburban parkways will be designed to link individual activity centers. The parkways will be designed with informal clusters of trees and roiling turf berms, which evoke pastoral, suburban oriented, qualities. 1I-5.10 $,$,a 5.5.5 Overall Architectural Concept Overall Landscape Architectural Concept The overall architectural concept is The Landscape Concept for the Foothill characterized by architectural elements Boulevard Corridor proposes the use of a which complement Rancho Cucamonga's specific palette of trees in designated heritage. A diversity of architectural areas, designated to reinforce both urban styles are allowed within the corridor, and suburban architectural features. The rather than one specific style, in an activity centers will distinguish from effort to promote a richness of archi- suburban parkway areas to the use of tectural character. While no specific formal urban oriented tree plantings architectural theme is required, "Rancho except as noted in Bear Gulch. These Cucamonga Heritage" architectural styles formal tree plantings will border all such as California Barn, winery, mission, activity centers and will define these agriculture character are encouraged. areas as being higher intensity urban oriented districts. Informal plantings will provide a casual backdrop to suburban parkway areas which lie between activity nodes (see graphic). The informal plantings will be located between activity centers in order to relate to these lower intensity suburban transition areas. In addition, the overall landscape concept shall incorporate a mixture of landscape and hardscape features using native materials. I ~ ~ J COMMUNITY DESIGN CONCEPT 11-5.11 6,1) LAND USE CONCEPT 6.1 INTRODUCTION 6.2 OVERALL LAND USE CONCEPT The Specific Plan Component Section The Overall Land Use Concept is based includes a variety of individual component on the concept of dividing the planning plans which define the overall framework area into four major subareas; all of for development within the planning area. which should be punctuated by higher in- Major components include: tensity urban activity centers. Subareas were determined by various environmental o Overall Land Use Concept features; such as topography, recent de- velopment patterns, architecture, blight, o Land Use Categories and Types physical form, and circulation routes. o Subarea Structure The activity centers are designed as neighborhood/subarea focal points. For o Vehicular Circulation Concept example Bear Gulch Village, which already contains a variety of quality sit-down o Community Design Concept oriented restaurant uses, provides an overriding "restaurant row" theme which o Implementation is unique to its subarea. Other subareas within the planning area also contain The intent of these concept plans is to concentrations of unique [and uses which describe, in detail, various planning con- foster the potential to create and cepts related to the items listed above, in strengthen higher intensity activity order to outline an evolution or process centers. designed to transform broad-brushed goals, objectives, and policies into Specific land uses within the planning specific design and development regul- area also contribute to the diversity of ations. The concept plans are in direct the planning area. As is evident when response to the various implementing viewing the Overall Land Use Plan, the actions listed in the goals, objectives, and planning area contains a variety of land policy section. uses ranging from higher intensity com- mercial oriented uses; such as conven- ience, specialty, and regional related commercial designations, to residential uses. Other land uses include office, ~ light industrial, and public oriented uses. t=., -~--.~ ~~ Related to these land uses are their accompanying Development Standards [see ,~ [ Section 9.0) which provide the necessary setbacks and landscaping to buffer the -- adjacent properties. See the Overall Land Use Plan Map. LAND USE CONCEPT 11-6.1 · ....... RESOLUTIONNO. 91-276 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OOUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RAN(~O ~, CAT,TFORNIA, APPROVING FOUITrrT ~. BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AM~N/~MENT NO. 91-01, AM~qD~ THE BgULSVARD SP~/IFIC PLAN TO INCIDI)E THE PARCEL CONSISTING OF APPRO~Y 8.3 AC~S AT ~{E NC~R~{EAST OORN~ OF F~X~/~IILL BOULEVARD AND ~ A~ ~ ~ 4 FIND~ IN SUPPOlYP TH]~DF. APN: 227-152-18 AND 30 A. Recitals. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamong~ has initiated an application for Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment No. 91-01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) On July 10, 1991, the Planning C~ion of the City of Rancho Cucamor~a conducted a duly noticed public hearin~ with respect to the application. Following the conclusion of said public hearing, the Planning C~m~d_~sion adopted its Resolution No. 91-95, thereby reo~m~ that the City (kmmcil adopt Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment No. 91-01. (iii) On September.18, 1991, the City Oouncil of tb~ City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing on that date. (iv) All legal urere~Hmites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREMORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucmmonga does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: 1. This Council 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 Council during the above-referenced public hearing on Se~ 18, 1991, including written and oral testimony, t_his Council hereby specifically finds as follc~s: (a) ~ne amendment pertains to a + 8.3 acre parcel of land which is located at tb~ nortb~m~t corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rocb~-ter Avenue with a street frontage of _+900 feet along Foothill Boulev-~rd and _+400 feet along Rochester Avenue and is presently v~cant. Said parcel is currently designat_~3d_ as "OP" (Office Professional); and (b) The ~ to the north is designated for residential uses and is developed with single family hcmes. The pr~ to the west is designated for office and ~,~rcial uses and is vacant. The property to the south is designated for industrial uses and is developed with a single family residence. The property to the east is designated for utility and flood control facilities. and is developed with such; and Resolution No. 91-276 Page 2 (c) This amendment will incorporate the +8.3 acre paroel located at the northeast COZl~_r of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue into Subarea 4 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan as an Activity Oenter; (d) ~ amendment will "tie" together the visual aspects of Foothill Boulevard as a major c~,,~ercial corridor through the implementation of streetscape and site design standards contained within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) ~nat the Amendment will provide f~r development of a ccmpreh~ively planned urban c~L~u%ity within the District that is superior to developm~_nt otherwise allowable under alternate regulations; and (b) That the Amendment will provide for develo~m~_nt within the District in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development and growth management policies of the City; and (c) That the Amendment will provide for the construction, irg~ov~, or extension of transportation facilities, public utilities, and public servioes required by development with the District. 4. To_is Council hereby certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in ocmpliance with the California ~uvi~c~m~ental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Council hereby issues a Negative Declaration. 5. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVtD, based upon the findings and oonclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, that this Council hereby approves and adopts Foothill Boulev-~rd Specific Plan Amendment 91-01 as attached in Exhibit "A". PASSED, ~, and ADOPlOD this 18th day of Se~, 1991. AYES: Alexrender, Buquet, Stout, Williams, Wright NOES: None ~: None Dennis L. Stout, Maycr Resolution No. 91-276 Page 3 I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY ~.VRK of the City of Rancho C~camonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 18th day of ~, 1991. Executed this 19th day of September, 1991 at Rancho Cucamonga, California. 'D~ J. A~a~, City Clerk PLANNING SUB-AREA 4 rn !"()(Y,'I I, l.l.I,( ,UI.I.:VA I[ 1).~!'l.:('! ,.'!('I'l.^ N !:"'~ 'i ~ ~ SETTING_~ ~ 1,2.~i - ,~. O~ PLANNING SUB-AREA 4 I"()()'1'11[[.[. ]l()l i.!';V/\!t[) .~l'[':(']["!(' I'[./\N l.',~i .: CIRCULATION CONCEPT II. lr.l& ~) 0 I-" '.4 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD DESIGN SUPPLEMENT Amending the Terra Vista Community Plan, Victoria Community Plan, and Industrial Area Specific Plan. !. INTRODUCTION WHAT IS THIS SUPPLEMENT ABOUT? On September 16, 1987, the City Council approved the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (FBSP). The FBSP was enacted to provide a unified development scheme for the Foothill Boulevard comdor through the commumty. Of prime importance to the F!3SP are the special streetscape design provisions which "tie" together the visual aspects of this commercial roadway. "Mliiin9 Link' Area Vie totia'"~ ,." ", i Z o ~gure I - Ml~ing Link m ~e ~on of F~] ~~ ~ ~v~ Avmue ~ ~ ~~ [5 F~way (~-~5) was ~ot a ~ o( ~ s~c pm ~d~; ~~, i~ p~siom did ~t apply to include si~fic~t d~i~ ~~ M ~e p~ ~ ~ d~dop~t of ~ "~ ~" ~s amend~nt to ~e Te~ Vis~ Co~~ ~ ~), ~ Vimo~ ~u~ ~ ~), ~ ~ I~us~ai ~a S~fic Plan (~P) is pm~ m ~ude s~fic s~~ dmi~ pm~o~ of ~ ~P in ~e develo~ ment of the pro~m ad~t to F~ ~ev~d. WHERE DOES ~ APPLY? ~e foUo~g pm~sio~ ~ a~ly to ~ pm~ ~~g F~ ~ule~d ~n the ~CP. V~, ~d ~P. ~s ~~nt au~ ~ developer ~o~ a~ s~s of ~e ~, VCP, and ~P. ~en an i~e, co~ifion, or ~ma~on ~ w~ is ~t ~v~ or pm~d~ for in t~s amendmere pm~sions of ~e ~, VCP, or [~, t~ ~la~o~ of the ~1op~t ~e of t~ Ci~ of ~ncho Cu~monga t~t am ~st appii~ble m ~ i~ue, condition, or sima~on ~ apply. su~.,~. Page 2~~ '"', II. COMMUNITY DESIGN CONCEPT The FoothiLl Boulevard Design Supplement is intended to extend the concepts of the Foothill 13oule- yard Specific Plan to the "missing link" through the creation of a d)rnan-dc concourse that is attractive and of high quality with a unifying community design image reflective of the community heritage and identity, providing an ec~nornically viable setting for a balanced mixture of commercial and residential uses with safe, effident circulation and access. Create a community imase that expresses and enhances the unique character and identity of Rancho Cucamonga. B. OBJECTIVES: Develop a strt~etscape system which designates mawr intersections as activity centers and emphasizes the suburban parkways between the activity centers as vehicular areas. Promote compatible buildin§ elevations which afford a human scaJe at pedestrian areas and provide transitions to buildings of greater height, while pmtectin§ adjoh-dn§ msidentiaJ conditions. Promote appropriate landscape O'eatments throughout the corridor, particularly those that are low maintenance, drought tolerant, ~ wind resistant within intense urban conditions. Provide for the control of visu~y objectionable views, such as outdoor storag~ and loading areas, ti'u'ough proper site design and ~§. Develop consistent streetscape and architectural palettes which are sensitive to creating a "heritage" statement for FoothiLl Boulevard. Require compliance with community design guidelines in plans for new development and expansion or redevelopment of existing development and make community design a major consideration in site plan review and approval. Utilize landscape materials which are clean, safe, wind resistant, And relatively low maintenance. Formal forms and configurations should be utilized at activity center nodes while less formal corffignarations should be utilized throughout the parkway links between nodes. Designate special landscape and architectural features at major intm-sections. Combine thematic plantings with contemporary archii~tural staten~nts designed to promote a distinctive character for t he activity centers. Changes in paving materials, lighting, signing, and siting of adjacent structures should occur .......... at major intersections to enhance their distinctivehesS. III.DESIGN GUIDELINES A. ACTIVITY CENTERS: /'"'" Activity centers ,,a~_ .selected intersections along the Foothill Boulevard corridor..cleh .r~-~l' as.' .Th, eme,, or promote concentrated activity at these areas, and give identity and theme to the areas in which they are ~" located. The activity centers am located contiguous Io Foothill Boulevard as indicated in Figure 2. · ACTIVITY CENTERS Figure 2 - Activity Center Locations Because three comers of the Haven Avenue intc,~'secfion are fuU¥ or partiaU¥ developed, the devel- opment provisions of the activity center ~ lbnlted to those streetscape anti t,tndscape improvements w~thin the public fight-of-way. Thereore, many of the following standards apply only to the iViUUken Avenue and Rochester Avenue activity centers: a. All building orientations will relate to the Foothill Boulevard frontage. The building setback areas will be enhanced pedestrian zones with special hardscape materials, formal landscape arrange- ments, and pedestrian level lighting. b. Streetscape elements such as boilards, crosswalks with special paving materials, light standards, and street furniture should be uniform throughout the Foothill Boulevard corndot. c. The concept within the activity center is to incorporate a formal, regularly spaced, street tree planting system utilizing a palette of informally shaped, colorful trees. d. The urban or formal streetscape design characteristic of the activity center shou Id extend along Foothill Boulevard and secondary/intersecting streets to a point of logical transition to the suburban parkway. Typically, the design will extend to at least the first driveway or as modified through ~hc ..... design review process. The extent of the urban streetscape should be able to adjust to changes in public of-way conditions, such as fight turn lanes and bus bays. 2. Site Pl~nning: a. At activity centers, buildings may be placed at or adjacent to the front setback line to create a more appealing, active streetscape. Front yard areas of parking lots dormnatin8 the streetscene are specifically prohibited. b. Multi-story buildings shall be designed to relate to the pedestrian level. All ground story facades shall be designed to relate to the human scale. This can be accomplished through the breaking of facades into bays and the sis;nage brought down in size and location. Further, this reduction in scale can be established through the use of elements which add horizontal articulation to the facades. Examples of these elements include pedestrian arcades and awnings. (lvi'dliken & Rochest-'r only.) c. Bu'ddin&s shall be designed to eliminate a fragmented, strip commerd~ appearance and should be oriented to the activity center (Milliken & Rochester only). d. Architecture and outdoor spaces along Foothill Boulevard shall be integrally designed and oriented toward the pedestrian experience. The experience should be visually diverse and stimulating and should include activities that create a sense of variety and interest (Milliken &: Rochester only). e. Structures, pathways, and landscapin§ shall be incorporated within the site so as to ensure ease of access from one site to adjoining sites in a safe mann~. f. Building entrances shall be designed to accommodate logical pedestrian access from the Foothill Boulevard right-of-way. This may include direct enWances from Foothill Boulevard, separations in the buildings that allow access to the interior plaza areas, or other appropriate methods. 3. Architectural Concept: a. Within individual activity center, the architectural style should be consistent to provide continuity of design at the intersection. 1. Milliken Activity Cent~ - There are no e~istin§ buildings located at the Milliken activity center intersection. As a result, the Development Review process will establish the flavor for the area when reviewing the development proposals. New developments need not "duplicate" the architectural style of previous submittals but must be compatible in terms of architecture and orientation with the other comet(s) of the intersection. 2. Rochest~ Activity Center - New proposals shall consider and respect the architectural style of existin§ buildings. For example, the Agsazzotti Winery at the southeast comer of Foothill and Rochester, is a potential National Historic Registry candidate. Any proposals for this activity center should be desis~l to be compatible with this structure. This does not mean that new proposals must emulate the architectural style of the winery but, rather, that they must complement existing buildings. b. Differentiate the g-round floor facades from the second floor in recoi~nition of the differences in the character of activities at the ground floor level. Examples include, but are not limited to, the use of storefront glass, stepped-back or tiered forms, fenestration, and other appropriate architectural fcaturc~ facin. g Foothill Boulevard, Milliken Avenue, and Rochester Avenue. 4. Landscal~ Con, pt: The activity centres shall be distinguished from suburban (in. formal) parkway areas through the us~ of formal, urban tree plantings. These formal plantings shall border a. ll .. activity centers and shall defu~ ther~ ar~s as being higher intensity, urban districts. The plantings snail . con, st of ~.n off-oet double row of Crap~ Myrtle (Lagerstroemia indi.ca) tree~ along each. road fr.onta~ge. Addi- tional plant materials ( evergra~ c~nolrry trees, palms, etc.) .may be ,.n,t~, uc .~..to s. uppl.eme.n.t the .~'.al~, _ Myrtle as a backdrop. The ~ and location of the additional materials snoulcl t>e ~asea on me parucuiar buiding design, scale, and settrack. .\ / B. SUBURBAN PARKWAYS: 1. Streetscape: a. The parkways will be designed with informal dusters of trees, rolling turf betres, and meandering/undulating sidewalks evoking pastoral, suburban qualities. b. Streetscape elements such as bollards, crosswalks with spedal paving, light standards, and sireat furniture shall be identical in style and finish to those used in the FBSP area. 2. Architectural Concept: a. The architectural characteristics shall be govemeci by the existing standards of the Development Code, TVCP, VCP, and ISP. b. In situations where buildings are highly visible from the side st-mats and/or adjacent parking areas, special emphasis shall be placed on creating architectural interest. 3. Landscape concept: The plantings will consist of informal treatnnents, dominated by London Plane (Platanus acedJolla), California Sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and Flowering Plum (Prunus cerasifera) trees. Other species may be used to accent and/or supplement these designated tree types. The type and location of these species should be reviewed in conjunction with specific development proposals. C. PARKWAY TRANSrrloNS: In order to provide a gradual transition from the urban activity centers to the suburban, informal parkways, "parkway transitions" will be introduced along the corridor. Parkway transitions are designed to blend the formal hardscape and tree planting pattern of the activity centers with the informal landscape and hardscape treatment of the suburban parkways. Specifically, the parkway transition is characterized by a 75-foot to 150-foot zone, dominated by Flowering Plum trees. Other tree species may be introduced to supplement the Flowering Plum to assist in creating a smooth transition. '~ '- ~' Meandering Sidewalk ~ ~- Primary Plfkwly Tree (Sycamore) ~ Mo~ded Turf Figure 5 - Parkway Transition CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 9, 1997 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary SUBJECT: ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission Administrative Regulations provide for election of Chairman and Vice Chairman at the first regular meeting in July of each year. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should elect a Chairman and Vice Chairman. Respe I~ Br~uller ' -~-'~ - ' City Planner BB:GS/gs ITEM K CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF I F PORT DATE: July 9, 1997 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS BACKGROUND: When the Committee was last appointed, it was recommended that membership be reconsidered in six months. It is now time to review Committee membership. The current membership is as follows: COMMITTEE ALTERNATES (in order) Bill Bethel Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias Dave Barker Larry McNiel A history of Design Review Committee membership since January 1993 is attached as Exhibit "A." RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should determine appropriate membership for the Design Review Committee. City Planner BB:GS/gs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Design Review Committee Membership History ITf]M L DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP January 1993 to Present ALTERNATES COMMITTEE (_in order) July 1992 - Ocllober 1992: Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy Wendy Vallette Suzanne Chitlea John Melcher October 1992 - January_ 1993: Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy John Melcher Wendy Vallette Suzanne Chitlea January_ 1993 - October 1993: John Melcher Peter Tolstoy Wendy Vallette Suzanne Chitlea Larry McNiel October 1993 - December 1993: Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy John Melcher Suzanne Chitlea Wendy Vallette December 1993 - June 1994: Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy John Melcher Heinz Lumpp Dave Barker June 1994 - December 1994: Heinz Lumpp Peter Tolstoy John Melcher Larry McNiel Dave Barker December 1994 - August 1995: Heinz Lumpp Peter Tolstoy Larry McNiel Dave Barker John Melcher August 1995 to January_ 1996: Heinz Lumpp Dave Barker John Melcher Peter Tolstoy Larry McNiel January 1996 to Au_aust 1996: Heinz Lumpp Peter Tolstoy Larry McNiel Dave Barker John Melcher AUgUSt 1996 to January_ 1997: Rich Macias Bill Bethel Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy Dave Barker January_ 1997 to _oresent: Bill Bethel Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias Dave Barker Larry McNiel Exhibit A