The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1992/07/08 - Agenda Packetc~c/~,o_,~, ~ CITY OF ~ RANCHO CUCA1VKINC_~ PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 1977 WEDNESDAY JULY 8, 1992 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Commissioner Chitiea Commissioner Tolstoy Commissioner McNiel Commissioner Vallette Commissioner Melcher III. Announcements IV. Approval of Minutes Adjourned Meeting of May 21, 1992 Adjourned Meeting of May 27, 1992 Adjourned Meeting of June 4, 1992 V. 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. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14508 - THE JANES GROUP - A request for a one-year time extension for the conceptual approval of a residential subdivision and design review for 26 single family lots on 7.94 acres of land, in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Vintage Drive - APN: 225-251-47. B. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 11311 - DES MARIAS - A request for an extension of a previously approved subdivision of 1.98 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 1077-041-57. Related File: Conditional Use Permit 87-24. C. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-24 - DES MARIAS - A request for an extension of a previously approved development of a 7,160 square foot day care facility on 1.98 acres of land within the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 1077-041-57. Related File: Parcel Map 11311. VI. Public Hearings The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. D. MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 14508 - THE JANES GROUP - A request to modify a condition of approval regarding the timing for construction of a sound attenuation wall along the future Route 30 freeway for a previously approved residential subdivision and design review consisting of 26 single family lots on 7.94 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Vintage Drive - APN: 225-251-47. E. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS - A public hearing on the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report prepared for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475, a residential subdivision and design review of 71 single family residences on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. Staff recommends certification of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. F. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS - A residential subdivision and design review of 71 single family residences on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. Associated Tree Removal Permit No. 92-06. VII. Commission Business G. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS H. SELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN VIII. 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. 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. VICINITY MAP 'k CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 8, 1992 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Steve Hayes, Associate Planner SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14508 - THE JANES GROUP - A request for a one-year time extension for the conceptual approval of a residential subdivision and design review for 26 single family lots on 7.94 acres of land, in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Vintage Drive - APN: 225-251-47. BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract No. 14508 was conditionally approved by the Planning Commission on October 10, 1990. On June 3, 1992, the applicant requested the first possible one-year Time Extension of the Tentative Map and Design Review in order to allow additional time to record the final map and process building permits. The State Map Act, Section 66452.6, allows for up to thirty-six months of extension- Extensions may be granted in twelve-month increments. ANALYSIS: Staff has analyzed the proposed Time Extension request and has compared the proposal with current development criteria as outlined in the Development Code. Based upon this review, staff has determined that the project meets basic standards for development in the Low Residential District- Therefore, this project still remains consistent with all code requirements of the City. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The Planning Commission must make the following findings in order to approve this application: A. That there has been no significant changes in the land use element of the General Plan or Development Code or character of the area in which this project is located that would cause the approved project to be inconsistent or non-conforming. B. That the granting of an extension would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity- ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TE - TT 14508 - THE JANES GROUP July 8, 1992 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a one-year Time Extension for Tentative Tract No. 14508 through adoption of the attached Resolution. Respectfully submitted, anner BB:SH:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Subdivision Map Exhibit "C" - Site Plan Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit "F" - Building Elevations Exhibit "G" - Floor Plans Exhibit "H" - Letter from Applicant Resolutions Nos. 90-131 and 90-132 Resolution of Approval :F ONGA TITLE: ~: ~-,-,~,~.+,~.~ N = · ..,,.v>.~/.../ ~ ~ "*':" ' ~ ~_~ EX/4mlT: '~* ~' SCALE: */ -..-- -' ..... -,..,. ,~,~ .......... ~ · ·~ c,~'!iT IvtTAI. CI'!VI~Y CAP F~,T CONCRETE TIrE ROOf WCK30 LOUVER __ 2 x 4 ~X~) TRiM ~M,L).,tI,,'U~I Wt,13OW STUCCO POTSFELF WOOO FASCIA STUCCO R(I,L LF GARAGE DOOR Front Elevation Right Elevation Plan la · IONAM j · .:..... .... .., ~xHmrr~.~.r,, ., .<.* : SCALE:/ Rear Elevation Left Elevation Plan la S,HE~T N'~TAL CHIMNEY CAP FLAI CONCI~ TL TiLE ~XN) fA~AA Z x 4 W~.X)I) TRIM. POI~:zt,I[LF 2 X 4 Wq. NN) C()RN[R RCX, L LIP GAIIA~ D(:X3R ~ POI'S~IEbc Front Elevation Right Elevation Plan lb OF / ' ' ':'' ITEM: ~ ONGA Trn,E: p -- - _.. :N =_ :-.:,./---, i ..... : ............ Q- 16ExHmrr.." ;-2" SCALE: / . · ·= Rear Elevation Left Elevation Plan lb S~iET ~TA,L CIIEMN[Y CAP FLA.[ CONCMET( TILE RC)43~ WO(X) FASCIA z x 4 W()O4) [rMiA4 At~'vqt, dt. m4 WI'dUOW [1' LAP ~ W! M[TAA [DG[/I 6IICIC V~N[ER I(31. L L,f' GARAGE Front Elevation Right Elevation Plan lc 'OF~/~UC ' ONGA ~ ~, TITLE: ~ . /~ N IO J' : EXHiBiT~ ! "" ";'~' '~ ~: - ~ '~ SCALE:/' . .,:,.: ! (~ Rear Elevation Left Elevation Plan lc ,HI:iT MITN. CI-IvlNIY , tAT CC)NCRf, TEfl[ RoOf Right Elevation Plan 2a Rear Elevation Left Elevation Plan 2a -~E FA& CHkW~Y CAP . ~%~,;I(E l~ TILE Front Elevation Right Elevation Plan 2 b CITY OF CAMO GA TITLE: ~,-,1~; ~i'~=-~,,,~ ('Fl~.,~i ~4 '~- PLANNIN~J--D:~ION '~'-~ ' ' · -.:..~.;..-./..,.,:! _ ..... ; ...... ~2) --_ )/, EXI'flBFF;'~- ~?\' SCALE:/' , ,_ ,~= Rear Elevation Left Elevation Plan 2b ..... .'Y OF ~ UC FrlEM: 77'/~ ~ 00~ ~-o~ -'- ~ ~ONGA ' lEEr MiTAL CttMI~Y CAP___ ~r Cc~ecei E[ rILE ,, 4 W(~(X) TRMvI_ .ix_CO POIS~{I.t _ Front Elevation Right Elevation Plan 2c CITY OF UCANIONGA TITLE: ~,.,!_-/,.~j ~-[~,/-~ ~ <~/~,=. "' ..=,~. ........ ,. ! ~ .: :- EXHIBIT: ~'//,~ SCALE: --- _ Rear Elevation Left Elevation Plan 2c ~llr A4IAL CI-IMI~Y ~Ml~tJ.4 VVIqUC~'~ a AJ° *'~*Je~o W: Mt IAt [IX2 ~ C~N[IS, Front Elevation Right Elevation Plan 3a Rear Elevation ~ ~.~:::m-- ' ' Left Elevation Plan 3a 'ITY OF ~~-,,~~ UCAMONGA ITEM: PLANLVI' ION TrrLE:/~,l;t,~.~ F~+,~;C~.:. · -: .,.. EXHiBiT:'~'./'.a' SCALE: · . ...,:.~i ~T META/. CHIMNEY CAP__ r CC)e,,~R,~T[ TliLE R(X:Y , K 'VT, NEEIt L L,Jkw' GAIAG[ (X:X3~ Front Elevation Ri~t Elevation Plan 3b Rear Elevation Left Elevation Plan 3b rI OF ~'~"' UCAMONGA in:M: ' ION ;7 - _ , N = = .....,--:;'....i! iEXHiBrr?~:_/~. SCALE: / = .-. . ...... TIlE RCX~ ...... I ~ ~ I . '~ ,~, :~==, _' ' ' =l "':- Front Elevation ~ 'rF I ' Right Elevation Plan 3c Rear Elevation Left Elevation Plan 3c 45'-q' ~ Ran1 2527 Sf 4Br 21/2 Ba · ....,; ..... j. i _-- ~n2 2720 51 rr' Y P~L~ ' UCNAMON~ "' = · . ,..,,,,..,:,.:, ; EXt,EBrr:~,C~._.;~,,SCALE: / -- ~ ........ q ~ LA~ 50'-0' .~, ." 3 Br+ Liclrsf~ 3 1/2 Bs CITY OF UCAMONGA PLANNING- D'~ION TrinE: Fr,~ ~l".': ~'~'/'~,' ~ = · ,. ::..;' ! ExHmrr:' ~-- 3' SCALE: / , ~ ·-' .... , ~-. .-i ........ i THE JANES COMPANIES ::': ":!.,,r.~: ...,':"1 June 3, 1992 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Dept. 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Attn: Mr. Steve Hayes RE: Tract 14508 - Request for Tentative Map and Design Review Extension Dear Steve: This letter confirms our recent conversation, where in the Janes Group requests a one year extension of Tentative Tract Map 14508, as well as, a one year extension of the Design Review and all other approvals obtained to date for Tentative Tract 14508. The Tentative Map extension fee in the amount of $549.00 is enclosed per your request. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, THE JANES GROUP RGF:js /' / 26 Corporate Park · Irvine, California 92714 · Bus: (714) 474-1819 · Fax: (714) 553-8355 RESOLUTION NO. 90-131 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14508, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 26 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 7.94 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVENUE AND VINTAGE DRIVE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 225-251-47 A. Recitals. (i) The Janes Group has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 14508 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." ~ii) On the lOth day of October 1990, 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. (iii) 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 October !0, 1990, 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 southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Vintage Drive with a street frontage of 1038.4! feet and lot depth of 848.05 feet and is presently improved with curb and gutter along Milliken Avenue and curb, gutter, sidewalk, and streetside landscaping along Vintage Drive; and !b) The property to the north of the subject site is developed with single family residences, the property to the south of that site is the vacant future Foothill Freeway right-of-way, the property to the east is existing single family detached homes, and the property to the west includes single family residences. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90-131 TT 14508 - THE JANES GROUP October 10, !990 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 ? and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: ra! The tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code; and !b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code; and !c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and rd! The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and re) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and ~f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 4. This Commission hereby 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. 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 attached Standard Conditions attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planninq Division 1) The GTE Substation site !including the driveway~ shall become a lettered Lot "A" on the final map. 2) The project shall be constructed consistent with the recommendations of the Preliminary Noise Study. A Final Noise Study shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits in a standard format as determined by the City Planner. Said report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of mitigation measures included in the building plans. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90-131 TT 14508 THE JANES GROUP October 10, 1990 Page 3 3) 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. 4) The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of th'e 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. Enqineerinq Division 1) The existing overhead utilities (telecommunication and electrical/ on the project side of Highland Avenue shall be undergrounded from the first pole off-site east of the project's east boundary, prior to public improvement or acceptance of occupancy, whichever occurs first. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover one-half the City adopted cost for undergrounding from future development (redevelopment) as it occurs on the opposite side of the street. 2) The developer shall pay an in-lieu fee to the developer on the opposite side of Milliken Avenue as reimbursement for the landscaping of the Milliken Avenue median island from Highland Avenue to Vintage Drive prior to recordation of the final map. The fee shall be one-half the cost of the total amount of landscaping. 3) The east one-half of Milliken Avenue from the project south to Highland Avenue shall be constructed, including sidewalks and parkway landscaping. 4) Install "No Stopping Any Time" signs along the project frontage on Milliken Avenue and Vintage Drive. 5) Parkway landscaping on Milliken Avenue shall conform to the Milliken Avenue Master Plan. Landscape easements shall be provided where City landscape areas extend beyond the right- of-way line. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90-131 TT 14508 THE JANES GROUP October 10, !990 Page 4 Radii for meandering sidewalk shall be between 600 and 1,000 feet. 8~ Landscaping within the "Limited Use Areas" for the project intersections shall be approved by the City Engineer. 9) Since the street trees cannot be planted within 5 feet from the outside of a storm drain pipe, the street trees shall be relocated behind the sidewalk and a 6-foot-wide tree easement provided for Lots .~l, 12, and 13. 10) Provide additional catch basin capacity on or near the frontage of Lot 9 to compensate for the lack of an overflow path for the sump catch basin. ll) Only one 30 inch maximum height retaining wall is allowed within the landscape easement on the north side of Street "C." Also, the retaining wall shall be rock because it is easier to maintain (less subject to graffiti and cracking!. 12) The landscape material within the areas to be maintained by the City shall conform to City policy as approved by the City Engineer. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS IOTH DAY OF OCTOBER 1990. PLANNING COM ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: ~ lel, Chairman ATTEST: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90-131 TT 14508 - THE JANES GROUP October !0, 1990 Page 5 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 !Oth day of October 1990, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE RESOLUTION NO. 90-132 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT NO. 14508, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 26 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 7.94 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVENUE AND VINTAGE DRIVE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 225-251-47 A. Recital s. (i) The Janes Group has filed an application for the Design Review of Tract No. 14508 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On October 10, 1990, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting on October 10, 1990, 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 1 oca ted; and (c) That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and (d) That the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the attached Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90-132 DR FOR TT 14508 - THE'JANES GROUP October 10, 1990 Page 2 Plannin.~ Division 1) The proposed retaining wall along the easement shall be eliminated within 15 feet of the street ri ght-of-way and replaced with landscape mounding and shrubbery. 2) All retaining walls within 15 feet of a front property line shall be eliminated. Instead, grade differential s between lots shall be taken up gradually in the front yard area with undul ati ng mounds. 3) All driveways shall be necked down to a maximum width of 16 feet, as measured at the driveway approaches. 4) The retaining wall within the future City maintained areas, the north side of Street "C", shall be faced with natural river rock. 5) The gable on the garage side elevations of all plans shall be completed to achieve a more finished appearance. Details of this condition shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee on a Consent Calendar basis prior to the issuance of building permits. 6) The base el ement (rock, brick) shal 1 wrap around the side elevations to the return wall locations on all applicable plans. 7) All chimneys should be treated as to match the base element of each plan type (example: a wood sided house with a brick base should have a brick chimney). Since Plan 2B has no base element, either a rock or brick material could be used on the chimney. 8) The existing block wall on the south property line of Lot "A" shall be stuccoed to match proposed stucco freeway sound wal 1 and existing perimeter walls for adjacent tracts. 9) Lot A shall be landscaped and the driveway shall be consistent with the neighborhood. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permi ts. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90-132 DR FOR TT 14508 - THE JANES GROUP October lO, 1990 Page 3 Enqineerinq Division 1) All applicable conditions from the Resolution for Tentative Tract 14508 shall apply. 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS IOTH DAY OF OCTOBER 1990. ~ ~1, Cha i rman ATTEST: ~ /BraB~r, ec~r~ ' 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 lOth day of October 1990, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14508, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR 26 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 7.94 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MILLIREN AVENUE AND VINTAGE DRIVE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 225-251-47. A. Recitals. (i) The Janes Group has filed an application for the extension of Tract No. 14508 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter, the subject Time Extension request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On October 10, 1990, this Commission adopted its Resolutions No. 90-131 and 90-132 thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Tentative Tract No. 14508 and the Design Review thereof. (iii) 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, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The previously approved Tentative Map is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and (b) The extension of the Tentative Map will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and (c) The extension of the Tentative Map is not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and (d) The extension is within the time limits prescribed by state law and local ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TE FOR TT 14508 - THE JANES GROUP July 8, 1992 Page 2 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby grants a Time Extension for: Application Applicant Expiration TT 14508 The Janes Group October 10, 1993 Design Review The Janes Group October 10, 1993 for TT 14508 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF JULY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of July 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT , DATE: July 8, 1992 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Vicki Day, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 11311 - DES MARIAS - A request for an ext~nsion"6~ a prev~6usly approV~ idbdiVision of 1.98 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 1077-041-57 (Reference CUP 87-24) BACKGROUND: Tentative Parcel Map 11311 as shown on Exhibit "C" was initially approved by the Planning Commission on May 25, 1988, for an initial two year period until May 25, 1990. The first and second one-year time extensions were granted on June 13, 1990, and July 10, 1991, respectively, extending the approval period until May 25, 1992. The applicant is now requesting the third and last of the possible three one- year extensions. The letter of request, Exhibit "A", is attached for your reference. RECOMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution approving a final one-year time extension for Parcel Map 11311. The new expiration date would be May 25, 1993. Respectfully s itted, D a Senior Civil Engineer DJ:VD:jh Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter of request Exhibit "B" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "C" - Tentative Map Resolutton ITEM B May 20, 1992 Ms. Nancy Fong Senior Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: 10089 Baseline Road, Rancho Cucamonga, CA - APN: 1077-041-54 Dear Ms. Fong: I am writing to request a time extension for the following measures approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on May 25, 1988: Tentative Parcel Map 11311 for the purpose of subdividing the referenced property into two parcels. Conditional Use Permit 87-24 for the construction of a 7,200 square foot day care facility on the referenced property. I understand that, if granted, the time extension will be for a period of one year. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Should you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Ve 'ruly y Pa 2865 North Mountain Avenue Claremont, CA 91711 CITY OF I ,M: RANCHO CUCAMONGA TrrLE: im #l ENGINF, E rNG DIVISION W /~1~ AN uS ea A8 LIN < si~e ' t u CH CH * ,, O0 HILL RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11311 LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWI~ST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND HERMOSA AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-041-57 A. Recitals (i) Paul Des Marias has filed an application for the extension of Tentative Parcel Map 11311 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Time Extension request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On May 25, 1988, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 88-102, thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Tentative Parcel Map 11311 and issued a Negative Declaration. (iii) On May 20, 1992, the applicant filed a request for the third and final of the possible 12-month Time Extensions. (iv) 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, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The previously approved Tentative Map is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and (b) The extension of the Tentative Map will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and (c) The extension of the Tentative Map is not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and (d) The extension is within the time limits prescribed by state law and local ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PM 11311 - DES MARIAS July 8, 1992 Page 2 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby grants a Time Extension for: Parcel Map Applicant Expiration 11311 Paul Des Marias May 25, 1993 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8th DAY OF JULY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of July 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 8, 1992 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Senior Planner SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-24 - DES MARIAS - A request for an extension of a previously approved development of a 7,160 square foot day care facility on 1.98 acres of land within the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), loc0ted at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 1077-041-57. Related File: Parcel Mop 11311 Time Extension. ABSTRACT: Applicant is requesting a one-year Time Extension for the proposed day care facility as described above. (See attached letter of request.) BACKGROUND: Conditional Use Permit 87-24 was originally approved by the Planning Commission on May 25, 1988. The approval included conditions that required compatibility of the proposed day care facility with the historic landmark Minor House. On July 10, 1991, the Commission granted its second one-year Time Extension. The Commission may grant Time Extensions for projects in twelve-month increments up to a maximum of three years. This request will be the last one possible. ANALYSIS: Staff has analyzed the proposed Time Extension and has compared the proposal with the standards of the Development Code. Based upon this review, staff has determined that the project still meets all the applicable development standards and Commission policies for the Low Residential District. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The Commission must make the following findings in order to approve this Time Extension: A. There has been no significant changes in the land use element of the General Plan, Development Code, or character of the area which would cause the project to become inconsistent or non-conforming. B. That granting of an extension would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. ITEM C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TE FOR CUP 87-24 - DES MARIAS July 8, 1992 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve a one-year Time Extension for Conditional Use Permit 87-24 through the adoption of the attached Resolution. ~r~pe ed lRespe y submitted, BB:NF:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Building Elevations Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "E" - Master Plan Exhibit "F" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit "G" - Resolution of 88-98 for Conditional Use Permit 87-24 Resolution of Approval for Time Extension E 91 92 9] 94 95 96 ~ /-' ~ 5 { {I Ilfll ~ 6 ~5 ~4 :.3 ~:2 ~1 , , ~T~ i~.. 4 2.16 ~ ~ ....,,- ,,. ,. x 32 39 33 38 ~ Pot. Lo~ 34 37 , ~ '~':~' : ~TREET~:. ~ ~515~'~ · ~. , ,,, , ~' --~ I ' PL~NG D~ION ~E:/,O~F/DAj ~~ - ~. - E~IB~: S~LE: r~- May 20, 1992 Ms. Nancy Fong Senior Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: 10089 Baseline Road, Rancho Cucamonga, CA - APN: 1077-041-54 Dear Ms. Fong: I am writing to request a time extension for the following measures approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on May 25, 1988: Tentative Parcel Map 11311 for the purpose of subdividing the referenced property into two parcels. Conditional Use Permit 87-24 for the construction of a 7,200 square foot day care facility on the referenced property. I understand that, if granted, the time extension will be for a period of one year. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Should you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Ve yrul~,~ C Paul A. DesMarais 2865 North Mountain Avenue Claremont, CA 91711 RESOLUTION NO. 88-98 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-24 FOR A 7,200 SQUARE FOOT DAY CARE FACILITY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND HERMOSA IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT - APN: 1077-041-54 A. Recital s. ( i ) Gerber Chi 1 dren' s Centers, Incorporated has filed an application for the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit No. 87-24 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application". (ii) On the 25th of May 1988, 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. (iii) All legal prerequisites 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 May 25th, 1988, including written and oral staff reports, together with publ i c testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at 10089 Base Line Road; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is a multi- family residential project, the property to the south of that site consists of single family homes, the property to the east is a GTE storage facility, and the property to the west is a single family development; and (c) The site contains a City designated Historic Landmark; ~nd (d) The site is within the City designated Red Hill Fault zone. 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 paragraph I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: PLANNING COMMISSIO~ -SOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-24 May 25, 1988 Page 2 (a) That 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 i s 1 ocated. (b) That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (c) That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. (d) That the proposed architecture is reflective of the adjacent Minor House. (e) That measures have been taken to preserve the historical significance of the site. (f) That a geologic survey has been conducted and that survey has been reviewed and accepted by an independent licensed geologist indicating that there wi 11 not be any hazard to the proposed construction as a result of the inferred Red Hi 11 Fault. 4. This Commission hereby 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. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph 1, 2 and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the attached Standard 'Conditions attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Division {1) The river rock used on-site shall be of the same colors as those used for the public right-of-way improvements at the corner of Base Line Road and Hermosa Avenue, and on the existing minor house. PLANNING COMMISSIb,~ .SOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-24 May 25, 1988 Page 3 (2) The design of the attic vents shall be revised to minimize the extent of exposure into the interior attic space. (3) Textured paving shall be used at points of ingress/ egress. (4) Ornamental landscaping typical of the "bungalow" era shall be provided. (5) Decorative lighting shall be provided on-site. (6) Accent planting shall occur at project entries which create an entry statement. (7) A landscape focal point shall be established at the south end of the driveway off Base Line Road. (8) A planting scheme shall be prepared for Parcel 2 which is reminiscent of a grove in order to create a environment which will preserve the original character of the existing house. {9} Fencing shall be provided around Parcel 2 which is the same as that used to enclose the playground on Parcel 1. {10} Special attention shall be given to the landscape treatment of the streets adjoining the historic 1 andmark. {11} All Site Plan and architectural considerations or revisions shall be subject to City Planner review and approval. { 12 ) A decorative sound attenuati on wal 1 and dense 1 andscapi ng shal 1 be constructed per the recommendations of the acoustical study to reduce exterior and interior noise levels on surrounding properties to acceptable levels as defined by the Development Code. {13} The operation of this facility shall comply with all laws and regulations of the State of California related to licensing and operation. {14} The applicant shall submit copies of all State licenses to operate this facility to the Planning Division prior to final occupancy. PLANNING COMMISSIOh SOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-24 May 25, 1988 Page 4 (15) If the operation of this use is inconsistent with any of the conditions of approval or causes adverse effects upon adjacent properties or public rights- of-way, including, but not limited to, excessive noise, glare, vibration, odors, or traffic safety problems, the Conditional Use Permit shall be brought back to the Planning Commission for their consideration and possible revocation of the Condi ti onal Use Permit and termi nati on of use. (16) This approval is granted only for a maximum of 140 children. (17) Operation of this use shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Plans shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Division and Foothill Fire Protection District to show compliance prior to issuance of building permits. (18) All outdoor activity including recreation/play time, shall be limited to the hours of 10:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. weekdays. The preschool hours shall be limited to 6:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. on weekdays. (19) Expansion of this preschool beyond 140 children, major changes to the development plans or phasing, or expansion of the use beyond that approved by this permit, shall require approval of a modification to this Condi ti onal Use Permi t by the P1 anning Commission. (20) A six (6) foot decorative block wall shall be constructed the enti re west property 1 ength for sound attenuation purposes. Location and design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner. (21) Prior to the issuance of permits, the applicant shal 1 obtain rights of entry to the adjoi ni ng west properties to construct a six (6) foot decorative .block wall along the west property line and to remove exi sting wood fenci rig. (22) Tile roofing material shall be used, subject to review and approval by the City Planner. PLANNING COMMISSIO~ .SOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-24 May 25, 1988 Page 5 Engineering Division ( 1 } The exi sting driveways on Base Line Road and Hermosa Avenue shal 1 be removed and replaced with curb and gutter to City standard. (2} An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities {telecommunication and electrical, except for the 66 KV electrical } on the opposite side of Hermosa Avenue shal 1 be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. The fee shall be one- half the City adopted unit amount times the length from the southerly property boundary to the northerly terminus pole just south of Base Line Road. {3) The existing overhead electrical and telecommunication service lines to the existing house shall be undergrounded and the utility pole removed prior to occupancy of any new construction. {4) An encroachment permit is required for the portion of the existing house that will remain within the to-be-dedicated right-of-way Base Line Road. The house will be allowed to remain within the right-of- way for the life of the structure. 6. The Deputy Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF MAY, 1988. PLANNING COM ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LarKrye. M~Nie hairma PLANNING COMMISSIO. SOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-24 May 25, 1988 Page 6 I, Brad Buller, Deputy 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 25th day of May, 1988, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-24, A 7,160 SQUARE FOOT DAY CARE FACILITY IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND HERMOSA AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-041-57. WHEREAS, a request has been filed for a time extension for the above-described project, pursuant to Section 17.02.100(B) and the Development Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the above-described Conditional Use Permit on May 25, 1988, and granted a first Time Extension on June 13, 1990. SECTION l: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: A. That prevailing economic conditions have caused a distressed market climate for development of the project. B. That current economic, marketing, and inventory conditions make it unreasonable to develop the project at this time. C. That strict enforcement of the conditions of approval regarding expirations would not be consistent with the intent of the Development Code. D. That the granting of said time extension will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby grants a time extension for: Pro~ect Applicant Expiration CUP 87-24 Pal Des Marias May 25, 1993 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF JULY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TIME EXTENSION FOR CUP 87-24 - DES MARIAS July 8, 1992 Page 2 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 8th day of July 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 8, 1992 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Steve Hayes, Associate Planner SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 14508 - THE JANES GROUP - A request to modify a condition of approval regarding the timing for construction of a sound attenuation wall along the future Route 30 Freeway for a previously approved residential subdivision and design review consisting of 26 single family lots on 7.94 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Vintage Drive - APN: 225-251-47. ABSTRACT: The purpose of the proposed modification is to defer construction of a required sound attenuation wall along the future Route 30 Freeway right-of-way until such time that the freeway is actually constructed. ANALYSIS: The developer anticipates that the project will be completed before construction of the Route 30 Freeway and prefers to postpone construction of the portion of the wall in excess of 6 feet in height for the following reasons: A. A large water main line exists under the future wall location and will require relocation due to the weight of the sound wall. The reconstruction of this line will be expensive and cannot be financed until homes and/or lots are sold within the project; B. GTE may be constructing an expansion to the existing switching station and a future manned operations facility on lots 11-13, adjacent to the freeway. If GTE builds this project, the so~md wall will not have to be as tall, according to the final acoustical analysis. Therefore, the sound wall height is dependent on whether homes or. the public uses are developed on the lots. The developer would prefer not to build the wall taller than necessary; and C. If homes are built on the southern tier of lots before the freeway is constructed, homeowners can enjoy their views to the south until the freeway is developed. ITEM D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MOD - TT 14508 - THE JANES GROUP July 8, 1992 Page 2 There is precedent for the applicant's request. In reviewing Tract 14121 at the southwest corner of Milliken and Highland Avenues, the Planning Commission approved the William Lyon Company's request to postpone construction of the sound wall. The advantage is that the wall can potentially be located in a better position to attenuate noise, thus reducing the necessary height of the wall. However, the William Lyon Company constructed the sound wall anyway because it was more cost effective to do so. This applicant is requesting the same condition language be applied to Tentative Tract 14508, as follows: Delete: "The project shall be constructed consistent with the recommendations of the Preliminary Noise Study. A Final Noise Study shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits in a standard format as determined by the City Planner. Said report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of mitigation measures included in the building plans." Add: "To mitigate significant adverse impacts from the proposed freeway, prior to the issuance of building permits, an in-lieu fee shall be required for future installation of a sound attenuation wall to the south of the side at the freeway level. The amount of the deposit shall be to the satisfaction of the City Planner, City Engineer, and Caltrans." Staff would also recommend that proper disclosure be provided to these future lot owners along the freeway: "In addition, the developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the proposed Foothill Freeway Route 30 in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a deposit on any property. Likewise, prospective buyers of Lots 11-14 shall be given notice of the future sound attenuation wall." In staff's opinion, the modification to this condition is an acceptable solution, for it allows the developer the ability to construct the project while guaranteeing construction of the freeway wall in 'the future, as needed- FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The proposed modification is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. The modification will not be detrimental to the public health or safety or cause nuisance or significant adverse environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed modification is in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Development Code and City standards. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MOD - TT 14508 - THE JANES GROUP July 8, 1992 Page 3 CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland ValleX Daily Bulletin newspaper, the project has been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed modification to Tentative Tract 14508 through adoption of the modified Resolution of Approval. Respectfully submitted, Bra~'~- City Planner BB:SH:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit "B" - Original Resolution of Approval No. 90-131 Amended Resolution of Approval No. 90-131A * All other attachments related to this Tract can be found with the related Staff Reports for Item A (Time Extension for Tract No. 14508) on this Agenda- THE JANES COMPANIEScr , 't o- -. ,"'¶ June 2, 1992 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Dept. 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Attn: Mr. Dan Coleman RE: Tract 14508 Modification of Planning Commission Resolution No. 90-131 Dear Mr. Coleman: This letter confirms our verbal request in your office, that the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Modify Resolution No. 90-131, Section III, page 4, paragraph E, "Environmental Assessment" as follows: 1. Delete: "Staff has recommended that the sound mitigation walls be constructed with the development of this tract, so that all residential subdivisions on this corner will have their walls in place at the time the freeway is constructed, consistent with the requirement on surrounding tracts." 2. Add: "To mitigate significant adverse noise impacts from the proposed freeway, prior to the issuance of building permits an in-lieu fee shall be required for the future installation of a sound attenuation wall to the south of the site at the freeway level. The amount of the deposit shall be to the satisfaction of the City Planner, City Engineer, and CalTrans." The Commission has previously approved similar conditions for other subdivisions including the William Lyon Tract No. 14121. ,,,;, / 26 Corporate Park · Irvine, California 92714 · Bus: (714) 474-1819 · Fax: (714) 553-8355 Mr. Dan Coleman June 2, 1992 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2 Enclosed please find our check in the amount of $2,987.00 for the processing fee, and the labels you requested for the meeting notification. We understand this Modification Request will be consider at the Planning Commission meeting of July 8, 1992. If you have any questions or require additional information please not hesitate to contact me at (714) 474-1819. Sincerely, THE JANES GROUP cc: Steve Hayes - City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Russell Silva - Linville Engineering David Graham - GTE Telephone Operations RESOLUTION NO. 90-131 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14508, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 26 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 7.94 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVENUE AND VINTAGE DRIVE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 225-25!-47 A. Recitals. !i) The Janes Group has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 14508 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." ~ii) On the lOth day of October 1990, 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. (iii) 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 October !0, 1990, 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 southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Vintage Drive with a street frontage of 1038.4! feet and lot depth of 848.05 feet and is presently improved with curb and gutter along Milliken Avenue and curb, gutter, sidewalk, and streetside landscaping along Vintage Drive; and !b) The property to the north of the subject site is developed with single family residences, the property to the south of that site is the vacant future Foothill Freeway right-of-way, the property to the east is existing single family detached homes, and the property to the west includes single family residences. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90-131 TT la508 - THE JANES GROUP October !0, !990 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 ? and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: Fa~ The tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code; and fb) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code; and ~.c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and fd! The design of the subdivision is not 1 ikely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and re! The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and ~f! The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project ~as been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby issues a Negative Declaration. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs l, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the attached Standard Conditions attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planninq Division 1) The GTE Substation site !including the driveway~ shall become a lettered Lot "A" on the final map. 2) The project shal ' th the recomme Ha Noise Study. A Final Noise Study shall be ~ly l submitted prior to issuance of building permits L~ i in a standard format as determined hy the City ////F Planner. Said report shall discuss the level ~ of interior noise attenuation, the building ~,~ materials and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of \~ ,L_ mitigation measures included in the building ~ plans. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90-131 TT 14508 - THE jANES GROUP October 10, 1990 Page 3 3! The developer shal 1 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. 4~ The developer shall provide each prospective ? , buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special Studies Zone for the Red Hill fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. Enqineerin.q Division 1) The existing overhead utilities (telecommunication and electricall on the project side of Highland Avenue shal 1 be undergrounded from the first pole off-site east of the project's east boundary, prior to public improvement or acceptance of occupancy, whichever occurs first. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover one-half the City adopted cost for undergrounding from future development !redevelopment! as it occurs on the opposite side of the street. The developer shall pay an in-lieu fee to the developer on the opposite side of Milliken Avenue as reimbursement for the landscaping of the Milliken Avenue median island from Highland Avenue to Vintage Drive prior to recordation of the final map. The fee shall be one-half the cost of the total amount of landscaping. 3TM The east one-half of Milliken Avenue from the project south to Highl and Avenue shal 1 be constructed, including sidewalks and parkway landscaping. 4) Install "No Stopping Any Time" signs along the project frontage on Milliken Avenue and Vintage Drive. 5TM Parkway landscaping on Milliken Avenue shall conform to the Milliken Avenue Master Plan. Landscape easements shall be provided where City landscape areas extend beyond the right- o f-way 1 i ne. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90-131 TT 14508 - THE JANES GROUP October 10, !990 Page 4 7 Radii for meandering sidewalk shall be between 600 and 1,000 feet. 8 Landscaping within the "Limited Use Areas" for the project intersections shall be approved by the City Engineer. 9) Since the street trees cannot be planted within 5 feet from the outside of a storm drain pipe, the street trees shall be relocated behind the sidewalk and a 6-foot-wide tree easement provided for Lots ~l, 12, and 13. 10! Provide additional catch basin capacity on or near the frontage of Lot 9 to compensate for the lack of an overflow path for the sump catch basin. ll) Only one 30 inch maximum height retaining wall is allowed within the landscape easement on the north side of Street "C." Also, the retaining wall shall be rock because it is easier to maintain (less subject to graffiti and cracking). 12) The landscape material within the areas to be maintained by the City shall conform to City policy as approved by the City Engineer. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS !OTH DAY OF OCTOBER 1990. PLANNING COM IISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: ~ lel, Chairman ATTEST: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90-131 TT 14508 - THE JANES GROUP October !0, 1990 Page 5 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 lOth day of October !990, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE RESOLUTION NO. 90-131A A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 14508, A REQUEST TO MODIFY A CONDITION OF APPROVAL REGARDING THE TIMING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SOUND ATTENUATION WALL ALONG THE FUTURE ROUTE 30 FREEWAY FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AND DESIGN REVIEW CONSISTING OF 26 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 7.94 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVENUE AND VINTAGE DRIVE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 225-251-47. A. Recitals. (i) The Janes Group received approval for Tentative Tract 14508 from the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission with conditions included in Resolution No. 90-131 at a duly noticed public hearing on October 10, 1990. (ii) The Janes Group filed an application for the approval of modifications to the conditions of Tentative Tract 14508 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter, the subject modification to the Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." (iii) On the 8th day of July 1992, 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. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting on July 8, 1992, 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 southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Vintage Drive with a street frontage of 1038.41 feet and lot depth of 848.05 feet and is presently improved with curb and gutter along Milliken Avenue and curb, gutter, sidewalk, and streetside landscaping along Vintage Drive; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90-131A TT 14508 - THE JANES GROUP July 8, 1992 Page 2 (b) The property to the north of the subject site is developed with single family residences, the property to the south of the site is the vacant future Route 30 Freeway right-of-way, the property to the east is existing single family detached homes, and the property to the west includes single family residences; and (c) The property is zoned Low Residential by the Development Code, consistent with the General Plan Designation for the site; and (d) The application contemplates a modification to the condition regarding the timing of construction of the sound attenuation wall along the project's south property line, adjacent to the future Route 30 Freeway right-of-way. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the proposed modification 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; and (b) That the proposed modification together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and (c) That the proposed modification complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, that a Negative Declaration was issued on October 10, 1990. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby modifies its Resolution No. 90-131 by modifying the following Planning Division conditions to read as follows: Planninq Division 2) To mitigate significant adverse noise impacts from the proposed freeway, prior to the issuance of building permits, an in-lieu fee shall be required for the future installation of a sound attenuation wall to the south of the site at the freeway level. The amount of the deposit shall be to the satisfaction of the City Planner, City Engineer, and Caltrans. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90-131A TT 14508 - THE JANES GROUP July 8, 1992 Page 3 In addition, the developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the proposed Foothill Freeway Route 30 in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a deposit on any property. Likewise, prospective buyers of Lots 11-14 shall be given notice of the fdture sound attenuation wall. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF JULY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of July 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: :UL 06 '9~ 14:~3 71~ 9~1 8879 ~.~ SAHAMA INVSTMENTS INC. lOYeo CIVIC ClEN~I'ER C)RIVI SOl'TIE 300 RANC!40 CUCAMOF, d~ CALifORNIA g1730 TELEPI,,IONE (714) 967-1141 FA, CII~4I LII ,(714) $41 4171 July 6, 1992 Mr. Brad Bullet City Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Centre Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 BY FACSIMILE/ORIGINAL BY MAIL RE: VTT 14475 AND E.I.R. Dear Brad: This is to request a continuance of the consideration of the E.I.R. and the vesting tract map for the above project. I understand my attorneys have already sent you a letter to this effect. After reading the staff report on July 3rd, and rethinktng your comments, we would like to follow your advice and work with the City to clarify and rectify any problems concerning the project. I would appreciate your assistance in establishing and clearly defining the real issues. We may be able to, for example, address the abstract concerns regarding ut "environmental impact" and "cl s ering" which have been raised on a tract wide basis, by focusing in on specific lots. Although, our sense was that we had done this through the Design Review Committee meetings, a continuance will give us the opportunity to work with the staff to see if we can ~ecieve your recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission for this map again. I will call you tomorrow morning regarding the continuance and thereafter, I hope, to set up some meetings. Thank you for assist e. c.c. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner 07/06/92 14:10 9213 887 2149 BW&C ~002/008 BROWN, WtNFIE;I,I::) & CANZONERI AI'I'ONN~'Y'J A'r' LAW VlCKI f.. LANe) .I1~,~ !¢3utl~ {JIIAN~, AVENUe. !IUIT[ L'I"*HAN~F_ H~,..~t"tL ~CHLR LC)~ ANOIrL[~. CALIFORNIA ~OO?l''llla{I [~13) II~(dT-i~14'~ .... = .....=" July 6, 1992 Chairman Larry McNiel and Members of the Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9 1729 Re: Vesting Tentative Tract 14475-Sahama Investments, and Environmental Impact Report Related Thereto Dear Chairman McNiel and Honorable Members of the Planning Commission; Consideration of vesting tentative tract 14475, proposed Sahama Investments, and the Environmental Impact Report related thereto is scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission on July 8t 1992. This consideration is a continuation of a public hearing which was held on the project on April 8, 1992 ~ a "workshop" intended to address the project was subsequently held on May 27, 1992. On Friday, July 3, 1992, the developer and this office for the first time received minutes of that May 27th meeting, as well as the most recent staff report on the project. The purpose of this letter is to request a continuance of the hearing date for the project and the EIR, to allow Sahama to clarify and to address more fully the issues which now appear to have been raised. As you know, this project has had intensive scrutiny at both the staff and committee level, which ultimately resulted in a recommendation of approval by the Design Review Committee. Pursuant to the City*s regulations, it was not brought before the Planning Commission until this approval was rendered, nor until the Technical Review Commit~ee's concerns had all been addressed. Therefore, when there were concerns raised by certain members of the Planning Commission at the l~ay 27 meeting, Sahama noted those concerns, but noted also, as reflected in the minutes, that there appeared to be no consensus reached by ~he planning commission at that meeting, nor were the concerns expressed by the Commissioners addressed with sufficient specificity as to the project desired by the Commission for us to attempt to "create" an 07/06/92 14:11 JJ'213 667 2149 aW&C ~ 003/003 Chairman Larry M~Niel July 6, 1992 Page 2 approvable project. To address the concerns, however, Sahama hired this firm, which specializes in land use issues for both publlc and private entities, to meet with the staff to attempt to clarify the focus of the concerns. That meeting was held with Brad Bullet, but concluded with no foCUsed issues, because the staff felt at that time there was no consensus by the Planning Commission. What did become clear, however, is that this project is the first one for which the Hillside Ordinance has been applied, and that the Planning Com~ission appears to be having a difficult experience in integrating the guidelines established by that ordinance with its sometimes conflicting policy goals. The staff did not, however, notify us that the Planning Commission had reached a consensus and that therefore it felt obligated to prepare a negative recommendation and resolution of denial on the project. When we received the staff report and the draft resolution of denial, we were profoundly concerned in that those documents seem to be reflecting a decision by a Planning Commission majority which has not been publicly made, rather than the staff's own analysis, which recommended approval of the project in April. Furthermore, certain statements contained in both the report and the resolution appear, at best, not to be supported by evidence, and, at worst, to be factually incorrect. We are therefore seeking this continuance in order to allow us to work with the staff to clarify factual statements, and to try to understand precisely what the issues are which are supporting this staff recommendation (and apparent Planning Commission determination) of denial. When those issues are appropriately defined, and the correct factual data utilized, we hope to work with the staff to determine whether they are resolvable. We therefore request a continuance to other than a date certain, understanding that the project will need to be readvertised. We request the extension not exceed, however, sixty (60) days. we fully believe that by that time a precisely focused statement of issues and potential resolutions thereof can be brought before you for your consideration. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, Stephanie R. SCher BROWN, WINFIELD & CANZONERI ~NCORIDOF~ATED J KENNETH BROWN ATTOI~NEYS AT LAW cA~, E.s._,~ER July 7, 1992 MARK L, SHARE CI; / Mr. Brad Buller City Planner JUL - 81992 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~,l~l "~ Post Office BOX 807 'ZiSi9ili]]m lieiSi4=mF,, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Re: Request for Continuance of Hearinq Vestinq Tentative Tract 14475 and EIR Dear Mr. Buller: I have been advised that pursuant to the City's calculations, the maximum period of time within which the environmental review for the above-referenced project must be completed will shortly expire. The purpose of this letter is to advise you that Sahama Investments agrees to waive the provisions of Title 2 Code of California Regulation Section 15108 (placing a maximum 90 day extension of time on CEQA review of a project), so as to have the opportunity to conduct meetings regarding the project prior to its formal consideration by the Planning Commission. We believe that an extension through September 9, 1992 to consider this project and the EIR would be a reasonable extension of the time period required for review, and that the circumstances set forth in my July 6th letter justify such additional time. Very truly yours, ' SRS: dsd cc: Prakash Sakraney, Managing Director Ralph D. Hanson, Esq. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 8, 1992 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS - A public hearing on the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report prepared for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475, a residential subdivision and design review of 71 single family residences on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. Staff recommends certification of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. BACKGROUND: On April 8, 1992, the Planning Con~ission conducted a public hearing on the adequacy of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 113-acre residential project. At that time, public input on the project raised several concerns about sensitive plant and animal species, discharge of storm drain waters into the Cucamonga Wash, archeological resources, alluvial fan scrub habitat, etc. (see Exhibit "C"). Additionally, the Commission raised concerns about adequate water pressure for fire protection. As a result, the Commission continued the public hearing to allow additional studies and revisions to the EIR to address these comments. ANALYSIS: While not required to respond to the comments raised at the meeting of April 8, 1992, the Commission felt it important to consider those comments in the EIR- As a result, the Mitigation Monitoring Program of the EIR has been amended to address the drainage to the Cucamonga Wash, archaeological standards to be used, protection of native oak trees, and fencing/posting along the wash. Additionally, special attention was paid to sensitive/endangered species and fire protection as follows and as noted in the EIR: A. Sensitive Species: The Commission requested that a "sp~ing survey" be conducted to determine if sensitive or 'endangered species were present on the buildable portion of the site. Exhibit "F" of this report contains the results of the spring survey. Generally, the biologists conducted field surveys on three separate dates over a two-week period. During these surveys, no gnatcatchers were observed and one scat from the San Diego horned lizard was found. While this indicates the presence of a lizard on the mesas, it is ITEM E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EIR FOR VT~ 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS July 8, 1992 Page 2 felt that this is not significant because the primary habitat of the lizard would be within the Cucamonga Wash. In addition, no other sensitive/endangered plant or animal species was observed on the mesas. It is expected that they would also be found within the wash. B. Fire Safety: As noted in the EIR, water pumps or pressure tank systems may be necessary to achieve adequate water pressure and flows for fire suppression. This concept is utilized in other areas of the City and has been found to be safe. The minimum standards outlined in the Wildland Fire Study meet the standards of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and must be met prior to construction of the project. Since the public hearing, staff has received a letter from the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Services (see Exhibit "D"). The Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) is primarily concerned with the preservation of coastal sage scrub habitat. It indicates that 70 species, either listed or proposed as endangered or Federal candidate species, habitat the coastal sage. In speaking with the City's consultant, these 70 species are state-wide and no signs of these species (except the horned lizard) were detected on this site. While the Planning Commission is not required to address the letter because it was received after the public co~nent period, the Co~ission may wish to consider the information as part of their deliberations. CEQA PROCESS: A. Mitigation Monitoring: As noted in the staff report of April 8, 1992, the EIR contains a Mitigation Implementation and Monitoring Program (see attached). The program identifies the particular mitigation measures, who is responsible for their implementation, and the timing of implementation. This program provides for checks and balances, not just at the initial stages but through the life Of the mitigation measure. The program incorporates the mitigation measures recommended by the Co~ission at their meeting on April 8, 1992, plus all previous mitigation measures. B. Time Limits: As previously mentioned, under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), action must be taken on an EIR within one year from the date the project application was deemed complete, with the possibility of one 90-day extension of time. At the April 8, 1992, Planning Commission meeting, the processing of the EIR had reached the one-year mark. With the hearing tonight, the 90-day extension has been exhausted. As a result, the Planning Commission must take action tonight to either certify the adequacy of the EIR or determine that the EIR is not adequate. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EIR FOR VTT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS July 8, 1992 Page 3 If the Commission determines the EIR adequately addresses the environmental issues and certifies the document, the EIR will then be used in reviewing the design of any tentative tract map application. By certifying the EIR, the Planning Con~nission is not obligated to approve the project, but rather, the Commission must determine whether the project complies with all mitigation measures outlined in the EIR to reduce the environmental impacts to a "less than significant" level. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Vakley Daily Bulletin newspaper, notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the site, and the site was posted. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission certify the adequacy of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 through adoption of the attached Resolution. City Planner BB:SM/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 8, 1992 Exhibit "B" - Planning Commission minutes dated April 8, 1992 Exhibit "C" - Sage Friends Letter dated April 5, 1992 Exhibit "D" - United States Department of Interior Letter Exhibit "E" - Biological Survey dated June 26, 1992 Mitigation Monitoring Plan Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (previously distributed) Resolution Certifying the Environmental Impact Report --CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 8, 1992 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA iNVESTMENTS - A public hearing to comment on the subsequent Environmental Impact Report prepared for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475, a residential subdivision and design review of 71 single family residences on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre ) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, AND 57. Staff recommends certification of the Environmental Impact Report. BACKGROUND: Following the submittal of Vesting Tentative Tract 14475, the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was necessary to address adverse environmental impacts which may .be created by the project. Working with Bauer Environmental Services, a scope of services was prepared outlining the contents of the EIR which was approved by the Planning Commission- Following approval of the scope of services, preparation of the draft EIR commenced and notices were sent to all affected agencies notifying them that the report was being prepared and inviting comments on areas for inclusion- After receiving comments from the agencies and the property owners, the draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment for 45 days. During this time interested parties provided written and oral comments about the EIR. The Planning Commission reviewed the EIR and received comments during the public hearings conducted on June 12 and September 11, 1991. These comments have been incorporated into the final draft EIR. PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS: Through comments received, site inspections, and project reviews, a number of potential impacts have been identified in the EIR. These impacts include alteration of land form, geology, hydrology, archaeological resources, biological resources, land use, relevant planning, traffic, and public services and utilities (see Executive Summary on pages 7-13 of the EIR). Once they were identified, each impact was evaluated to determine whether appropriate mitigations were available to reduce or eliminate the impacts. Where possible, the mitigations have been incorporated into the development plans. Other mitigations will be included as conditions of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ST~F REPORT EIR FOR VTT 14475 - SAHAMA April 8, 1992 Page 2 One of the impacts of greatest concern has been fire protection. The site is located in a high fire hazard area and, as a result, Phase 1 of a Wildland Fire Study (WFS) was prepared for the project. The WFS establishes general mitigation measures that must be incorporated into the project in order to reduce the fire hazard impact to a less-than- significant level and allow development to occur (see Appendix D of the EIR). A more detailed analysis will be conducted with Phase II of the WFS prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map. ALTERNATIVES: One of the key elements of any EIR is the discussion of a possible range of alternatives to the project. The EIR outlines four alternatives (see pages 52-54 of the EIR) to the proposal submitted, with particular emphasis on minimizing grading impacts. Study "A" is a cluster development with lots averaging 0-77 acres (33,541 square feet)- Study "B" is also a cluster development with slightly smaller lots than Study "A" averaging 0.67 acres (29,185 square feet). Both Study "A" and "B" included 73 lots which was consistent with the number of lots proposed by the applicant. Study "C" proposes the development of 25 estate lots averaging 3-23 acres. Finally the EIR analyzes the "No Project" Alternative- The pros and cons of each alternative are discussed at length in the EIR. The Design Review Committee (McNiel, Melcher, Coleman) considered the project alternatives during the initial review of the project. The Committee noted that the proposed project and all alternatives would occupy the entire lower mesa because of the flatter slope of the lower mesa, and the General Plan and Hillside policies to develop in the less steep areas. The Committee also noted that the alternatives would have to be revised to provide secondary access consistent with City policy. This could require additional streets to be provided across open space lots, further fragmenting the open space. The Committee felt that the proposal might be acceptable if larger lots were provided at the northeast corner of the site. Also, the lot size proposed was consistent with the lots to the south and would provide an adequate transition to the foothills and National Forest. As a result, the project design has been revised to address the Design Review Committee's comments and the issues raised in the EIR. MITIGATION MONITORING: In addition to identifying the potential impacts and the recommended mitigation measures, the EIR also contains a comprehensive mitigation implementation and monitoring program as required by state law (see Section 8 starting on page 57). The mitigation implementation monitoring program identifies the particular mitigation measures, who is responsible for implementation, and the timing for completion or implementation of the measures. This monitoring program offers a check and balance system to ensure that the mitigation measures are implemented in conjunction with development of the project. PLANNING COMMISSION S'~FF REPORT EIR FOR VTT 14475 - SAHAMA April 8, 1992 Page 3 As outlined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the purpose of this public hearing is to determine if the EIR is adequate for certification. More specifically, the hearing should focus on whether the environmental issues have been identified and if appropriate and adequate mitigations have been included to minimize and/or eliminate potential adverse impacts connected with the project. If the Planning Commission determines that the Environmental Impact Report is adequate for certification, the EIR document will be used in reviewing the proposed tract. If the project is approved, all mitigation measures outlined in the EIR will become part of the Conditions of Approval for the development. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the site, and the site was posted. RECOMblENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission certify the adequacy of Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 through adoption of the attached Resolution. Respec lly subm' ed, er BB:SM:Sp Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (dated August 1991) (Commission copies only) Resolution of Approval NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA ABSENT: ONERS: NONE -carri Commissioner Tolstoy that the General D )le might wish to consider other sites. He =hey College because he f%1= =he electronics swap meet complemel College's electronics program. Mr. Brock stated he had alread, ~he college but =hinge had worked out. He said all of parking s are too fractured and the college had been unwill pave the only area he thought would work. He sugges=ec =he Commission could limit ale of used items to only =hose whic connected with "high tech electronics ~NV~ONM~NTA~ IMPACT REPORT FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS - A public hearing =o comment on =he Subsequent Environmental Impact Repor~ prepared for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475, a residential subdivision and design review of 71 single family residences on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. Staff recommends certification of ~he Subsequent Envirommen=al Impact Report. (Continued from March 25, 1992.) Sco~= Murphy, Associate Planner, introduced Sandra Bauer, the consul=an= who prepared ~he Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Sandra Bauer, Bauer Environmental Services, 2530 Red Hill Avenue, Santa Ana, presented an overview of =he supplemental EIR. Chairman McNiel asked if Ms. Bauer had had an opportunity =o review =he letter from Leeona Klipps=ein. Ms. Bauer replied she had received =he letter immediately prior =o the meeting and had an opportunity =o briefly review Commissioner Tolstoy asked if she had also reviewed the letter from =he Fish and Wildlife Service of =he =he United States Department of =he Interior. Ms. Bauer noted ~ha= letter was at=ached =o Ms. Klipps=ein ' s letter. She suggested =hat she respond =o the points raised in Ms. Klipps=ein'e letter. Regarding Point 1, Ms. Bauer etated that the site was surveyed by =he ir biologist, who concluded =ha= =he potential valuable habitat was located in Planning Commission Minutes -16- April 8, 1992 the Cucamonga Canyon Wash. She said =he survey indicated ~here were five sets of species that may be presen= and =here was a high probabili=y =ha= horned lizard would be present. She said i= was suggested =ha= a spring survey might be useful to certify the presence of =he species, but =he survey was not recommended as a formal mi=iga=ion measure because the projec= does not include any impac=s in =he wash. She said =he report no=ed =ha= =he projec= will result in the loss of abou= 58 acres of chaparral and 25 acres of sage scrub, bu= =hey felt =ha= even =hough locally importan=, i= was regionally significant because approxima=ely 9 acres of habi=at would remain in the wash that would support =he species =ha= =hey felt might be presen=. Ms. Bauer noted that recently there has been an increased emphasis on the cactus wren and the gnatcatcher. She said the biologist who did the survey is a very meticulous birder and did not feel that =he species had any probability of being on the site. She said other indica=or species also were present. Therefore, she said it was fel= =ha= an addi=ional spring survey would probably yield the same results. She noted there is now an increased sensitivity to habitat and she supported encouraging the re=an=ion of habitat. She said they would be more than happy to conduct the spring survey if the Commission would feel more comfortable wi=h the results. She noted that the Fish and Wildlife Service leUter was looking at the region as a whole. She said it is true that Sou=hem California has habitat that is suitable for the named species, but o=her proximate areas have good habitat for the species, while the quality of the habitat on this site is not as good. Ms. Bauer said that Point 2 requested that the listing indica=e C-2 species. She noted that C-2 species are unclassified, meaning =ha= official agencies are actively in the process of gathering information to determine if a par%lcular species is endangered, threatened, or sensitive. She said their EIR did lie= the species included on the C-2 listing. Regarding Points 3 and 4, Ms. Bauer repor~ced the EIR had been sent not only to the State Clearinghouse, which is the state agency responsible for notifying affected agencies, but also directly to the California Department of Fish and Game, which had not responded. She said that as the project does not involve federal funds and does not require a federal permit, it does not trigger involvement from the federal Fish and Wildlife Service. She no=ed, however, that the City invited review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service during the last several weeks and the department had not responded. Ms. Bauer agreed with Recommendation 5, that the Cucamonga Wash buffer be fenced prior to any grading to prevent accidental dumping into the wash. She noted that they had already eliminated the words 'attempt to' in reference to protecting the native oak trees. However, in response to Point 6, she said they had left in the verbiage regarding replacemen~ in the even= tha~ a tree should be lost. She sugges=ed if the Commissioners wished to remove the replacement conditions, that would be acceptable because the in=ant is that the:e should be no impac=s on the existing trees. Ms. Bauer concurred wi=h Item 7 and felt i= would probably enhance the project. Mr. Murphy remarked tha~ Item 8 was more germane to the =rac~ map itself. He said that if the Commission cer=lfied the EIR, then ~he ~rac= map could be considered. He noted that in i~s present configura=ion, the main drainage area of the ~ract map is coming from the northeas~ corner of the site. He said =ha= if flood control measures were eliminated, =hose houses would be in Planning Commission Minutes -17- April 8, 1992 a situation where they may be flooded out. He said if =he Commission felt that alternatives to =he tract would be more appropriate, there may be ways to better maintain the natural drainage but there would become a time and place where the drainage would have =o be controlled and channeled into some type of improved structure. Ms. Bauer strongly supported Item 9. She agreed that routing of drainage from going into Cucamonga Canyon Wash to einher of the other two drainage areas shown on the plan would be an improvement so far as potential impacts to the creek because the wash has the most valuable habitat on =he site. She concurred with Comment 10 and stated the report already calls for a qualified archaeologist to be on site during the grading of the site. She noted =hat the Final EIR includes a subsequent look at =he historical, cultural, and archaeological resources on =he site and found =here are no historical resources of value. She said the study was done by a qualified archaeologist. She suggested that if =he Gabrielino Indians would like submit some further information, i= could be included. She said they had contacted the Native American Heritage Society for comments, so she felt =here would be no changes. She said =he EIR had considered local landfills and acknowledged =hat local landfills have life spans of 1-6 years. She reported they had talked with Diane O'Neal from the City and the conclusion was that the development would not make a significant impact. She remarked that City is embarking on a recycling effort =hat will affect =his project and will benefit the impact on landfills. Con~nissioner Tolstoy questioned the adequacy of water pressure =o fight forest fires since =he EIR indicated some of the houses should be required =o have pressure boos=ere. Ms. Bauer replied there was a recon=nenda=ion that seven of =he houses have on- site pump pressure booster systems. She noted =he wildland fire study was the firs= of two documents and the second document will give concrete mitigations to be made before any grading can take place. Mr. Murphy noted =ha= =he wildland fire study calls for minimum pressures available at fire hydrants and if those requirements cannot be me=, the project may not be able to happen. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that the area has an abundance of alluvial scrub. He remarked =ha= =he City has asked =he County to make a further study in E=iwanda North area and he felt the City should provide a good model for the County by paying attention to the habitat. He did no= feel =he question was adequately addressed in the EIR. Me. Bauer stated she had brought two biologists: Vince Coleman who was involved in =he original survey and Ann Johnston, involved in a community participation program looking at the habitat. Vince Coleman, staff botanist, Michael Brandman Associates, 2530 Hill Avenue, Santa Ana, stated the alluvial scrub on the site is basically confined to the wash which is outside of the area of development. Me said there is coastal sage scrub on the plateau which will be affected by development. Planning Commission Minutes -18- April 8, 1992 Commissioner Tolstoy asked what mitigation measures had been formulated for the coas=al sage scrub. Mr. Coleman responded that the only mitigation involves setting aside some open space, including some of the coastal sage scrub. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that if density were concentrated on the mesa, the coastal sage scrub area could be left as open area. Mr. Coleman said that was a reasonable suggestion. Ms. Bauer reiterated that the species that were sensitive were in the wash and that area was not being developed. Commissioner TolsEoy stated he was talking about protec=ing the coastal sage itself, which he felt had been designated by the Department of Fish and Game as a high priority habitat to preserve. He observed that the City has requested the County to preserve that habi=at in Etiwanda Nor=h, and he felt that the County would not be willing to preserve what is in =heir domain if the City is no= willing to preserve what is under the City's jurisdic=ion. Mr. Coleman remarked that the request to preserve the habitat in Etiwanda North was because it supports sensitive animal species, whereas the quality of the habitat in this area is not as good. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the habitat should be preserved wherever it is found because it does not occur in very many places. Mr. Murphy stated that the EIR simply addressed the issue. He suggested that if the Commission felt the area needs to be preserved, that would be a function of =he subdivision design. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the EIR should state that the area is important save. Ms. Bauer stated that the approach to date has been that not all habitat can be saved. She noted that studies are now underway to identify where that habitat is most productive in supporting the greatest number of species and has the grea=est potential to preserve and protect that species locally. She said then =here would be efforts to preserve those locations in order to avoid a situation where the species have to be listed as endangered or threatened. She said this site would not be of the high, rich value tha= would provide ~he high intensity benefits for preserving the species. Commissioner Tolstoy felt any EIR could make that conclusion because EIRs are usually written for small spaces. Mr. Coleman stated this projecn has an abundance of chaparral, which extremely abundant locally. Planning Commission Minutes -19- April 8, 1992 Commissioner Vallette asked for a capsulization for rationale for Alternative Layouts A, B, and C. Ms. Bauer responded that their concerns were primarily for fire safety, preservation of open space, and protection of resource value. She noted that all alternatives pulled units away from the northeast quadrant, which would be the highest range of fire hazard. She said they attempted to create more of a cluster feeling in Alternatives A and B. She said they looked at the City standards and tried to design some projects which would provide the number of units permitted. She noted they looked at options that may optimize use of solar energy, reduce visibility of streets, and reduce grading. She said they had a concern with the larger lot alternatives because a great deal of land is placed into individual ownership rather than remaining as open space. She said that when land is privately owned, ancillary uses are added which detract from the protection of the habitat and resource values. She felt that Alternatives A and B are environmentally superior, in particular B. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Leeona Klippstein, San Bernardins Sage Friends, 1382 Wesley Avenue, Pasadena, stated that in 1987 alluvial fan coastal sage scrub was identified as an area needing high priority protection. She said at that time there were ten areas containing coastal sage scrub, but there are now only three areas remaining and all are proposed for development. She said the area in Cucamonga will also have an impact on 81 acres of San Diego Horned Lizard habitat. She said there are over a dozen sensitive species that may be in the area and the spring survey is needed to determine their existence. She said there are so many more endangered species now because habitats have not previously been protected. She felt long range planning should be conducted when species are first listed as sensitive so that habitats are not destroyed. She feared that the loss of this habitat would soon lead to only one habitat left in the area. She believed the EIR should have identified in 1990 that the area should be preserved and that the densities should be moved as far south as possible. She requested that the Commission require a spring survey. She noted that she had visited the area on Sunday and saw a lot of artemieia, which the gnatcatchers like. She said that in one hour at Hughes Markets on the previous Monday evening she had gathered 80 signatures from local residents on a petition requesting that Cucamonga Canyon remain natural open space. She felt by the time the matter reaches City Council, there should be several hundred signatures. She expressed appreciation for the City's efforts in working to preserve the environment. She agreed that the City should set a good example for the County. Catherine Bridge, 8715 Banyan Street, Rancho Cucamonga, noted that she and her husband had sent a letter included in the agenda packets. She said they have two major concerns with the first being the additional traffic caused by the population increase in area from not only the proposed 71 homes, but also the Nordic tract to the east. She felt the formula for traffic on Almond Street has been drastically changed from original plans. She feared that with the City requirements for two entries into each tract, Turquoise would be routed through their property. She said that they were being asked to improve Planning Commission Minutes -20- April 8, 1992 approximately one mile of Turquoise, and she did not think that was fair. She said their original idea was to build four homes on the 20 acres that they own, but they have had to revise their projections up =o ten home sites, largely to help support the cost of improvements. She felt it would be wiser to keep population down and save on the need for the costly improvements. She said they had approached =he City about six years ago with a proposal to abandon Almond from east of their property over to the wash. She said at the time the neighbors all agreed it was a good idea and ~he City agreed to consider-it, but =hat plan seemed to have fallen by the wayside. She was also concerned about the proposed elevation of the equestrian trail along the southern boundary of the Sahama tract. She noted that it is proposed to be constructed at an elevaUion of up to 6 feet higher than the natural flow of the land. She proposed that the area be graded and landscaped with provision for irrigation as the other areas are required to in the plan. She suggested that the changes be made to require landscaping to soften the effect on property owners to the south. She was concerned about the view from =heir property to the back yards of Lots 1 through 5. Ms. Klippstein noted that an individual can be arrested for removing a sensitive species animal from the wild, but developers can still develop a property and eliminate the species by destroying the habitat. She noted =hat four more sensitive species have been added to the listing since 1990, which shows how fast habitat is being lost. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed =he public hearing. Commissioner Melcher asked for clarification regarding sensitive species and habitat. He asked if CEQA requires that threatened or endangered species be preserved. Ann Johnston, biologist for Michael Brandman Associates, 2530 Hill Avenue, Santa Ana, said that normally when a species is listed as threatened or endangered, CEQA requires tha~ =he habitat be preserved. She said =ha= is no~ ~he case for C-2 species. Commissioner Melcher asked for clarification =ha= no species have been identified on site which are listed as ~hrea=ened or endangered. Ms. Johnston concurred, Commissioner Melcher asked if ~he preservation of habita~ would ~hen be a judgmen~ call that is outside of ~he CEQA process and does no~ affect =he EIR. Ms. Bauer stated that was =rue, but i= is a rapidly evolving area. Commissioner Melcher asked if all administrative requirements had been met on ~he EIR. Ms. Bauer responded affirmatively. She said adequate notification had been provided and they had even gone beyond requirements. She said public hearing requirements were met and nothing had been overlooked in ~he paper trail. Planning Commission Minutes -21- April 8, 1992 Commissioner Melcher asked if =he the Commission could responsibly recommend certification of the EIR to the City Council. Ms. Bauer said they could. She indicated the most challenging issue would be whether the Commission fel~ the spring survey should be required. She said they believed the same conclusions would be reached although =here was a chance that a different result may occur. She believed that even if one of the species is found, it would be found in ~he wash and the wash will not be altered as a part of the project. She stated that as the City's consultant, she would advise that the City could responsibly act either way. She felt =here was adequate basis to certify the document at this time, but it would also be justifiable to require the spring survey. Chairman McNiel asked how species are added to the C-2 listing. Ms. Johnston stated that independent research is done by Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife, independent biologists, researchers, or qualified experts. She said that if a species is studied and it is determined it is ecologically declining in its range or there are detrimental effects that are occurring, a proposal is presented to the Fish and Wildlife Service or Fish and Game and one of =hose agencies add the species to their C-2 list =o be researched further and make a determination regarding reclassifying as threatened or endangered. She said the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service was peUi=ioned on September 17, 1991, to study the gnatcatcher and they have one year to render an opinion. She said the state was also pe=itioned to list the gnatcatcher, but the state decided to hold off on listing the gnatcatcher and decided instead to try to develop a habitat conservation plan to try to determine what type of habitat is required, where it is located, and how it should be preserved. She said that is an ongoing process. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, observed that the EIR in question deals with a specific project and final action on certification would be taken the Planning Commission unless the matter were appealed to the City Council. Commissioner Chitlea felt the entire foothill area is a special natural resource. She noted that the area is one of only three remaining that still contains alluvial fan sage scrub and that there had been ten such areas in 1990. She felt the cumulative effect of development is far greater than individual development. She commented that the City has an opportunity preserve in this area, whereas the City does not have the opportunity to do so in areas outside the City limits. She =hough= the effects of the encroachment of urbanization should also be considered in relation to wildlife which is endangered, such as deer. She noted that =here are many new houses in the City which cannot sell and she did not think this natural habitat should be torn apart. She felt at the very least the spring study should be required. She =hough= the sage should be considered in greater depth. Commissioner Tolstoy commented tha~ the property is zoned for development under =he General Plan, and he did not feel the City can stop development. However, he felt the EIR should address some of the constraints on the property. He thought the EIR should recommend that ~he tract be reconfigured Planning Commission Minutes -22- April 8, 1992 with the houses placed on the lower mesa with the habitat on the upper slopes retained. Me said that every time scrub is removed, natural resources and animal life is pushed further away. He felt as much natural area should be preserved as possible while allowing the applicant to enjoy the use of the property. He felt the EIR should be revisited in some areas. Commissioner Melcher felt the process had been properly served. He said that the EIR identifies all of the impacts and had found that none of them are significant. Me said the consultant had concurred that a number of the items raised in Ms. Klippstein's letter were worthy of further consideration and he thought those issues could be incorporated in conditions on the map if the map were approved. Me felt the EIR could be certified. Commissioner Vallette agreed that the EIR is extensive and covers the issues well. She favored Alternative Layout B because she felt it most identified the unique qualities of the area. She felt it is important to preserve as much of the natural habitat as possible. She said she would support the other Commissioners if they felt a spring study should be required even though the consultant felt it would not make any changes. She said she would like to see the whole area preserved, but she did not know if that was a possibility. Chairman McNiel asked if the Commissioners were in agreement with Ms. Bauer's recommendations regarding Ms. Klippstein's letter. Commissioner Chitlea felt that if the EIR were to be certified, it should contain those comments. Commissioner Melcher stated he would be comfortable with the consultant's comments regarding which recommendations would be appropriate for consideration for incorporation in the project. He felt those things should then be associated with any map approved. Chairman McNiel asked if the items should be included with the map or incorporated in the EIR. Mr. Murphy said the letter from Ms. Klippstein and the consultant's formal response would be included in the final EIR document. Chairman McNiel asked if the Commission should move on to considering the tract map. Mr. Murphy stated the Commission should first deal with the EIR. He suggested that if the Commission wished to require a spring survey or any other additional information, it would be best to continue the EIR and the map. He noted that the applicant would have to consent to such continuance because of legal time limits. He suggested that if the Commission felt comfortable with certifying the EIR, they should then move on to considering the tract map. He noted they could certify the EIR without approving the tract map. Me said consideration should be given as to whether the map adequately addressed the mitigations mentioned in the EIR. He said that if there were concerns about Planning Commission Minutes -23- April 8, 1992 preservation of natural open space, the Co~nission should determine if the subdivision design adequately addressed that preservation. He said if not, =he Commission could reference the alternatives. Commissioner Melcher acknowledged that the EIR identified two alternates that were environmen=ally superior but he felt it was written to =he map because it indicates =he map, with =he mitigation measures, reduces the impacts to less than significant. He thought that although the EIR supports the map in its present configuration, it did not mean the Commission would have to approve the map if =hey certify the EIR. Mr. Coleman remarked =ha= on the original project the EIR was certified, but the project was denied. He noted that any additional work on the EIR, such as a spring survey, would be beyond the scope of the current con=tact, and if the Commission wished to request any additional work, =he applicant would have to consent to payment for ~he work. Mr. Bullet asked if ~he Commissioners had determined any such additional work was necessary. Chairman McNiel though= =ha~ Commissioner Vallet=e was willing to go either way, Commissioner Chitlea wanted the spring survey, and Commissioner Tolstoy wanted =he survey. Commissioner Melcher felt it was quite clear =he survey was unnecessary. Chairman McNiel indicated he was inclined to request =he spring survey. He reopened =he public hearing =o ask if the applicant would be willing =o pay for the additional work and consent =o a continuance. Steve Morton, Sahama Investments, 10700 Jersey Boulevard, Suite 705, stated they would pay for the spring study, agree =o =he continuance, and consent ~o waiving of =he time limits. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Chitlea, to continue Environmental Impact Report for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 for purposes of conducting a spring survey. Mr. Murphy asked if =he item was being continued =o a date specific. Mr. Hanson recommended against =ha= and suggested =he item should be re- -no=iced. Mr. Coleman indicated =he matter would have to re=urn =o the Planning Commission within 90 days because that would be =he maximum time extension permitted under CEQA. Mr. Murphy remarked that =he biologist had indicated =he spring survey would have ~o be completed by May I so =he report should be ready by mid-May. Planning Con~nission Minutes -24- April 8, 1992 The motion to continue Envirorunental Impact Report for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEE, MELCHER, TOESTOY, VALEETTE NOES= COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Mr. Murphy questioned if the Commission wanted a survey of all species, the gnatcatcher only, or all sensitive species. Chairman McNiel asked what type of survey was done in November. Ms. Bauer responded it was a full site walkover, but not a sensitive species survey. She indicated a sensitive species survey would be a very detailed analysis. She remarked that the area to be surveyed could depend upon the species selected. She observed that many of the species mentioned in the document are located in the wash and the Commission may feel it would not be necessary to conduct the survey in the wash because the wash will remain. She thought that the species that concerned Ms. Klippstein were in the sage and in =he chaparral. Ms. Klipps=ein said she would like to know about all the sensitive species on =he site and where they are located. Ms. Bauer commented that the Commission may wish to include the wash because the information could be useful. Co~nissioner Tolstoy did not feel the survey needed to be conducted in =he wash because of =he elevation difference between the buildable area and the wash. Commissioner Chitlea felt =he wash should be surveyed. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Co~unissioner Chitiea's opinion would change if it was found that the sensitive species were found in the wash, but not on the mesa. He felt if the species were on the mesa, that would be something to be dealt with. He thought that if the species were in the wash only, it should not be a concern because the areas have a great separation and the wash will not be developed. Commissioner Chitlea felt the areas are interconnected. Chairman McNiel did not feel it was necessary to survey the entire area. He suggested surveying for sensitive species in the buildable area. Con~nissioner Melcher said on-site. He did not think it needed to be done a~ all. Planning Commission Minutes -25- April 8, 1992 Mr. Buller inquired if it was then the position of the Commission that the spring study only be on the land within =he project boundary excluding the wash area. Chairman McNiel said ~here were ~hree Commissioners ~hat supported =hat position. INVESTMENTS - A residential subdivision and design review of 71 residences on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residentis 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, locate of Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: }-051-07, 55, and 57. Associated Tree Removal Permit No. 92-~ (Continued from 25, 1992.) Chairman asked how the Commission should pro with respect to Item G. Ralph Hanson, DeE hty Attorney, stated the ssion could not take any action to approve ~roject because the E was not approved, but he suggested that the Commz on may wish to take stimony and make comments. Scott Murphy, Associate , presented staff report and noted that the Engineering Department had !sted .dewalks be included on one side of the streets. He noted proposed conditions providing for sidewalks were in front of the ers. Chairman McNiel opened the public - Steve Morton, Sahama Jersey Boulevard, #705, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they ke to .til the spring study is completed before going into ~nts rec the project. He felt they had clustered the houses ~ted they did any development in the escarpment area and th, suit zone and had natural open space to the north. He commented the City had hired the sultant to do the EIR and they had done a 1, of work to design the ,nt to address concerns raised in the EIR by the City. Commissioner V. .ette asked how much open space was x in the proposal. Mr. Morton that there are preserving 40 acres out the total 113 acres. Catheril Bridge, 8715 Banyan Street, Rancho Cucamonga, remarked 17 acres being iserved is actually unbuildable wash. Heaa .g no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing Murphy asked if the Commissioners wished to make some comments on Planning Commission Minutes -26- April 8, 1992 Leeona ippstein APR 0 1992 san Bernardi o sa e riends ..-.~ ~ 1382 Wesley Avenue 718~ ~...:,-~ . Pasadena, CA. 91104 City of Rancho Cucamonga c/o Bauer Environmental Services 2530 Red Hill Avenue Santa Aria, CA. 92705 April 5, 1992 Re: Notice of Preparation (NOP) Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, Tentative Tract 14475, SCH#90021132. Cucamonga Wash/ Canyon, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County. Ms. Sandre Bauer, Mr. Scott Murphy, The City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission and City Council, ~ San Bernardino Sage Friends is a grassroots conservation coalition, with several hundred individual supporters, including endorsements from the Endangered Habitats League (a coalition of over 30 environmental organizations), Southern Califo~rnia Sierra Club Biodiversity Task Force, The Green Party of Southern California, The John Muir Center for Regional Studies and a invited member of the State Resources Agencies, Advisory Committee" Natural Communities Conservation Planning" (NCCP) on coastal sage scrub. We appreciate this opportunity to review and make comment on the, Environmental Assessment and Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 - Sahama Investments - A residential subdivision and design review of 71 single family residences on 113 acres of land in the hillside residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN; 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. Associated with this application is Tree Removal Permit No. 92-06. As a follow up to our phone conversations and past written responses, We request that this letter and enclosed information be included in the administrative record of aforementioned proposed project, TT 14475, SCH # ~0021132. As you are aware, San Bernardino Sage Friends and I are extremely concerned in regards to the continued loss of Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub communities and the cumulative impacts this has on plants and wild- life that depend on this rare ecosystem. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) are also very concerned about the rapid loss of this habita[. Please refer to the enclosed letters from these agencies of recent date, 3/13/92'& 4/1/92. It is a generous estimate that indicates that there is less than 5~ of alluvial fan coastal & riversidean sage scrub remaining in Southern California. Cucamonga Canyon/Wash is included in this appallingly low number. As you are aware, the Cucamonga Canyon/ comments,TT14475 page 2 Wash, alluvial fan ecosystem, 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 out washes, as residential and flood control projects have eliminated it from most of its former range." (CDFG). Other comments by CDFG include.." Because Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub 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," "The California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA ) in section 15125 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 Departments vie this is too late for identifying biological impacts and for acqu ring site specific mitigation measures." The Department ther ~ites a pref- erred mitigation measure .... " that individual project proponents be required to complete focused EIR's in which detailed biological survey information is obtained for all sensitive~ threatened and endangered species within their projects footprints as well as to contributing to surveys for the entire alluvial fan sage scrub area .... ". San Bernardino Sage Friends and I recommend that Bahama Invest- ments Inc. become participants of" Natural Communities Conservation Planning"(NCCP) on coastal sage scrub. The NCCP Act of 1991,AB 2172, selected the coastal & riversidean sage scrub plant and animal community of southern California for its first attempt to implement this law. The ConserVation Planning area for this effort includes northern San Bernardino County and specifically those areas that still contain alluvial fan sage scrub; including Rancho Cucamonga. According to The California Natural Diversity Data Base (1987), Alluvial Fan Vegetation is considered a unique habitat with high priority for preservation. Unfortunately, even with the high priority for preservationzcategory, the cumulative impacts of urbanization and flood control diversions/channel~zations continue to push this unique and rare ec~logi£al community into extinction. We remind you that extiction is forever and that we have a respons- ibility and reverence for all Life, great and small. In a recent phone conversation, 4/1/92, with Bauer Environmental Services, senior biologist, Dave Levine, I voiced my opinion that biological surveys and assessments are inadequate for this project. Dave Levine made a statement that the EIR process is a GAME. San Bernardino Sage Friends and I do not appreciate this attitude wards the environment and sensitive ecosystems. We recommend that Bauer Environmental Services, The City of Rancho Cucamonga and Developers of concern, obt,in biologlcal surveys and assessments, required by CEQA , with the ser~usness and integrity that these significant, rare and unique biological communities warrant. comments, TT14475 page 3 Biological surveys and assessments contained in Appendix C, Biological Resource Analysis for TT14475, are in my opinion less than minimal and fail to disclose significant and substancial evidence concerning sensitive, threatened and endangered species. As disclosed, the biological asscements for TT14475, were obtained by surveys on foot and by motor vehicle, on March 26, 1984 and then revisited on November 15 and 19, 1990. Surveying a site in the Winter season, is no way to obtain accurate biological assessments. On page 2, third paragraph of appendix C" The site is expected to support much of the wildlife characteristic of. typical southern California inland foothill habitat. Most of the species expected to be present were not observed during the site survey due to their secretive nature or the time o~ year ~ur~n~ v~lch the survey was conducted." The guessing GAME of biological assessments from Bauer Environ- mental Services is over. The Biological Resource Analysis for TT14475 is inaccurate, misleading and fails to disclose significant substantial evidence of plant and wildlife. Since 1990, the sage sparrow, rufus-crowned sparrow and horned lark have all become candidate-2 species. All three species occur on site. TT14475, Appendix C fails to disclose this information in context. San Bernardino Sage Friends and I recommend that this significant information be included and that assessments of Sensitive Species be corrected. The EIR for this project, TT14475, fails to address and recog- nize the cumulative biological impacts on the unique and rare alluvial fan sage scrub and related communities, which effects all plant and wildlife on site. From Big Tujunga Wash, Los Angeles, in the western most region,of the San Gabriel Mountains to Sierra Ridge, San Berardino in the east, ALL ALLUVIAL FAN SAGE SCRUB HABITAT IS PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT. San Bernardino Sage Friends and I recognize the challenging task concerning all involved in this project, taking into consideration the risks of wildfire. floods and earthquakes to human life. Unfortunately, the design of this project did not fully recognize the environment, or go far enough in protecting the rare alluvial fan plant and wildlife community. All lot designs would destroy this unique and rare ecosystem through fragmentation and diversion of hydrology. The TT14475 project warrants new indepth SPRING surveys to obtain accurate biological information of significance. Two endangered plant species, the Santa Ana woolly-star (Eriastrum densifolium) and the Slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema lepto- ceras) may be found on site as potential habitat is present. As of date, 4/5/92, the TT14475 site has not been surveyed in the spring, which is when these state and federally endangered species may be found. comments, TT14475 page 4 Raptor presence and use is high on this project site. It is unknown if any nest on site due to lack of sufficent surveys. The Golden Eagle, Merlin, ShArp-shinned hawk, Red-shouldered, Red-tailed, and Cooper's hawks have all been sited and use the project site for foraging The Merlin is believed to use this area for wintering grounds. Any further development in this area would adversely effect all aforementioned Raptors. The Golden Eagle is fully protected under the Endangered Species Act. The TT14475 fails to recognize the Golden Eagle in its biological assessments. The California gnatcatcher is a State and Federally recognized C-2 species that is presently awaiting listing as a Endangered Species. Historically and currently the California gnatcatcher occurs on the project site (see Dr.Atwood's Status Review 1990). LSA biological assessment for portions of Etiwanda, 1987, indicates that a California gnatcatcher was observed on site, the most recent siting of a California gnatcatcher was in 1991, by Doug Willitt, at the confluence of Lytle Creek and the Cajon Wash, very similar habitat of that of the TT14475 project site. In research, San Bernardino Sage Friends and I have found that there have been no indepth Spring surveys for the California gnatcatcher on the project site and regionally. We recommend Spring surveys for the California gnatcatcher obtained by NCCP S~ientific Review Panel Guidelines. If Bauer Environmental Services do not have these guidelines,please let us know and ve will furnish them for you. Other species of concern to us include, the San Diego horned lizard, arroyo toad, western spadefoot toad, western pond turtle, California red-sided garter snake, rosey boa, patch-nosed snake, orange-throated whiptail,western whiptail, black-tailed jackrabbit, grasshopper mouse,pocket mouse and the skink. RECOMMENDATION OF REVISIONS & AMMENDMENT MEASURES FOR TT14475 PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS - 1. Indepth Spring biological surveys on foot with assessments ammended to Appendix C, prior to vesting and EIR certification and project approval. 2. Appendix C, revisions and ammendments should include and indlca~-~ C-2, sensitive, threatened and endangered species of concern as to date, 1992. 3. Review and comments by the California Department of Fish an.,~· Game (CDFG) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service to t.-~ included i~ the TT14475 Vesting and Environmental Assessment. comments, TT14475 page 5 4. Recommendation that TT14475 concur with CDFG in regards to Biological Resources, Mitigation Measures for Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, a 2:1 ratio for inkind habitat. TT14475 presently fails to mitigate for the loss of alluvial fan sage scrub, its unique and rare habitat and communities, falling short of CEQA requirements. Recommendation that the Cucamonga Wash buffer of 150 ft., chain linked fence and wildlife education posting, shall be in place prior to any grading on site. To prevent any accidental dumping into Cu~amonga Wash. 6. Present, Biological Mitigation Measure #2. is not acceptable and provides a "way out" in protection of Native Oak Trees. We recommend revisions in the present wording of this mitigation to eliminate" attempt to", and the last sentence '~ If Native Oak trees are removed as a result of site preparation, they shall be replaced by boxed specimens in compatible areas to be selected by a qualified expert". We recommend that all Native Oak Trees on site and site foot- print , be fully protected. Prior to any grading, all Native Oak Trees will be enclosed by a chain linked fence with a setback, buffer to accommmodate root length in tree heigth. Example - Tree is 25 ft. in heigth, buffer is 25ft. out to root length. This may prevent any accidental root and tree damage by doz~v e- All Native Trees are to be monitored by a qualified ecologist/expert in conjunction with USFWS and or CDFG Natural Heritage consultations. 7. All Open Space (0S) shall be dedicated as NATURAL Open Space. 8. Recommendation that, No Hydrologica!, flood control measures, diversions and channel. ization, that will directly or indirectly effect the alluvial fan sage scrub communities that depends on the present natural hydrological system. 9. We recommend that TT14475 storm drain flow directly into the Almond Interceptor Channel and not Cucamonga Creek, in order to avoid toxic petrochemical and herbicide run off into a significant ecological area. The toxic run off would have a direct impact on Biological Resources. We recommend consult- ation with CDFG and USFWS. 10. Concerning Archeological Resources, we recommend tha't a SOPA Archeologist and Gabrielino person be on project site durin4 all grading and earth movement activity. We recommend that any and all Native American artifacts be recorded and returned comments, TT14475 page 6 to the appropriate Gabrielino representative. All monitoring and mitigations are to comply with procedures outlined by The Native American Heritage Society. ll.We recommend that Cultural Resources, be ammended and included in the project EIR and Mitigations. Cultural Resources are to include Historical to present day significant use of the project site and surrounding region by the Gabrielino people. The Gabrielino people continue to use this area for spiritual renewal and gather regional plants for healing and ceremonial purposes. We recommend comment to include the Gabrielino religious practices and the mythology of Cucamonga Peak and Mr. Baldy. We recommend that the ethnobotany of the Gabrielino be included in Cultural Resources and that Mitigation MeaSures shall be persued and reflect the Cultural Impact as Very Significant. 12. Solid Waste is significant. Regional landfills are expected to close within the next five years. The TT14475 fails to disclose this significant and substancial evidence of Solid Waste Impacts. We recommend that mitigation measures to include curb side recycling and monitoring of this mitigation by lead agencies. In closing, San Bernardino Sage Friends and I, encourage Bauer Environmental Services, The City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Commission and City Council to continue to work on long-range planning procedures that encompass preservation of the alluvial fan ecosystem. At this time we can not endorse or approve of TT14475 proposed project, vesting and environmental assessments. We recommend the most Environmentally Superior Alternative which is 5.1 "No Project Alternative. Project Impacts are Very Significant with Mitigation Measures:inadequate. EIR Assessments fail to sufficently disclose substantial biological evidence that would indicate non compliance to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, Recital A(iii) "all legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred." TT14475 does not comply with Resolution, B, 3(c) "The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substancial environmental damage and avoid- able injurF to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and (4) Thls Commission hereby finds and certifies that tha project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the CEQA of 1970 and, further, this Commission has certified the adequacy of the Subse- quent Environmental Impact Report for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 14475. comments, TT14475 page 7 Thank you for this time to comment, if we can be of any further assistance please call me at (818) 398-4962. Sincerely, San Bernardino Sage Friends, Leeona Klippstein, coordinator cc; Mayor Stout and Rancho Cucamonga City Council John Hanlon, United States Fish & Wildlife Service Glen Black, Regional Director, CDFG - Natural Heritage Dan Silver, Endangered Habitats League Dr. Dennis Murphy, Chairman, Scientific Review Panel/NCCP Brad Bullet & Rancho Cucamonga Planning. Commission United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SER~CE FISH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT w · SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FIELD STATION Carlsbad Office 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, California 92008 :",& May 6 1992 Mr. Scott Murphy I,i.~Y City of Rancho Cucamonga ~ . Planning Division ~- 10500 Civic Center Drive ~:"-',-,-. P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Final Subsequent Enviror~aentai impact Report ~or SaR~na Investments, Inc. (Tentative Tract No. 14475), Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California Dear Mr. Murphy: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the referenced document dated August 1991. We provide the following comments for your consideration during the project approval process. Unfortunately, the Service was not provided the opportunity to review previous planning documents for this project. Several things concern the Service about the proposed development, including site plan, habitat fragmentation, and the direct loss of 58 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, not to mention the unstated indirect loss of coastal sage scrub habitat. The alternatives identified are not significant improvements over the preferred site. development plan. They all have significant impacts on coastal sage scrub habitat by direct impacts, indirect impacts and fragmentation. A feasible alternative not considered, that should be, to reduce coastal sage scrub habitat would be to concentrate the development along the eastern portion of the property, encompassing the disturbed area, chaparral and some coastal sage scrub. Habitat fragmen~a~ion constitutes an indirect impact through evcntua! specie2 extirpation from fragmented habitat. Fragmentation and loss of habitat is the primary cause of species extinction and extirpation, especially in southern California. Our suggested site development plan would reduce the amount of habitat fragmentation and loss. Fragmentation of habitat affects wildlife movement and dispersal. It also creates animal-human conflicts, thereby, causing additional impacts to wildlife and habitats, such as fire protection and pets. The proposed project will eliminate all 58 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat on site. Be reminded that costal sage scrub habitat is considered a high priority for preservation by California Department of Fish and Game and the Service. This habitat includes approximately 70 species that are either listed or proposed as endangered or Federal candidate species. It also Mr. Scott Murphy 2 includes State listed species. It is prudent to consider these candidate species in planning to reduce the potential to list them as endangered or threatened. Pursuant section.4(7) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, the Service can emergency list any species that we feel has a significant risk to its well-being exists. Immediate protection is provided for 240 days. In summary, the proposed site development is not compatible with long-term survival of wildlife species due to fragmentation of habitats. In addition, the complete elimination of coastal sage scrub habitat on the project site could impact up to 70 candidate species associated with this habitat. If you have any questions please feel free to contact John Hanlon at (619) 431-9440. Sincerely, cc: CDFG, Region 5, Long Beach, CA (Attn: G. Black) San Bernardino Sage Friends, Pasadena, CA (Attn: L. Klippstein) Endangered Habitats League, Los Angeles, CA (Attn: D. Silver) June 26, 1992 Ms. Sandra Bauer Bauer Environmental Services 2540 Red Hill Avenue Santa Ana, California 92705 SUBJECT: Results of focused surveys for the California gnatcatcher and San Diego horned lizard on Tentative Tract 14475, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. Dear Ms. Bauer: This letter report describes the findings of a survey for the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica) and San Diego horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronarum blainvillei) on 'IT 14475, located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. The survey was conducted by Michael Brandman A~sociates (MBA) for Bauer Environmental Services to determine the potential presence of the California gnatcatcher and San Diego horned lizard on the site. Results of the directed surveys are presented separately below. California Gnatcatcher The California gnatcatcher is currently a proposed subspecies for federal listing as threatened or endangered and a California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Species of Special Concern. A CDFG Species of Special Concern is a species threatened with extirpation within the state of California, but that has not been placed on state or federal endangered or threatened lists. On September 17, 1991 in the Federal Register, the USFWS published the proposal to list the gnatcatcher as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act. The USFWS has up to one year from this date within which to make a decision on the listing. Both the CDFG and the USFWS have the authority to emergency list the California gnatcatcher as threatened or endangered at any time, if circumstances warrant. California gnatcatchers are obligate, non-migratory residents of coastal sage scrub; but individuals, especially juveniles, will occasionally forage in adjacent habitats of other types. This species ranges from the Palos Verdes Peninsula, south into San Diego County and northern Baja California, and generally occurs in coastal sage scrub vegetation below 1,000 feet elevation above sea level. Individuals or pairs are less common in dense stands of coastal sage scrub, preferring habitat with a more open pattern of vegetation. Population estimates indicate that there are approximately 1,600-2,000 pairs or' gnatcatchers remaining (Atwood 1990) in the United States. Declines are attributable to loss of coastal sage scrub habitat through urban and agricultural development. Ms. Bauer June 26, 1992 Page 2 A review of existing information in the vicinity of the project site, including a review of the California Natural Diversity Data Base, revealed that no historic records occur for California gnatcatchers within the vicinity of the project site. The only reliable, confirmed, and recent observation of California gnatcatchers in San Bernardino County are limited to a single bird seen in 1990 near the con~uence of Cajon Wash and Lytle Creek Wash (Atwood 1990) approximately 16 miles east of the project site. California gnatcatchers have been largely or entirely extirpated from San Bernardino County. Directed surveys for the California gnatcatcher were conducted by Project Manager/Ecologist, Ann M. Johnston according to the February 1992 Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub, Scientific Review Panel Coastal Sage Scrub Survey Guidelines. Surveys were conducted on April 24, May 1 and 8, 1992. Weather conditions were generally mild, with a temperature range of approximately 65 to 80 degrees Fahrenheit. Bird surveys were conducted between 7:00 AM and 11:30 AM. Slow, methodological surveys were conducted through likely California gnatcatcher habitat. Tape recordings of California gnatcatcher songs were played at moderate volumes during the surveys to solicit responses from these birds in appropriate habitat. No California gnatcatchers were observed during any of the three survey visits. California gnatcatchers are not expected to occur on the site because the site is outside the existing known range of the species and lacks suitable habitat. Because no California gnatcatchers were found on the project site, or are expected to occur on site, no adverse impacts to this species will occur as a result of project implementation. San Diego Horned Lizard The San Diego horned lizard is a Category 2 federal candidate species for listing as endangered or threatened. A Category 2 candidate species for federal listing as threatened or endangered; includes taxon being considered for listing, but for which insufficient data are available to support a proposal for listing at this time. The San Diego horned lizard is one of four recognized subspecies of the coast horned lizard. This lizard occurs in a variety of habitats, including coastal sage scrub, grassland, woodlands, and montane coniferous forests. It prefers sandy soils and relies heavily on harvester ants (Pogonomyrmex spp. and Messor spp.) as an important part of its diet (Pianka 1986). Surveys for the San Diego horned lizard were conducted by walking random transects within suitable habitat in search of active lizards and horned lizard scats. In addition, the presence of commensal species, such as harvester ants and small burrowing mammals, were identified. The surveys for the San Diego horned lizard were conducted on May 1 and 8, 1992, by staff ecologist Michael IC Moore and Ms. Johnston between the hours of 8:00 AM and 11:00 AM. One horned lizard scat was observed on the project site during the focused survey. The open and sandy portions of the coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitats within the development boundary do provide suitable habitat for this species. However, much of the existing coastal sage scrub and chaparral is dense and may be of limited value for the San Diego horned lizard. Because of the availability of additional suitable habitat in the immediate vicinity of the project site, the removal of suitable habitat by project development would result in a local impact, though not significant, to the San Diego horned lizard. Ms. Bauer June 26, 1992 Page 2 This local impact could be minimized by protecting adjacent suitable habitat. In accordance with Mitigation Measure #34 of the Final Environmental Impact Report of Tentative Tract 14475. 34. The Homeowners' Association for TT 14475 shall be responsible for ensuring that all on- and off-site open space areas are buffered in a manner to discourage encroachment by residents. Measures shall include but not be limited to (1) fencing off the sandy wash to discourage off-road vehicles and other human use of this area; and (2) posting of interpretive signs at the wash edge to educate residents about the sensitivity of this habitat for plants and animals. The Homeowners' Association shall be responsible for posting all trails with signs stating that no riding is permitted off of project trails, off of Big Tree Road, or in the Cucamonga Canyon Wash. Trail systems shall be designed to protect theses areas from human use, the enforcement of which shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners' Association as well as the City, and shall not terminate at the boundaries of open space areas. The applicant shall incorporate, and the Homeowners' Association enforce, deed restrictions that regulate the management of household pets and the operation of motorized off-road vehicles. In a letter from Mr. Brooks Harper of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Mr. Scott Murphy of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, dated May 6, 1992, Mr. Harper stated that "the complete elimination of coastal sage scrub on the project site could impact up to 70 candidate species associated with this habitat". It is MBA's opinion that this statement is misleading. The 70 candidate species mentioned in this statement refers to the diversity of sensitive plant and wildlife species recorded throughout coastal sage scrub subassociations in San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The project site does not provide the diversity of habitats nor is it within the recorded range of most of these 70 candidate species. Those few sensitive species potentially present in the coastal sage scrub on the site have been previously addressed in the EIR or in this letter. Please contact either of the undersigned if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, MICHAEL BRANDMAN ASSOCIATES References Atwood, J. L. 1990. Status review of the California gnatcatcher (polioptila ~alifornica). Unpublished technical report, Manomet Bird Observatory, Manomet, Massachusetts. BAUER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Environmental Research · Process:rig. DemOgrclgn,C ~na!vs~s Carnegie Centre 2530 Red Hill Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92705 (714) · 250. 5563 ...... CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA · ~1~ SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION I. .~ -~ .-~. -r. . June 1992 Introduction On 8 April 1992, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider certification of the Final EIR for Tentative Tract 14475. Shortly before the hearing, the Planning Commission had received correspondence from Leeona Klippstein raising the possibility that the site might be host to the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica). Although the Final EIR contained results from an earlier November survey that had concluded the site did not have habitat suitable for the gnatcatcher, the Planning Commission required that a new survey be conducted to achieve the higher level of certainty obtainable during spring. In addition, several new mitigation measures were suggested for consideration, and the Planning Commission raised a number of questions concerning fire safety. In response, the Focused Biological Survey was undertaken, additional research was conducted concerning fire safety and the recommended mitigation measures. This submittal presents the Comprehensive Mitigation Implementation and Monitoring Plan, as revised to incorporate the resulting information. Habitat Values As anticipated, the focused spring biological survey confirmed that the site lies outside the known range of the gnatcatcher, and lacks suitable habitat for the species (please see the attached letter report from Michael Brandman Associates dated 18 May 1992). No evidence of California gnatcatchers were observed onsite, nor are the gnatcatchers expected to occur. Evidence of the San Diego horned lizard (in the form of scat) was observed on the project site during the focused survey. As discussed in the Final EIR, the removal of suitable habitat by project development would result in a local, though not significant, impact to the San Diego horned lizard. This local impact will be attenuated by the availability of suitable habitat in the vicinity of the project site (including Cucarnonga Canyon Wash, which will remain as open space), and by mitigation measures to protect the adjacent wash and national forest boundaries, as provided in measures #26, 34, 36, and 43). Fire Safer3, It was noted in the Final EIR that the proposed siting of Reservoir 7A within Lot 75 would result in borderline water pressures for Lots 47 through 53, necessitating on-site pump and pressure tank systems for these lots. During the 8 April hearing, the question was raised as to whether this arrangement would be satisfactory, particularly given the location of these lots in an area of extreme fire hazard. As noted during the public hearing, the Wildland Fire Safety Report will establish minimum acceptable water pressures at fire hydrants upon which tract approval will be contingent. These minimums may be achieved through various means (including on-site pump and pressure tank systems), provided that performance meets established standards. In reexamining fire safety, new emphasis was placed on the importance of measures to maintain fire protection throughout the life of the tract. As a result, a new mitigation measure has been added (measure #50), to ensure proper maintenance of fuel modification plans, to prohibit future uses and materials that might compromise fire safety, and to articulate responsibility for ensuring that these steps are taken. Mitigation Plan Finally, as is evident in the attached Mitigation Plan, a number of revisions have been made in response to written comments submitted by Leeona Klippstein. In addition to completion of the focused biological surveys described above, modifications include (a) a new requirement that all drainage be directed into the Almond Interceptor Channel (eliminating the previously proposed culvert draining into Cucamonga Canyon Wash), (b) clarification that SOPA certification standards, as well as procedures outlined by the Native American Heritage Society, shall apply to archaeologists working on this site, (c) stronger measures to ensure protection of native coast live oak trees, and (d) a requirement that buffer setbacks, fencing and signing to protect Cucamonga Canyon Wash be in place prior to the start of grading. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 COMPREHENSIVE MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING PLAN June 1992 PURPOSE This document provides a complete listing of all mitigation measures recommended for adoption if the City of Rancho Cucamonga approves the proposed Tentative Tract 14475. For each measure, this Monitoring Plan also identifies the agency (or agencies) responsible for implementation, and designates the project phase during which each measure is to be implemented. The format and content of this Mitigation Plan comply with State Public Resources Code Section 21086.6, which requires Lead Agencies to monitor and report on the implementation of adopted mitigation measures. ADOPTION OF MITIGATION ~ As part of its deliberations concerning the proposed 77 14475 project, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga will be required to consider adoption of mitigation measures. If the Planning Commission approves the project, it will be necessary for the City to specify which of these measures are to be formally incorporated into the project. The current Mitigation Implementation and Monitoring Plan contains all measures recommended as of 9 June 1992. The mitigations itemized in this section include measures described in the Draft Subsequent EIR for 77 14475, as well as measures developed in response to comments on the Draft EIR and later during public hearings on the Final EIR. A total of 60 measures are suggested, covering a wide variety of subjects that range from fire safety to biological resource protection. MONITORING AND REPORTING Upon project approval, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will be responsible for ensuring that adopted mitigation measures are actually implemented during project design and construction, as well as subsequent operation and maintenance. City staff will be responsible for ensuring that mitigations are enforced and will also be responsible for reporting to the Planning Commission regarding progress in implementing these measures. Reports shall be made as often as needed, but no less than annually until all measures are complete. The Planning Commission will be responsible for adopting the mitigation implementation and monitoring plan, considering the reports and determining the adequacy of the implementation effort. DEED RESTRICTIONS Note that this Mitigation Program contains requirements for deed restrictions. The restrictions address three subjects, including the status of Big Tree Road as a public access into th.e National Forest; notification of site inclusion in an area of high-to-extreme fire hazard; and restrictions on residents' household pets and use of off-road vehicles to protect the Cucamonga Canyon Wash. 1 MITIGATION MEASURES LANDFORM AND TOPOGRAPHY 1. Project implementation shall comply with all grading provisions contained within the City's adopted Hillside Development Regulations. These regulations provide standards for revegetation of slopes, limitations on earthwork during the rainy season, setbacks for slope maintenance, slope ratios, areas of cut and fill, allowed fill depths, use of retaining walls, and other standards. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Grading Permit 2. Project implementation shall comply with all relevant standards from the Uniform Building Code pertaining to earthwork, grading, erosion control, soil compaction and other standards. These standards shall also apply to the selection, storage and maintenance of equipment used in grading and associated internal and off-site haul routes. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Grading Permit 3. As part of the submittal to the City for a Grading Permit, the applicant shall provide an approved erosion control and silt retention plan. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Grading Permit 4. In the event that cut and fill volumes are not balanced on site, the applicant shall submit to the City a plan describing haul routes for off-site disposal of excess cut materials. This plan shall be approved by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Grading Permit 5. Any permits, approvals and environmental review required for construction of domestic water facilities shall be provided separately by Cucamonga County Water District. Responsible Agency: Cucamonga County Water District Implementation Timing: Prior to Approval of Projects to Construct Additional Facilities 6. In the event that any earthwork is proposed to occur within the Cucamonga Canyon Wash flood control easement, the applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the San Bernardino County Transportation/Flood Control Department. Responsible Agency: San Bernardino County Transportation/Flood Control Department Implementation Timing: If required, Encroachment Permit to be obtained from the County prior to City of Rancho Cucamonga issuance of Grading Permit. 2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Faulting 7. No human-occupancy structures shall be built within the seismic exclusion zone. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Building Permit 8. Project design shall conform with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code requirements as well as the recommendations of the Structural Engineers Association for mitigation of seismic shaking. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Building Permit 9. A numerical coefficient of 1.0 shall be utilized for site-structure resonance. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Building Permit 10. As required by the Hillside Development Regulations, a statement shall be provided on the deeds informing homebuyers that the site is in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone and subject to potential seismic hazards. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Certificates of Use and Occupancy Soils 11. Project implementation shall comply with all measures identified in the Geotechnical and Geological Investi_~ation. Sky_line Phase III report prepared by Richard Mills Associates, Inc. including the requirement that final plans be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant to ensure that changes and revisions are made where necessary. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Grading Permit 12. Grading shall be performed in accordance with all applicable City of Rancho Cucamonga requirements. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Grading Permit 13. Building pad areas extending 5 feet beyond the exterior footings shall be undercut 1.0-foot below the bottom of the proposed footings. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Building Permit 14. Oversize earth materials shall not be placed within 10-feet of finish grade without approval of the geotechnical consultant. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Grading Permit 3 15. Setbacks from the top of the cliff shall utilize a 1.5 to 1 slope configuration, plus a 150-foot building setback from the top of the bank of Cucamonga Creek.' Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Grading Permit 16. Fill slopes of 2 to 1 ratio shall not exceed 40-feet in height without geotechnical review and approval. All fill over cut slopes shall be cut back one full equipment width into the firm underlying soil layers and constructed as compacted fill slopes. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Grading Permit 17. A slope maintenance program shall be developed and implemented to control erosion and debris flows. The program shall include on-going rodent controls to minimize the slope- weakening effects of rodent-burrowing. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Grading Permit 18. Footings with a minimum width of 12-inches and placed a minimum of 12-inches below the lowest adjacent grade shall have a soil-bearing value of 1800 pounds per square foot. This value may be increased by 20% for each additional foot of width or depth to a maximum value of 3000 pounds per square foot. Reinforcement of footings for soil expansion is not required. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Grading Permit 19. Soils engineering observation and testing shall be conducted upon completion of clearing and grubbing, during excavation and over-excavation in alluvial soil areas, during all phases of rough grading, and when any unusual conditions are encountered during grading. A final soils engineering report shall be submitted to the City upon completion of grading. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Monitoring during Project Grading, and Report Submittal on Completion of Grading HYDROLOGY 20. TT 14475 drainage improvements shall conform to all standards established by the City for intercepting and conducting onsite and offsite tributary flows around or through the site to the Almond Interceptor Channel, including adequate protection for adjacent and downstream properties. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Grading Permit 21. Drainage improvements shall conform with all requirements established by the San Bernardino County Transportation/Flood Control Department. Responsible Agency: San Bernardino County Transportation/Flood Control Department Implementation Timing: If required, during Review of Maps and Plans, and as part of Encroachment Permit 4 22. The portion of the site within the Cucamonga Creek drainage shall be covered by an adequate City drainage easement. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Grading Permit 23. A minimum 150-foot building setback shall be established from the top of the bank of Cucamonga Creek. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Grading Permit 24. A stringent program of slope and erosion control shall be undertaken by the developer to prevent damage to the site and downstream properties during heavy storm runoffs, especially during construction. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Grading Permit 25. A permit shall be obtained from the County of San Bernardino in the event project implementation will require encroachment onto Flood Control Department right-of-way. Responsible Agency: San Beruardino County Transportation/Flood Control Department Implementation Timing: If required, prior to Initiation of Earthwork inside the County Right-of-Way. 26. CULTURAL RESOLrRCES 27. A ~F~uali~ed archaeologist shall monitor brush-clearing and earth-moving operations in the vicinity of SBr-3004, and shall determine the area to be so monitored. In the event that monitoring yields evidence of archaeological resources, the archaeologist shall evaluate the significance of the resources. If deemed appropriate on the basis of this evaluation, the archaeologist shall develop a mitigation program. shall be implemented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga (or its contractors), and funded by the project applicant. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Grading Permit 28. Regardless of the outcome of the mitigation measure above, the following additional steps shall be undertaken as developed by the Native American Heritage Commission: a) In the event of discovery of human remains, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the San Bernardino County Coroner has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10 of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code, that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27491 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law, and recommendations concerning the disposition of such remains have been made to the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. The Coroner shall make a determination within two working days from the date of notification. b) If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and also recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission by telephone within 24 hours. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: During Grading and Construction 29. Concurrent with the application for a grading permit, the applicant shall propose suppression measures for fugitive dust in accordance with City of Rancho Cucamonga Building Code requirements. These measures shall be incorporated as conditions of the grading permit. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Grading Permit BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 30. The applicant shall comply with all provisions regarding landscaping as provided in the City's adopted Hillside Development Regulations, ~j~!~ii~i~i~i~:~~iiiii~iii!~iiiii!i!i!~iiiiii~i!!~~i.!!~:i:ii~ Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Recordation of Tentative Tract Map Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Grading Permit 32. Measures shall be taken to minimize entry of construction sediments into drainages. Hydroseeding shall be practiced with use of rapid-developing, soil-anchoring groundcover and the strategic placement of runoff-retaining structures. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Grading Permit accomplished on all graded and cut and fill areas where structures or improvements are not constructed. Preference shall be given to the use of drought-adapted, fire-retardant plant materials, especially species native to the southern California foothills. Use of these materials shall be contingent on availability of seed stocks and approval of appropriate fire management agencies. If landscaping requires irrigation for growth, consideration shall be given to the use of water injection systems. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Building Permit 34. The Homeowners' Association for TF 14475 shall be responsible for ensuring that all on- and off-site open space areas are buffered in a manner to discourage encroachment by residents. Measures shall include but not be limited to (1) fencing off the sandy wash to discourage off- road vehicles and other human use of this area; and (2) posting of interpretive signs at the wash edge to educate residents about the sensitivity of this habitat for plants and animals. The Homeowners' Association shall be resporsible for posting all trails with signs stating that no riding is permitted off of project trails, off of Big Tree Road, or in the Cucamonga Canyon Wash. Trail systems shall be designed to protect these areas from human use, the enforcement of which shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners' Association as well as the City, and shall not terminate at the boundaries of open space areas. The applicant shall incorporate, and the Homeowners' Association enforce, deed restrictions that regulate the management of household pets and the operation of motorized off-road vehicles. Responsible Agencies: City of Rancho Cucamonga; Homeowners' Association Implementation Timing: Recordation of Tentative Tract Map, and On-Going. 35. Night lighting shall be screened from intrusion into open space areas by means of restricted placement, and/or low-intensity bulbs, and/or low elevation and hooded standards, and/or shielding by internal silvering of the glove or external opaque reflectors. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Certificates of Use and Occupancy ON-SITE AND SURROUNDING LAND USES 36. The City shall require the applicant to revise the internal trail system to eliminate discontinuous trail termini along the National Forest boundary, and shall consider an integrated loop trail along the project perimeter. The backbone trail along Cucamonga Canyon Wash shall be fenced on both sides, and pulled back aFFr0xlm---te,;;,' 15 to, 25 a rainim~iii0~!i~5 feet from the top of the canyon wall. Responsible Agencies: City of Rancho Cucamonga; Homeowners' Association Implementation Timing: Grading Permit. ........................................................ 37. The applicant shall submit to the City a recorded property line survey showing all boundaries along the northerly property boundaries as prepared by a licensed land surveyor. Corners shall be monumented in accordance with State law. Any lots having a common line with the National Forest shall have that line permanently and visibly posted and monumented. As indicated in correspondence from the Forest Service, the current site plan would require posting only along the north line of Lot B. This survey shall also determine the status of the three private parcels on the northern site boundary (parcels 200-051-08,200-051-09, and 200- 051-12). If appropriate based on survey findings and an analysis of the buildability of the lots, additional mitigation measures shall be developed to assure that these parcels do not become landlocked as a consequence of TT 14475 implementation. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Grading Permit RELEVANT PLANNING 38. The project proposal shall be considered by the Grading Review Committee, the Technical Review Committee. the Trails Advisory Committee, and the Design Review Committee for consistency with the City General Plan and Development Code (including the Hillside Development Regulations). Requirements developed through these reviews shall be incorporated as conditions of project approval and implemented by the applicant, Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Grading Permit 39. During these reviews, it is recommended that the City give close attention to the following areas to ensure consistency with relevant plans: (1) layout of streets and residences to maximize access to solar energy; (2) circulation system design to utilize split roadways and shared driveways; (3) building heights and envelopes that comply with Hillside Regulation standards; (4) trail locations and termini that respond to conservation goals expressed by the Forest Service and project biologists; (5) facilities for parking, security and screening to accommodate public use of Big Tree Road; (6) compliance with fill depth requirements and retaining wall heights; (7) pad placement on Lots #40, 48, 49, 53, 54, 62, 66 and 67 to reduce grading requirements; and (8) pad placement on lots adjacent to Cucamonga Creek (particularly Lot 11) to ensure compliance with the 150-foot building setback from the top of Cucamonga Creek. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Grading Permit TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 40. The current sunrise-to-sunset closure of Forest Road 1N34 and Party Point will be maintained by both the City and the Forest Service to preclude resumption of illegal uses. The City shall coordinate with the Forest Service regarding potential impac~ of the project on these agreements,' and the City shall in turn coordinate with the applicant regarding any actions required on the part of Sahama Investments or future residents of TT 144'75 to ensure that the closures are enforced. Responsible Agencies: City of Rancho Cucamonga; U.S. Forest Service Implementation Timing: Prior to Project Approval (communication); On-going (enforcement of closure) 8 41. Any use of, modification to, encroachment onto, relocation of, or impacts upon the Forest Road 1N34 (Big Tree Road) will require advance coordination with the Forest Service. Responsible Agencies: City of Rancho Cucamonga; U.S. Forest Service Implementation Timing: Grading Permit 42. The deeds to all lots within TT 14475 shall clearly notify buyers of the status of Big Tree Road as a public passageway pursuant to Federal Law, and contain clear notification of potential exposure to noise, traffic and public visitation resulting from this legal access. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Certificates of Use and Occupancy 43. To partially mitigate the cumulative adverse impacts associated with increased development along the National Forest boundary, the City shall invite the Forest Service to prepare an environmental handout that addresses public use and adjacent residential issues in an informational and educational manner. The City shall require the developer to provide a copy of this handout to all new property owners within the 7I' 14475 project. Responsible Agencies: City of Rancho Cucamonga; U.S. Forest Service Implementation Timing: Grading Permit (Invitation) and During Home Sales (Handout Distribution) ,14. The City and the U.S. Forest Service shall take the following measures to reduce conflicts between recreational and residential interests: (1) maintaining the connection to Big Tree Road at "D" Street to reduce the distance recreational vehicles must travel in the tract; and (2) posting "No Recreational Vehicle Parking" signs within IT 14475 where necessary. Additionally, the City and the U.S. Forest Service shall consider erecting a protective barrier along segments of Big Tree Road that adjoin TT 14475 residential lots. Such barrier shall be placed and designed in conjunction with Forest Service consultation. Responsible Agencies: City of Rancho Cucamonga; U.S. Forest Service Implementation Timing: Grading Permit (connection to Big Tree Road and protective barriers); Certificates of Use and Occupancy (signs) 45. Consistent with General Plan requirements for private roads, the City Engineer shall review and approve the final site plan. The plan shall provide security gates at all points of entry; maintenance and operation costs shall be borne solely by project homeowners. If a public circulation system is provided, project roads will be revised to conform fully with City standards for public roads. During design review, the City will determine whether the circulation system complies with relevant fire protection standards and will incorporate modifications, if required based on this review. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Recordation of Final Map PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Fire Protection 46. All standards of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District shall be implemented. Additionally, the applicant shall retain a wildland fire consultant during project design (see measure #50). Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Grading Permit 47. All proposed development shall satisfy the structural fire protection standards contained in the most recent adopted edition of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Building Permit 48. Fire protection water systems and fire hydrants necessary to serve the project within the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District's minimum response time shall be in place and operational prior to delivery of materials for building construction. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Building Permit 49. Recommendations contained in the 1991 Phase One ~!:i!ii~iii~iiiii!ii Wildland Fire Safety Reports for the project shall be implemented. The Phase Two report shall be completed prior to final map recordation. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Recordation of Final Map 10 51. Dead-end streets that are to be extended at a future date shall be designed as temporary culs- de-sac to ensure adequate turn-around diameters for emergency vehicles. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Recordation of Final Map Police Services 52. Clearly marked house numbers shall be incorporated into project design standards. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Building Permit 53. The San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department shall be consulted prior to project implementation to assess the need for additional department personnel and equipment, and to obtain information on crime prevention measures that can be incorporated into project design. Responsible Agencies: City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department Implementation Timing: Building Permit Water Supply 54. Domestic water storage and distribution facilities necessary to serve the project site shall be provided in accordance with CCWD requirements Responsible Agency: Cucamonga County Water District Implementation Timing: Issuance of Will Serve Letter 55. The project shall incorporate water conservation measures as required by state law, including but not limited to low-volume toilets, shower-heads and faucets, insulation of water lines in water recirculating systems, and plumbing materials and techniques. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Building Permit 56. On-site pump and pressure tank systems shall be provided for Lots 47 through 53 if required to ensure adequate water pressures Responsible Agencies: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Cucamonga County Water District Implementation Timing: Grading Permit 57. Access to Reservoir 7A shall meet with the approval of CCWD officials. Responsible Agencies: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Cucamonga County Water District Implementation Timing: Grading Permit 11 Wastewater 58. The proposed onsite sewage disposal system shall be reviewed and approved by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to project approval. This review will require that percolation tests be performed by the applicant to establish the suitability of on-site soils for septic leaching, and to determine if potential water quality impacts would result from use of an on-site septic tank system. Responsible Agencies: Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Grading Permit Schools 59. As required by state law, the applicant shall pay per unit fees for the funding of educational programs. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Implementation Timing: Grading Permit 60. Prior to recordation of the final map, a meeting shall be held between the City, school district officials and the applicant to determine whether additional assistance will be required to serve students generated by the TY 14475 project. Such measures, if needed, could include supplemental funding agreements or participation in a community facilities district to generate additional revenues for education. Responsible Agencies: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Alta Loma School District, Chaffey Joint Union High School District Implementation Timing: Recordation of Final Map Solid Waste No mitigation measures are required or proposed. 12 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14475, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 71 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 113 ACRES OF LAND IN THE HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS, LOCATED NORTH OF ALMOND AVENUE BETWEEN SAPPHIRE AND TURQUOISE STREETS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN| 200-051-07, 55, 56, AND 57. A. Recitals. (i) A Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report has been presented to this Commission in conjunction with the Commission's consideration of approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14475. (ii) The Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report referred to in this Resolution consists of that document (dated August 1991, and entitled "Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Proposed Tentative Tract No. 14475"), written comments on the draft report, written responses thereto submitted by the staff and consultant of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and testimony presented during hearings of the Planning Commission (conducted on June 12 and September 11, 1991) on the approval of said Tentative Tract Map insofar as that testimony pertained to environmental matters. The entirety of the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report is incorporated in this Resolution by this reference. (iii) On April 8, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing concerning the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and said public hearing was continued to allow for additional studies. (iv) On July 8, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing concerning the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and said public hearing was concluded prior to the adoption of this Resolution. (v) All legal prerequisites have occurred prior to the adoption of this Resolution. B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EIR FOR VTT 14475 - SAHAMA July 8, 1992 Page 2 2. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report has been prepared on the Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. and in accordance with the regulations promulgated thereunder. Further, that this Commission certifies that it has considered the contents of the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report in considering the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 and that such Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report reflects the independent judgment of this Commission. 3. This Commission hereby finds that the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report does identify physical environmental impacts inherent in the project and that changes or conditions have been incorporated in the project which mitigate or avoid all significant environmental effects thereof. 4. This Commission hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program included as Section 8 of the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TM DAY OF JULY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of July 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 8, 1992 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner SUBJECT: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS - A residential subdivision and design review of 71 single family residences on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. Associated Tree Removal Permit No. 92-06. BACKGROUND: On April 8, 1992, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the subdivision design and building architecture for the 71 lots proposed at the northwest corner of the City. At this same meeting, the Con~nission received public con~nent on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that had been prepared in conjunction with the project. After considering the public input, the Commission continued the EIR to allow additional studies to be conducted. Because the EIR was not ready for certification, the tentative tract map was also continued. With concerns about the subdivision design, the Commission continued the tract map discussion to a workshop on May 27, 1992. ANALYSIS: During the Planning Commission workshop, a majority of the Commission felt that the subdivision design proposed by the applicant was not acceptable. The Commission noted that there were a number of environmental issues connected with the project and that the project submitted was not the most sensitive design to address these issues. With 1-acre lots, the Commission stated that the natural areas that were located within private yards would be eliminated as homeowners improved their property with pools, tennis courts, etc. The Con~nission has little control over these types of improvements. As a result, the Commission felt that alternative designs should be pursued by the applicant, such as the elimination of lots proposed at the northeast corner of the site because of the steepness of the terrain and the impacts that the driveway grading has on the terrain. It was also suggested that more natural open space should be provided throughout the project. Design suggestions included the use of larger lots (i.e. 2 to 5 acres) within the upper mesa, the use of smaller lots (i.e. 1/2 acre lots) in tighter clusters to maximize open space, combinations of smaller and larger lots, and the elimination of lots within the northern portion of the upper mesa. A complete account of the meeting is contained in the Draft Planning Con~nission minutes of May 27, 1992 (see Exhibit "C"). ITEM F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT V~T 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS April 8, 1992 Page 2 Following the workshop, staff had the opportunity to meet with the applicant to evaluate the project. The applicant feels that they have diligently responded to the requests of the Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission for modifications to the subdivision and building designs made prior to the workshop. At this point, the applicant feels that the design proposed addresses the previous comments and is the most sensitive to grading, open space, and the environmental issues. As a result, the applicant would like the opportunity to proceed with the plans submitted. RECOMMENDATION: Because the plans submitted do not reflect the comments made at the Planning Commission workshop of May 27, 1992, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 through adoption of the attached Resolution. Respect lly subm' d, er BB:SM:js Attachments: Exhibit "A" - April 8, 1992, Planning Commission Staff Report Exhibit "B" - April 8, 1992, Planning Commission Minutes Exhibit "C" - May 27, 1992, Draft Planning Conmlission Minutes Resolution of Denial ' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMuNGA DATE:April 8, 1992STAFF REPORT TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS - A residential subdivision and design review of 71 single family residences on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. Associated with this application is Tree Removal Permit No. 92-06. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Site Plan, Conceptual Grading Plan, and Building Elevations. B. Project Density: 0.6 dwelling units per gross acre 1.23 dwelling units buildable acre C. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - San Bernardino National Forest; County of San Bernardino South - Single Family Residential under construction and vacant; Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) East - Vacant; County of San Bernardino West - Vacant; County of San Bernardino D. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Very Low Residential ( less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space North - County of San Bernardino South - Very Low Residential East - Very Low Residential and Open Space West - County of San Bernardino E. Site Characteristics: A detailed description of the site is contained in the related Environmental Impact Report. The site is located in the northwest corner of the city and is the last developable parcel before entering the San Bernardino National Forest. The property slopes to the south/southwest, as evidenced by the on-site elevations that range from a high 2,910 feet in the northeastern corner to a minimum of 2,160 feet in the southwestern corner. Cucamonga Wash is a significant drainage area running north-south through the western portion of the site that represents a major landform feature. The bottom of the Cucamonga Wash is approximately 150 feet below the top banks. The canyon walls ace nearly vertical. PLANNING COMMISSION ST ~ REPORT VTT 14475 - SAHAMA IN~_~TMENTS April 8, 1992 Page 2 Another distinctive feature of the site is the escarpment that runs through from north to south through the project. It is likely that activity on the Cucamonga Fault, a portion of which has been identified within the project site, created the escarpment dividing the site into a lower and upper mesa. Prevailing slopes on the lower mesa range from 6 to 10 percent between the top of the Cucamonga Wash walls and the escarpment. East of the escarpment, on the upper mesa, the slopes range from 10 to 30 percent with slopes approaching 100 percent at the site's northeast corner. The area north of the project site is located within the San Bernardino National Forest. Access to the National Forest is maintained across the existing paved Big Tree Road located along the eastern project boundary. ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is proposing 71 single family lots averaging 0.86 acres (exclusive of streets and community trails). Twenty five of the lots will be located within the lower mesa and 46 lots will be located within the upper mesa. A street will be provided which bisects the escarpment in order to connect the upper and lower mesas. As a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, the applicant is also proposing the product type for the project. The applicant is proposing 5 floor plans ranging in size from 3,450 to 4,650 square feet in area. Each floorplan has two different building elevations · Building materials used on the units will consist primarily of stucco with stone (i.e. river rock, flagstone, etc. ), and concrete tile roofs. Colors proposed for all building materials are oriented towards earth tones in order to blend in with the natural environment as much as possible. Bright colors and glazed roof tile have been avoided. A series of lettered lots have also been provided within the development. These lots will set aside such items as natural open space areas, private streets (if approved), water reservoir sites, earthquake fault locations, and drainage areas. With the exception of those areas dedicated to public entities, maintenance of the open space lots will be conducted through the homeowners' association for the project. B. Desiqn Review Committee: This project has been reviewed by the Design Review Committee seven times over the past nine months. The direction of the Design Review Committee during these reviews has included the following: , 1. The customizing of the units/floorplans to fit the lot constraints (grading, views, orientation). 2. Reduction of the building mass - this includes the use of second floor steps consistent with the first floor, one-story elements at the front elevation (particularly on up-hill lots) , the use of slighter roof pitches on corner lots and adjacent to existing development s. PLANNING COMMISSION St ~ REPORT VTT 14475 - SAHAMA IN~_~TMENTS April 8, 1992 Page 3 3. The use of native/indigenous materials for use on exterior building elevations - the use of stucco and rock should be expanded while the use of brick and siding should be minimized. 4. Variations in site plan to minimize the location of units within the steep portions of the northeast corner of the site. Following the various Design Review Committee meetings, the applicant has provided revised plans to address the Committee's concerns. As a result, many of the issues/concerns raised during the Design Review Committee meetings have been addressed in the revised plans. There are, however, a couple of items which have not been incorporated. These items include the following: 1. Native landscape materials should be used, where possible, on all slopes to be landscaped. The plant species should be coordinated with any requirements of the Wildland Fire Study prepared for the project. 2. The retaining wall along the water tank access road should be treated to blend in with the natural area. 3. The applicant should continue to work with staff on further refinements to the grading plan to create a more natural and less manufactured appearance. 4. To accommodate the Community Trail on the north side of Street "C", three 5-foot retaining walls, with decorative finish, should be used to take up the grade. While the existing grade in this area is approximately 2: 1, the Committee felt that the retaining wal 1 approach would be more desirable than grading a 2: 1 slope. The Committee felt that a graded slope would never appear natural. Because these items have not been addressed in the revised plans, appropriate conditions of approval have been provided in the Design Review Resolution. C. Technical Review Committee: During the various technical reviews of the project, there remains two major items of contention - the streets within the project should be public and the tentative map should be revised to dedicate trails and streets consistent "with City policy and requirements. While efforts have been made to address these issues, the following comments should be considered by the Planning Commission: 1. Public versus Private Streets: Over the past few years, much discussion has surrounded the use of private streets and their standards for construction. On January 22, 1990, the City Council adopted a policy requiring all streets, whether public or private, to be 36 feet in width (measured from curb to curb) and that no cul- de-sac should exceed 600 feet in length. This policy was established to minimize conflicts with emergency access that have occurred in other projects within the City. PLANNING COMMISSION S' ~ REPORT VTT 14475 - SAHAMA IN~oTMENTS April 8, 1992 Page 4 The applicant is proposing to use private streets with a width of 36 feet from curb to curb within a 40 foot offer of dedication. While the Development Code does provide for the use of private streets, staff feels that public streets should be used for this project for the following reasons: a. Private Streets: Both the Development Code and the General Plan make provisions for the use of private streets within new developments. The policy of the General Plan suggests that the use of private streets should be limited to secured gated communities. While the developer would like to provide security gates for marketing purposes of the tract, no plans have been submitted indicating that gates will be installed. In addition, if gates are to be installed for the development, the existing public portion of Crestview Place (within Tract 10210 to the south), would need to be finished with a cul-de-sac bulb on Tract 14475 to provide a terminus of the public street and a transition to the private streets. By doing so, the existing portion of Crestview would be a cul-de-sac of approximately 1000 feet in length, well in excess of the 600 feet maximum established by the City Council policy. Additionally, the vacant land to the east of the project site, which has been master planned for an additional 28 lots, will only have one means of public access via Streets "D" and "E" to Skyline Road (See Exhibit "I"), b. Public Streets: If no gates are proposed for the development, the private streets would appear no different than any public street except for the parkway grading. With typical local streets, a 12-foot flat parkway is provided. Because of the hillside nature of the site, however, staff has agreed to some modifications to the standard parkway design. The flat portion of the parkway can be reduced from 12 feet to 7 feet along downhill lots and from 12 feet to 5 feet along uphill lots. This is consistent with the grading proposed for the development. As a result, no additional grading would be required for public streets. Regardless if private or public streets are used, staff recommends that a 60-foot wide offer of dedication be provided. This will allow utilities and street trees to be installed within the dedication as opposed to the cumbersome use of easements that would be necessary with a 40-foot wide dedication. In addition, should the homeowners association ever request the City to accept dedication of the streets, the dedication would be consistent with the standard right-of-way widths required by the City. Because staff does not know whether or not the Commission will allow the use of private streets, two Resolutions of Approval for the tract map have been prepared. The first Resolution allows for the use of private streets. The second Resolution requires the PLANNING COMMISSION S' ? REPORT VTT 14475 - SAHAMA IN~..~TMENTS April 8, 1992 Page 5 dedication of public streets. Again, staff recommends public streets for this project. 2. Tentative Tract Map: Through the various reviews on the project, the applicant has submitted a Vesting Tentative Tract Map that identifies the private streets and public Community Trails as easements over the proposed lots (See Exhibit "B" - Vesting Tentative Tract Alternative "A"). Under this scenario, the lot lines will extend to the center of the street and across the trails. While this approach is allowed under the Subdivision Map Act, it is inconsistent with City policies and requirements. Staff has requested that Vesting Tentative Tract Map Alternative "B" (See Exhibit "C") be submitted. Alternative "B" will dedicate the Community Trails to the City, show the streets within an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City, deed remnant parcels as Open Space lots to the homeowners' association for maintenance, and dedicate Big Tree Road to the National Forest Service. This alternative is consistent with City policies and requirements and should be used as a basis of approving the project. Conditions contained within the Resolutions are related to Alternative "B". While the public street and tentative map design comprise the major issues connected with the project, there is one secondary issue which was also raised by the Technical Review Committee - the provision for sidewalks within the development. With previous projects in the rural/equestrian area, it has been the Planning Commission's policy to require sidewalks only on one side of the street. During the Design Reviews for the project, a suggestion was made by the Committee that sidewalks be eliminated within the project in order to provide a street section that is as unobtrusive as possible. As noted in the September 12, 1991, memo from the Traffic Engineer (See Exhibit "J"), sidewalks should be reinstated on at least one side of the primary street through the project for pedestrian safety because of the grades and curvature of the streets. If the Commission feels that sidewalks are appropriate within the development, they will be located adjacent to the curb (6 foot wide) with the slope on downhill lots beginning two feet behind the sidewalk. This will increase the flat parkway width to 8 1/2 feet along downhill lots and 6 1/2 feet along uphill lots. If, however, the Planning Commission feels that sidewalks need not be provided for the development, staff suggests that the existing sidewalk on Skyline Road (within Tract 10210 to the south) be extended up Skyline Road and on one side of Streets "D" and "E" to serve the future development to the east. The existing sidewalk on Crest View Place shall end at the entrance to the project site. D. Trails Advisory Committee: The Trails Advisory Committee has reviewed the application four times prior to the Planning Commission hearing. Through these various reviews, the Trails Committee has required the installation of a Community Trail around the perimeter of the project and local trails within the project to serve the various lots. The most PLANNING COMMISSION S" ~ REPORT VTT 14475 - SAHAMA IN~jTMENTS April 8, 1992 Page 6 recent review by the Trails Committee was conducted on February 19, 1992. At that time, the Committee noted that previous comments have been incorporated into the plan with exception of the following items which have been included as conditions of approval: 1. The Community Trail on the north side of Street "C" should be extended to Skyline Road. 2. The Community Trail on the west side of Lot 30 should be redesigned to eliminate slopes in excess of 15 percent. 3. The local trail between Lots 30 and 31 should be deleted. 4. The local trail between Lots 67 and 68 should be realigned to intersect Skyline Road at the intersection with Street "C". 5. The local trail on the north and east side of Lot 71 should be deleted. 6. The local trail across Lots "F" and 70 should be deleted. In order to provide access to the rear of Lot 70, an area should be graded on the north side of the garage of sufficient width to. permit vehicle passage. 7. Water bars should be provided on all north-south trails to minimize erosion. E. Tree Removal Permit No. 92-06: In conjunction with the subdivision application, the applicant has submitted a Tree Removal Permit application requesting the removal of 34 Eucalyptus trees located along the base of the escarpment. Of the 34 trees, 13 are already dead, 17 are infected with the Eucalyptus borer beetle, and 3 are suffering from drought stress. In addition to the poor physical condition of the trees, the trees are located in line with street and Community Trail improvements. Based on the information provided, staff feels that the request is reasonable. Replacement planting will be required as a condition of approval. The two remaining Eucalyptus, located on the western portion of the lower mesa, will be preserved in place. Fencing will be provided around the trees prior to commencement of grading to protect the trees. F. Environmental Assessment: In completing the Environmental Assessment, staff noted that a previous Environmental Impact Report (EIR) had been prepared and certified for the subject site. In comparing the EIR with the current project, staff noted several changes in the Development Code that were not in place at the time of the previous EIR. As a result, staff required a subsequent EIR to be prepared for the site. (See Staff Report for Environmental Impact Report for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 for complete information. ) If the Planning Commission certifies the adequacy of the EIR, the environmental document should then be used in evaluating Vesting Tentative Tract 14475. PLANNING COMMISSION St ~ REPORT VTT 14475 - SAHAMA IN~oTMENTS April 8, 1992 Page 7 FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The project is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The project, with the mitigation measures outlined in the Environmental Impact Report, will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, or cause nuisances or significant adverse environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed use and site plan, together with the recommended conditions of approval, are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Development Code and City Standards. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper as a public hearing, the site was posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the site. RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission certifies the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing on the proposed subdivision and design review. After concluding the public hearing, the Planning Commission should determine whether private or public street should be provided for the development and adopt the appropriate Resolution of Approval. Additionally, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approved the Design Review for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 and Tree Removal Permit 92-06 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval. Resp ~ .lanner BB:SM:js Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Tentative Tract Map Alternative "A" Exhibit "C" - Tentative Tract Map Alternative "B" Exhibit "D" - Site/Grading Plan Exhibit "E" - Building Elevations Exhibit "F" - Slope Analysis Map Exhibit "G" - Master Plan Exhibit "H" - General Plan Text Excerpt Exhibit "I" - Area Access Plan Exhibit "J" - Traffic Engineer Memo (dated September 12, 1991) EXhibit "K" - Tree Location Plan Exhibit "L" - Letter from Art Bridge Resolution of Approval for Tract Map (with private streets) Resolution of Approval for Tract Map (with public streets) Resolution of Approval for Design Review 4 / :~ ,/ ---,,/, .... ,, .; ,t "-:: -C ,,, I RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION $C:I/8'-- 1'-O" REAR ELEVATION , / ', ----"" """" 't~ '~ LEFT SIDE ELEVATION : ~ C]Dn 37 RIGHT SIDE ELEV A TION REAR ELEVATION LEFT SIDE ELEV A TION RIGHT SIDE ELEV A TION SC:1/1'-1'-0' REAR ELEV A TION LEFT SIDE ELEV A TION OE]E3 .~ 000 ~ OOF9 _o OOF9 ~ 0 LEFT SIDE ELEVATION SC:~I/I~I'-O° REAR ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEV A TION LEFT SIDE ELEVATION IC:1/8'.,1'-0' REAR ELEV A TION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION Private Street Standards. Pdvate streets may be desirable in new developments where they would enhance neighborhood identification, provide forcontrol of access and where special overall design concepts may be involved. To insure thatthese street designs are constructed in a manner which will not create emergency access traffic hazards or future maintenance problems the following standards should be applied in approvals: - The use of pdvate streets should be limited to secured secudty gated communities. - Private streets should be permitted only ... where a means satisfactory to the City Council is provided for their majntenance and operation with an irrevocable offer of dedication. The design of all pdvate streets shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer; and the construction inspected by the Engineering Division, with a standard improvement inspection fee. I~- 27 n UCAMONGA IITEM: VTT NING-DMSION TITMS: F- L - EXHIBrT:/f" SCALE: ITY OF .... UCAMONGA TITLE:/I:)R~F,~ /I:)~l~£,~,~ :N : PLANNING--DMSION = EXHIBIT: .Z SCALE: I'Jz/t:)DD tl m CITY OF RANCHO CUCAN. .qGA -"' MESIORANDU1H 5-. DATE: Saptember 12, 1991 TO: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner FROM: Paul A. Rougeau, Traffic Engineer/?fl/~ SUBJECT: DRC meeting of September 19, 1991 - SAHAMA INV. This project is being reconsidered by the DRC at this meeting, and it has been noted that the Con~nittee recommended elimination of sidewalks on all streets at its meeting in June. It is strongly recon~nended that a sidewalk be re-tnstated on at least one side of the primary street through the project for pedestrian safety. In this development, grade and curvature of the streets subject pedestrians to more exposure to traffic than normal. It is imperative that pedestrians be provided a safe refuge from through traffic on the public streets. The lower part of this subdivision will provide access to the National Forest and will carry considerable outside traffic. Please stress to the Con~nittee that pedestrian safety should always be considered an essential feature of any residential area. Such a consideration should be a part of this project. PAR:sd cc: Joe O'Neil Betty Miller CITY OF ~(~fC~".~-'UCAMONGA ITEM: V TT I ~ ~ 7,,~ PLANM'NG~. D~SION Trrl.f:_~lks'ld/llt! L EXHIBrr: I,,,/ SCALE: ':!,'TY rD-': -:;'5 ':!JIi;,MONGA PL,AN!',!I',;G D~V],~ION R O :!. Arthur H. a'r ~dge /.!4 ~3215 Banion Street A!ta Uoma~ California 91'01 Apt i i i, ! 908 Larry McNet I, Chairman Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga, Caiifornia 91730 RE: TT !~475: Sahama Investments~ Inc. Dear Mr. McNeil and Members of the Commission, Sahama investments {TT 14475) is expected to come before the Planning Com- mission on April 8~ 1998 for a hearing to consider action on its Environmental impact Report. it is stated that the Planning Staff recommends approval of ~his EIR. It is reported that this certification will be granted on grounds of in- vestment of time and money in the process so far. If this appro,,al indeed takes place, we as owners of the property directly south of this project, wish to suggest several design considerations: 1. The equestrian trail on the southern boundary of the pro~ect site is elevated to some degree above our property on the south. This elevation will it, fringe on the privacy of future property owners c,n the south, even if future development there provides for a six foot wall along the northern perimeter. Suitable irregated landscaping outside the trail fencing would help to miti.~ate this pro, blare. In addition, an open view of the backyards of Lots 1 to 5 from future home owners on the south is far from desirable. Homeowners on these lots can be ex- pected to erect a variety of walls and barriers north of the trail fencing. Could this become the eyesore experienced in other locations? For large, expen- sive homes such as these are projected to be, would not a meandering trail, ~a'led on the north and andstaped on both sides be a true amenity to the en:i,-e tract? 8. A dirt utility road continues north from the Cucamonga County District reservoir 5A (just north of the western terminus of Almond Stree~.~ t.:. the southeast corner of TT 1~75 (at Lot 5). This has been used it, ,-ecent · years by both dirt bikers and horse riders. A strong barrier should be estab- lished at this point to prevent trespassing down this road from the eques~,-ia,- trail. Perhaps CCWD should be consulted on this point. 3. The drainage from Lots 17 to 5 flows directly down a pipe 1,-,t:, Cucamonga Wash just above this point within TT 1A~95. Adequate s~fec.~arz~ should be provided at this point to protect children, {adults?), animals. ,-~c~s. trash, etc. from dropping down the pipe to the floor of the Wash. 4. The "Seismic Exclusion Zone" (p80) shows an earthquake fault -',-,:m to wes~ ~hich ends at Lot D. .:Does it go underground?) A geological s~,d~ by Moore and Tabor for the property to the south shows this same fa.~[~ ~ ~.,e: however, it does not end. Rather, the fault line continues it, a straig-,' to the south west, through Lots 83.88, 81, 5, and 6 and across the _. corner of the ~outhern property. The Moo, re & Tabor study included s:es.::-- soundings while the Saha,na stuOy used only t,-enching. !n addition, Moore and Ta~er identified these faults during a seismoiogical study for the Cucamo,-:ga County Water District and again by a subsequent stud~/fo.,- ourselves. As a mat- ter c,f the safety of future home owners of those lots, should not this dis- crepancy be seriously analyzed? 5. s~ the ~ Forest Service letter suggested, street lights and lights open spaces sr.c,u!d be adequately screened not only ;.~ithin the tract but also F':-c,m surrounding ro erties. P P ~. Structures should take advantage of the c, utstanding view both to the north arid to t~e south. Buildings should be planned to avoid obstructing this ~iew, ~.ot only within the property but also to surrounding properties. We ap- preciate the fact that the heights of the homes has been reduced to twenty- eight feet. ?. The homeowners' association agreements should :~ake stro-ng provisions fc, r high quality trail and open space ~;aintenance and for continuous fire protection practices. The response time for the Fire District is stated to ~e seven minutes. In high wind periods, the District could be too busy. Perhaps internal fire p:-otection measures could be included in the homeowners agree- ments. TT 14495 is in an exceptionally beautiful location. The architectural designs are for spacious and expensive homes. This site promises to be a choice place to live. It will be a nice tract and a nice neighborhood. On the other hand, it cc, uld be so much more -- a true jewel in the crown of Rancho Cucamonga. Each of the Planning Commissioners have become aware of our ~,opes for the twenty acre parcel to the south. Our original pla~qs were for ~our lots of fi,,e acres earn. As we became aware of the increasing off-si~e provements we would be required to provide because of the traffic prc, jections baseO on the density projections of two homes per acre, we had to i=:crease sity crn our plan to ten lots in order to cover the increased on and c.{f-site i-equirements the City has added. Thus we have asked for a density of one he!me per two acres; we would prefer a ratio of one to three. We are extremely disappointed that the City has ~:ot seen the opportunit'x in its master planning to plan and protect this extremely fragile and ~eautifui mesa. There are on going, expensive but laudable attempts to preser,.e the City's historic homes. However, it is regretable that the rare opportunities for the c~-eation of unique land use designs have not been pursued while they were possible. We hope the City in the near future will protect with .higher standards the few remaining developable areas along the foothills in R.a::cno Cuc amonga. Sincerel'; yours, Arthur H. Br idge spring study only be on the lan! ~ct boundary excluding the wash area. said there were three Commissioners that ed that G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA i~//INVESTMENTS - A residential subdivision and design review of 71 singl~ family residences on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. Associated Tree Removal Permit No. 92-06. (Continued from March 25, 1992.) Chairman McNiel asked how the Commission should proceed with respect to Item G. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the Commission could not take any action to approve the project because the EIR was not approved, but he suggested that the Commission may wish to take testimony and make comments. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and noted that the Engineering Department had requested that sidewalks be included on one side of the streets. He noted that revised proposed conditions providing for sidewalks were in front of the Commissioners. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Steve Morton, Sahama Investments, 10700 Jersey Boulevard, #705, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they would like to wait until the spring study is completed before going into detailed comments regarding the project. He felt they had clustered the houses and noted they did not propose any development in the escarpment area and the fault zone and had dedicated natural open space to the north. He commented that the City had hired the consultant to do the EIR and they had done a lot of work to design the development to address concerns raised in the EIR and by the City. Commissioner Vallette asked how much open space was included in the proposal. Mr. Morton responded that there are preserving 40 acres out of the total 113 acres. Catherine Bridge, 8715 Banyan Street, Rancho Cucamonga, remarked that 17 acres being preserved is actually unbuildable wash. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Mr. Murphy asked if the Commissioners wished to make some comments on the design so that staff could further discuss those concerns with the Planning Commission Minutes -26- April 8, 1992 applicant. He noted that there had been some discussion that perhaps additional open areas should be preserved. Commissioner Melcher stated that since the project went through Design Review he had had an opportunity to study the land at greater length and listen and read at greater length about the environmental issues and he now questioned if the plan is supportable and whether the lot sizes are appropriate. Commissioner Chitiea felt she could not support the project as presented. She felt the tract should have public streets and the trails should be dedicated. Commissioner Tolstoy thought that after the EIR is updated, it may be found that there are some advantages in concentrating the density of the project in the more flat, mesa areas and trying to save some of the alluvial scrub as open space. He said that would reduce some of the disruption to the natural land form in the higher areas which would result in less soil erosion and a lesser fire hazard in the area. He said he could not comment until it is determined what habitat should be preserved. Commissioner Vallette felt that some of the issues brought up during the review of the EIR for the Etiwanda North area had made the Commissioners more aware of some of the concerns raised. She did not feel the present proposal reflects the direction spelled out in the EIR and she felt the applicant should be directed to guard the open areas, which may mean smaller lot sizes. She thought the site plan should reflect minimal street grading. She thought the subdivision proposal included more street than what the EIR suggested. She felt development should be pulled further away from the northeast quadrant because of fire hazards. She proposed more clustering of dwelling units and requested that close attention be paid to the view corridor from the south as well as the views from the new home sites so that each new home would have a view to the valley. She thought that may mean a reduction in unite. She thought Mrs. Bridges' questions regarding the relationship of the slope to the property to the south should be addressed and she felt the area should be more naturalized- She preferred that the whole area be kept as natural as possible without greenbelts or contrived slopes. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that if the lots are smaller with more of the north quadrant preserved, more grading would be required. Mr. Murphy noted that the EIR had indicated that with the 1/2 acre lots there would be more grading, but it would be within a confined area. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the proposed design calls for a minimal amount of grading and the proposed grading would appear more like the natural land form. He thought that if the units are moved down and concentrated, the mesa land form would be disrupted with more grading. Commissioner Vallette supported reducing the number of dwelling units to reduce the amount of grading. Planning Commission Minutes -27- April 8, 1992 Mr. Murphy remarked that with 1/2 acre lots there will be more grading within the clustered area even if the number of units is reduced. Commissioner Chitiea noted that even where extensive grading does not occur, extensive scraping often does occur because the natural habitat is removed to some distance away from the homes as required by the fire department. She said sometimes the land forms may not change, but the habitat still changes significantly. Commissioner Vallette favored Alternative Layout B from the EIR and the amount of open space it preserves. Chairman McNiel agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy that it is unknown until after reviewing the results of the spring study if there is anything salvageable that is significant unless the Commission feels the open space must be preserved anyway. He felt that perhaps other alternatives should be investigated. He noted that the applicant's proposal has the least effect on the natural terrain, but it consumes more ground. Commissioner Vallette noted that the larger lots also allow the individual homeowner to put in more buildings, such as horse barns, etc. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the applicant had worked to utilize minimal grading and had changed some of the grading so the area would appear like grading had not taken place. He felt the applicant had done a commendable job in that area. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that the Commissioners may wish to continue the matter to look at other options in a workshop setting. Commissioner Chitlea suggested it may be more appropriate to continue the matter until after results of the spring survey are known. Mr. Bullet did not feel the Commission needed to wait until after the survey. He recommended that the matter be continued to May 7. Mr. Murphy noted that the biologist had indicated the spring study needs to be done by May 1, and staff should have a verbal indication shortly after that as to what had been found. Chairman McNiel suggested that the matter be continued to May 7. He opened the public hearing to secure the applicant's consent. Mr. Morton consented to a continuance and to waive the time limits. Commissioner Chitlea stated she did not think she would be able to attend on May 7. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated he would be out of town. Planning Commission Minutes -28- April 8, 1992 Mr. Buller suggested that the meeting be held at 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 6. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to continue Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 to 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 6, 1992. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried no, to continue beyond 11:00 p.m. The .ng Commission recessed from 11:42 p.m. to 11:50 p.m. H. CONDi -06 - COUTS OII~ - A request to est a 1,170 square foot within an existing industrial park .38 acres of land in the Industrial District (Subarea 8) of Industrial Area Specific Plan, ed at 10700 Jersey Boulevard 700 - APN: 209-144-83. Steve Ross, Assistant Planner resented the stafl Chairman McNiel opened the public ring. were no public comments, and Chairman McNiel closed the hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy saw no parking c, s. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, sec by re, to adopt the resolution approving ConditionaX Use -06. Motion :led by the following vote: AYE S: COMMI S S I ONERS: MCN I EL, VALLETTE NOES: NONE ABSENT: COMMIS NONE -carried I. APPE; 91-47 - LOS ANGELES COUNTY ON CO~ - An appeal of conditions of approval ,requiring of 7 eucalyptus trees within the railroad right-of-way, d of Hellman Avenue directly north of 7518 Pepper Street - Planning Commission Minutes -29- April 8, 1992 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adj ourned Meeting May 27, 1992 Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 8:15 p.m. The meeting was held in the De Anza Room at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS - A residential subdivision and design review for 71 single family residences on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue, west of Sapphire Street - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. Scott MUrphy, Associate Planner, presented staff comments on the alternative site plans contained within the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the plan submitted by the applicant. Steve Morton, planning consultant for Sahama Investments, presented the applicant's response to the designs contained in the EIR. Mr. Morton also compared the project to the "Deer Creek" project located east of Milliken and noted that Deer Creek slopes roughly 8 percent whereas the project site slopes 15-18 percent. Prakash Sakrahney, Sahama Investments, indicated that the Deer Creek approach to grading would not be available and still meet the requirements for equestrian trails at the rear of each lot. Commission Vallette still had concerns about ~he number of units proposed in the northeast corner of the site, which is the steeper area o~ the site being developed. She thought there were too many driveways proposed, thereby creating an unattractive streetscape and the layout of units was not sensitive to the hillside nature of the location. Also, she felt a buffer/transition needs to be provided between the residences and the National Forest. She commented that having the northwest corner under private ownership may result in pools, tennis courts, and other amenities being installed by homeowners, thereby destroying the open space. Mr. Morton noted the revisions that had occurred to the project to address the hillside concerns. He said greater steps had been incorporated into the units to take up the grade of the site and different orientations of the units have been provided to take advantage of views to the valley and to the mountains. He suggested deed restrictions could be placed on the lots to ensure preservation of the open space within private property. Mr. Sakrahney commented that the alternatives in the EIR do not work. He said the revisions necessary to the EIR alternatives to provide secondary access would result in 12-foot manufactured slopes and only 18 acres of additional open space over the proposed site plan. Marlene Trunnell, 10112 Bel Air, Montclair, stated that a gnatcatcher, a sensitive species, had been sighted on the property the previous Saturday. Cynthia Allaire, 1246 West 7th Street, Pomona, stated that with all the comments received on the EIR, it appears that this area is not a safe place to live. Richard Arklin, P.O. Box 566, Whittier, expressed concern about the development. He felt that the only acceptable alternative was the "No Project" alternative. He said the area already has smog and school over-crowding problems and this project would add to these. He reported he had conducted a survey at Terra Vista Village and it indicated that 90 percent of the people surveyed thought there was too much development occurring in Rancho Cucamonga. Mr. Arklin went on to say that every canyon is sacred and animals have equal rights to the use of these areas. He read from an article in the Wall Street Journal about the number of endangered species now listed and the increase in the listings over the years. Commissioner Chitiea stated that this was a very pristine area and that, with the number of vacant houses in the City, there did not appear to be a demand for housing, especially the more expensive units. Additionally, she commented that lot sales have not been very successful. As a result, she saw no reason to "cut up" the pristine areas with houses. With the number of environmental issues that had been raised with this project, she felt that none of the alternatives contained in the EIR or those presented by the applicant were acceptable. She thought the City should set an example for the County in development of the foothill areas and she did not feel the proposal did that. Commissioner Melcher noted that, based on the slope diagram, development of the west mesa could possibly work. He noted that the slopes at the northeast corner of the site are much steeper and he felt development should not occur within that area. He suggested one solution might be to stop development 600 feet north of the connection to the lower mesa. Also, he thought 4- to 5-acre lots might be used within the upper mesa. P C Adjourned Minutes -2- May 27, 1992 F -5 t ['o1 Discussion PURPOSES ONL'. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that there were many problems connected with development on steep slopes. He agreed with Commissioner Chitiea's comments about the project. Commissioner Vallette commented that the City's consultant should explore an alternative utilizing all the criteria and comments submitted regarding the EIR (i.e., access, street grades, etc.). She thought the project needs to be more sensitive to the environment including, but not limited to, transition of density to the forest, provision of more open space, elimination/reduction of fragmented open space, and the use of native plant species during the landscaping of the project. She suggested one method of achieving these goals would be through a reduction in the number of units. Chairman McNiel felt that the site is a buildable parcel. He suggested that Commissioner Melcher's comments on site development may provide the best solution for what the land will allow to occur. He stated that the EIR adequately addressed the issue of habitat and the relationship to animal species and that the Commission should follow those recommendations. Commissioner Vallette asked Chairman McNiel if this development was appealing in the hillside area. Chairman McNiel responded that development can occur. He felt the project was acceptable as presented by the applicant. Commissioner Tolstoy expressed concern about the exposure of residents to issues of public safety (i.e., earthquakes, fire, etc.). Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the EIR is not designed to address every possible scenario. He said the EIR establishes the ground work for development by identifying areas of concern and i~dicating how these impacts might be lessened or eliminated. Chairman McNiel stated that the Commission appeard to have differing opinions on whether or not development should occur in this area and to what extent. He suggested that the Commission may wish to consider development with a limited number of units in the northeast corner of the site. Commissioner Melcher proposed that development occur on the lower mesa and that limited development be allowed on the upper mesa. Mr. Morton suggested that 1/2-acre lots could be provided on the lower mesa and larger lots on the upper mesa. Mr. Buller suggested that the west mesa be maintained as presented by the applicant but progressively larger lots should be provided on the east mesa. Also, from the discussion of the Commissioners, he thought the number of units should be reduced to address the environmental concerns. He indicated that because of the time constraints on the project, staff would work with the applicant on these issues for formal presentation to the Commission on July 8, 1992. P C Adjourned Minutes -3- May 27, 1992 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was recessed to the regular meeting at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet Secretary P C Adjourned Minutes -4- May 27, 1992 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14475, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AND DESIGN REVIEW OF 71 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 113 ACRES OF LAND IN THE HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS, LOCATED NORTH OF ALMOND AVENUE BETWEEN SAPPHIRE AND TURQUOISE STREETS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 200-051-55, 56, and 57. A. Recitals. (i) Sahama Investments has filed an application for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 14475 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter, the subject Vesting Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 25th day of March 1992, and continued to the 8th day of April 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. The application was continued to a Planning Commission workshop on May 27, 1992 to discuss design issues. (iii) On the 8th day of July 1992, 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. (iv) 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 March 25, April 8, May 27, and July 8, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located north of Almond Avenue, between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets, and the property is presently vacant. Big Tree Road, serving the San Bernardino National Forest, is located along the eastern tract boundary; and (b) The property to the north is located within the San Bernardino National Forest and is vacant. The property to the south is designated for residential uses and is being developed for single family homes PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VTT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS July 8, 1992 Page 2 and is vacant. The property to the east, located within the County of San Bernardino, is designated by the City's General Plan for residential and open space uses and is presently vacant. The property along the western boundary includes the Cucamonga Wash which is designated as Open Space; and (c) Many unique physical characteristics are present within the project boundaries. The Cucamonga Wash occupies the western acres of the site. The Cucamonga Wash bottom is approximately 150 feet below the top banks with the canyon walls approaching vertical. An escarpment runs through the site from north to south dividing the site into an lower and upper mesa. The slopes on the lower mesa range from 6 to 10 percent. The slopes on the upper mesa, east of the escarpment, range from 10 to 30 percent with slopes in the northeast corner approaching 100 percent. A portion of the Cucamonga Fault is located within the southern portion of the site. The site is visible from many areas of the City and contains many vistas; and (d) Vegetation on the site consists of coastal sage scrub, alluvial scrub, and several Eucalyptus trees; and (e) As contained in the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475, alternative subdivision designs were proposed that have less impact on the environment and were deemed to be environmentally superior to the application; and (f) The application proposes the creation of lots roughly one acre in area across the buildable portion of the site. With the National Forest to the north, the application does not provide a sufficient transition of density to the National Forest to provide adequate building setbacks and buffer to minimize disruption to the habitat of the forest; and (g) The application proposes locating residential units in the northeast corner of the site which encroaches into areas in excess of 15 percent slope. The combination of slope, building and driveway placement, street location and grading for the improvements results in an excessive amount of disruption to the natural terrain that is not consistent with the intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance; and (h) The application contemplates the development of 71 single family residences on 58 buildable acres (RCMA 17.24.080). The application proposes to locate the buildable area 'under private control and within individual parcels. By placing the buildable area under private control, the ability to retain the natural character of the site will be lost as residents improve their lots, resulting in consistencies with the intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance. Additionally, the natural habitat of plant and animal species will be lost; and (i) The application does not provide sufficient natural, uninterrupted open space areas to provide habitat and movement corridors for plant and animal species. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VTT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS July 8, 1992 Page 3 3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is not consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; and (b) The site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and (c) The design of the subdivision is likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby denies the application. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF JULY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of July 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: July 8, 1992 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS - A public hearing to comment on the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report prepared for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475, a residential subdivision and design review of 71 single family residences on ll3 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS - A residential subdivision and design review of 71 single family residences on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. Associated Tree Removal Permit No. 92-06. The attached three letters were received too late for inclusion in the staff reports for the July 8, 1992, Planning Commission meeting; however, their content should be considered in your deliberations. Sin ly, Buller Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Leeona Klippstein dated June 28, 1992 Exhibit "B" - Letter from Sahama Investments, Inc. dated June 30, 1992 Exhibit "C" - Letter from Department of Fish'and Game dated June 30, 1992 cc: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney Prakash Sakrahney, Sahama Investments ~N c Leeona Klippstein ~, ~,.~ Sagefriends '~ 1382 Wesley Avenue i-: i 191 1U1 i1121814 Pasadena, Cal i fornia 91104 June 28, 1992 City of Rancho Cucamonga c/o Bauer Environmental Services 2530 Red Hill Avenue Santa Aria, California 92705 re: Sahama tract project - Vesting Tent Tract 14475, Tree Removal Permit 92-06, and related certifications, permits and approvals State Clearinghouse Number 90 02 11 32 Dear Ms. Bauer, Mr. Scott Murphy, City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Ccm,miss{on and City Council: This letter supplements my letter to you of April 5, 1992. General Plan issues The projec~ is inconsistent with the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan/Open Space District. For example, at EIR page 37, ~he General Plan limits density in the open space district to one residencial unit per 40 acres. It also appears that the boundary between the open space district and hillside residential uses has not been defined. Also, the Coordinated Resource Management Planning Team ("CRMPT") Foothill Communities Protective Greenbelt Program indicates at EIR page 44 that the project is classified as Zone A and Zone B, Extreme and High Fire Hazards, and that the CRMPT recommends no development in this zone. Also, I am concerned about the lack of water pressure. The Planning Commission discussed this at its April 8, 1992 hearing, but I am not aware of any engineering or hydrology studies that clearly indicate sufficient water pressure. Also, at .page 44 the EIR states that the nearest United States Forest Service facility is located at Day Canyon. This is inaccurate; that facility burned down some years ago. Since Tentative Tract 14475 falls within the boundaries of both the City and the San Bernardino National Forest and is subject to mutual aid agreements between the Forest Service and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, this issue needs further inves~igaLicn. June 1992 SuPplemental Report to the Planninq Commission It is not clear that the City and project proponents wish to treat the June 1992 "Supplemental Report" as a Supplemental EIR, subject to the CEQA requirements of notice, comment and response to comment. Sioloq¥ issues In April, May and June 1992 I have discussed the biological surveys requested by the Planning Commission at the April 8 hearing, with City staff and consultants. To the date of this letter, I have not received a biotechnical report from Bauer Associates. What I have received is a June 1992 "Supplemental Report to the Planning Commission" with a focused survey on two species, the California Gnatcatcher and the San Diego Horned Lizard. The minutes of the April 8, 1992 hearing indicate that a spring survey on 70 sensitive species was to be done, not just a focused survey on two species. At page 6 paragraph 31, the June 1992 "Supplemental Report" states "(3) Natural drainages and grades around existing oaks shall not be altered, if possible" [emphasis added]. This vague statement does not constitute a mitigation measure, in violation of CEQA and other laws. Coastal saqe scrub habitat In my letter to you of April 5, 1992, I referenced a California Department Fish & Game letter dated 4/1/92. The 4/1/92 letter set forth a 2:1 replacement ratio for the rare Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. No mitigation for this loss is set forth in the June 1992 "Supplemental Report to the Planning Commission". Please note that I have contacted Fish & Game Plant Ecologist Mary Meyer at Scott Murphy's request; she is also waiting for the biotechnical report from a full spring survey to make comments. Soils At page 4 paragraph 17, the June 1992 "Supplemental Report" recommends development and implementation of a slope maintenance program. The only particular issue mentioned is "on-going rodent controls" There is no mention of the relationship between rodent control and impacts on raptors and other members of the biological community, such as the sensitive burrowing owls that use rodent holes. Hvdroloqy At page 5 paragraph 22, the June 1992 "Supplemental Report" references a City drainage easement. The general reference does not provide an adequate basis for assessment of environmental impacts. As currently proposed, this project will unavoidably and substantially alter the hydrology the existing alluvial fan ecosystem depends upon. The impacts are not adequately assessed, and no mitigations are proposed, in violation of CEQA and other applicable laws. Cultural resources At page 5 paragraph 27, the June 1992 "Supplemental Report" does not provide for suspension of grading until after a public hearing on mitigations, should archaeological or other cultural resources be discovered. Mayor Stout's letter to me of 5/27/92 Paragraph 3 of that letter states the project site is "south of the National Forest." In fact, the project site is a private inholding north of the Forest boundary, i.e. within the Forest. Paragraph 4 of that letter states that "[a]ccording to the City's biological consultant, no endangered or threatened species were found during the 1992 spring habitat survey." The Guidelines promulgated by the Natural Communities Conservation Planning {"NCCP") Scientific Review Panel ("SRP") recognizes some 35 animal and 61 plant species as sensitive in the coastal sage scrub habitat (see page 9). The 1992 focused survey only treated two species and did not provide a biotechnical report indicating whether other species were present or not. Therefore, I respectfully submit it is not accurate to characterize this 1992 effort as a "spring habitat survey." Thank you for the opportunity to comment further on the project. Please include this letter and my letter of April 5, 1992 part of the administrative record. Please give me written notice of any further action you intend to take in this matter. Very truly yours, LEEONA KLIPPSTEIN Coordinator LK:hyt co: Mayor Stout and Rancho Cucamonga City Council John Hanlon, United States Fish & Wildlife Service Glen Black, CDF&G Regional Director, Natural Heritage Dan Silver, Endangered Habitats League Dr. Dennis Murphy, Chairm, Scientific Review Panel/NCCP Brad Bullet and Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission temperature at 7.,5 cm below the surface, at the start and finish of each survey. Sensitive Species Besides the California gnatcatcher, coastal cactus wren, and orange-throated whiptail, the California Natural Diversity Data Base and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service recognize another 32 animal and 61 plant species as sensitive in tiffs-habitat (see "Sensitive Species Associated with Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub to be Considered by the Scientific Review Panel," attached). Most of these species occur both in coastal sage scrub and in other habitats, but their distributions and habitat requirements are generally poorly understood. Focused searches for sensitive animal and plant spede~ must be made in each polygon, in all habitats found within polygons, not just coastal sage scrub. Although surveys as intensive as those designed for the three target (indicator) vertebrates need not be carried out, population estimates must be made for each species and point localities must be letter-coded (A,B,C, etc.) and plotted on photocopies of 7.5- minute USGS maps accompanying the survey forms. It is incumbent upon the field zoologist or botanist conducting surveys to be familiar with these species and to search appropriate habitats in the correct seasons. However, it is acknowledged that many of the sensitive animal apedes, such as rodents, fossorial reptiles, and fish, are not likely to be observed without trapping or other specialized survey techniques. Intensive sur ieys and research on these apedes are encouraged. But such work is considered beyond the scope of site suneys required under the NCCP process. Although searches may be made in conjunction with habitat, vegetation, or target species surveys, at least one day of focused search for sensitive plants is required in each polygon during each of the following periods: 1 April - 15 April, 1 May - 15 May, 21 May - 10 June, and 15 September - 15 October. Depending on polygon size and complexity, several polygons may be covered in one day. Summary data on population occurences of these species should be recorded in the "Sensitive Animals" and "Sensitive Plants" sections of the polygon survey form. Complete occurence records only for that polygon in which the largest part of a population is found, but list other polygons in which the same population occurs. For sensitive plant occurences, all individuals should be counted for populations smaller than 50 individuals. Estimate population size of larger populations by counting all individuals within a small defined area and then multiplying by a factor that encompasses the total area covered by the population..Animal population sizes generally will be more difficult to estimate, but use best professional judgement. It must be kept in mind that the Coastal Sage Scrub Survey process depends on the expertise of field biologists familiar with the community. Fieldworkers are 10 encouraged to provide information on any additional species or other site features that may be of conservation interest. A cknowledgemen ts These survey guidelines were drafted by Reed Noss and John CYLeary, with the assistance of other Scientific Review Panel members (Dennis Murphy, Peter Brussard, and Michael Gilpin). Many of the guidelines are based on recommendations, advice, and review from Jonathan Atwood, Edward Beedy, Roxanne Bittman, David Bontrager, Bayard Brattstrom, Larry Eng, Michael Evans, Erica Fleishman, Patricia Gordon-Reedy, Barn/Jones, H. Lee Jones, Todd Keeler- Wolf, Patrick Mock, Jeffrey Opdycke, Fred Roberts, Larry Salata, Cartie Shaw, Terri Stewart, Kathy Switky, Ken Weaver, and Harold Weir. Some of the text has been taken with minimal adjustments from these individuals. Attachments Sensitive Plants and Animals Associated with Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub (California Natural Diversity Data Base). SENSITIVE SPECIES ASSOCIATED WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL SAGE SCRUB TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW PANEL ANIMALS: -/~tffornia horned lark (EremphiIa alpestris actia) · -,'~S~uthern California rufous-crowned sp~xrow CAimophila ruficeps canestens) ~qSeLl's sage sparrow (Amphispiz~ belli belh') Tricolored blackbird (.Agelaius tricolor) -/San Diego horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum~b__lainvillet~ ' d. Coastal western whiptail (Cnernidophorus tigris multiscutatus) San Diego banded gecko (Coleonyx variegatus abbott:~ , ,,Coronado sicink (Eurneces skiltonianus · interparietalis) Red-diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus tuber) --Coast patch-nosed snake (Salvadora hexalepis virgultea) JCoastal rosy boa (Lichanura trivirgata rosafuses) Southwestern pond turtle (Clernmys marmorals pallida) r.Western spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus hammondit) Arroyo southwestern toad (Bufo microscaphus pacificus) Arroyo chub (Gila orcutt:) Santa Aria suCker (Catostomus santaanne) · .,'San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus benettit3 San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami paraus).' Stephens kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephenst) '/Southern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys torridus ramona) -~Dulzura California pocket mouse (Perognathus californicus' fernoraliS) Padtic pocket mouse (.Perognathus longimembris pacificus) Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognath.us Iongimembris brevinasus) -rNorthwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Perognathus fallax fallax) ,/PaLlid San Diego pocket mouse (Perognathus fallax pallidus) Riverside fairy shrimp ($ti, eptocephalus woottont~ San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sp.) Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) Hermes copper butterfly (Lycaena hermes) Coastal giant skipper G%,fegathymus yuccae ssp.) Dun skipper (Euphyes vestris harbisont3 Yucca moth (Tegeticula yuccasella) PLANTS: San Diego thorn mint (Acanthomintha ilicifolia) California adolphia (.Adolphia californica) 5haw's agave (Agave shawit3 Murtz's onion (Alllure frimbriatum vat. munzi~ 5an Diego bur-sage (Ambrosia chenopodiifolia) San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila) Aphanisma (Aphanisma blitoides) San Diego sagewort (Arternisia palmerD Braunton's milk vetch (Astragalus brauntoniz] Dean's milk vetch (Astra,~alus deanez~ PIummer's baccharis (Baccharis plummerae) Golden-spined cereus (Bergerocactus ernoryD Nevin's brickellia (Brickcilia neviniD Catalina mariposa lily (Calochortus catalinae) Orange County mariposa lily (Calochortus weedii var. intermedius) Payson's jewelflower (Caulanthus simulans) Orcutt's spineflower (Chorizanthe orcuttiana) San Fernando Valley spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. ferna ndina) Parry's spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi vat. parryz) Orcutt's bird's-beak (Cordylanthus orcuttianus) Sea dahlia (Coreopsis maritima) v't, San Diego sand aster (Corethrogyne ~laginifolia vat. incana) . · Del Mar Mesa sand aster (Corethrogyne ~laginifolia vat. linifolia) Western dichondra (Dichondra occidentalis) Slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema !eptoceras) Orcut't's dudleya (Dudleya attenuata ssp. orcuttiD Blochman's dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. ovatifolia) Short-leaved dudleya (Dudleya brevifolia) '.,Santa Monica Mtns. dudIeya (Dudleya cymosa ssp. ovatifolia) · Many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis) Conejo dudleya (Dudleya parva) Laguna Beach dudleya (Dudleya stolonifera) Variegated dudleya (Dudleya variegata) Verity's dudleya (.Dudleya verity~ Bright green dudleya (Dudleya virens) Sticky dudleya (Dudleya viscida) Santa Aria R/vet woollystar (Eriastrum densifoiium sanctorum) Conejo buckwheat (Erigonurn crocatum) · Succulent walflower (Erysimum suffrutescens ssp. suffrutescens) Cliff spurge (Euphorbia rnisera) San Diego barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens) Rush-like bristleweed (Haplopappus junceus) Palmer's haplopappus (Haplopappus palmeri ssp. palmerz) Palmer's grapplinghook (Iqarpagonella palmeri var. palrnerl] Orcutt's hazardia (Hazardia orcutti~) Otay tarplant g'lernizonia conjugens) Santa Susana Mountains tarplant (Hernizonia rninthorniz~ Davidson's bush mallow (Malacothamnus davidsoniD Nevin's barberry (Mahonia nevini~3 Willowy monardeIIa (Monardella !inoides viminea) Pringle's monardella (Monardella pringlez] San Diego goldenstar (Muilla clevlandiz3 v/Snake cholla (Opuntia parryi var. serpentina) Short-lobed broomrape (Orobanche parishii ssp. brachyloba) Pringle's yarnpah (Perideridia pringlez~ Greene's ground-cherry (Physalis greenez~ Coulter's mantilija poppy (Romneya coulterD Small-leaved rose (Rosa minutifolia) Munz's sage (Salvia munziz3 Crown beard (Verbesina dissita) San Diego County viguiera (Viguiera laciniata) Charles H. Irby, Forest Supervisor June 28th, 1992 U.S.D.A. - Forest Service Via Certified Mail San Bernardino National Forest 1824 S. Commercenter Circle San Bernardino, CA. 92408-3430 F. Dale Robertson, Chief U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 14th & Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20250 Reference: 1560 R05 SBNF CRD - City of Rancho Cucamonga Proposed Tentative Tract Map 14475 - State of California Clearing House No. 90021132 Located in section 17 T1N - R7W of S.B.B.M. Gentlemen: With respect to the above-referenced project, please provide the following information: 1. A copy of the Forest interdisciplinary team evaluation of the proposed project impact on surrounding national forest land. 2. The name, address and telephone number of each member of the forest interdisciplinary team and the name of the team leader. 3. The name, address and telephone number of each person outside the agency contacted or consulted by the interdis- ciplinary team. 4. A copy of the interdisciplinary team evaluation of project impacts on any forest road, trail or highway. 5. A copy of the interdisciplinary team evaluation of project impacts on range, watershed and fire management. For your information, please find attached a copy of a site photograph overlooking surrounding national forest land. Please acknowledge this letter and provide a date certain as to when we may expect the requested information. Sincerely, FOREST PRESERVATION SOCIETY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA David Allen James, Sr. Chairman DAJ/fps-16 cc: E. (Kika) de la Garza SAHAMA INVESTMENTS INC. 10790 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE SUITE 200 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730 TELEPHONE (714) 987-8141 FACSIMILE (714) 941-8879 CITY,. - 'jL - June 30, 1992 Mr. Brad Buller City Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga · Engineering Department 10770 Civic Centre Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 HAND DELIVERY RE: VTT 14475 - Last Desiqn Review Comments Dear Brad: Thank you for meeting with Tom Winfield and myself last week. As per our conversation immediately following the Planning Commission workshop on May 27th, I am sending you a copy of the minutes of the last DRC meeting at which Commissioners Tolstoy and Melcher were present. This was the last of seven Design Review Committee meetings and the final comments were as follows: "The committee reviewed the revised architectural and site plans and was pleased with the changes made by the applicant to address the Commitees previous comments. The Committee recommended approval of the project..." Thank you for your assistance during this process. If you have any ideas or recommendations for the July 8th meeting, please call either Tom or myself. Thank you again. ely, cc: Thomas Winfield, Esq. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:30 - 8:00 Scott November 21, 1991 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SA/{A/4A INVESTMENTS - A residential subdivision and design review of 72 single family lots and 13 numbered lots on 113.2 acres of land' in the Hillside Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space District, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. Background: This project has been reviewed by the Design Review Committee on several different occasions as revisions have been made to the plans. Generally, the mass and height of the units have been reduced to minimize the two-story "box" appearance. The units have been redesigned to step better wit~"the terrain of the site. The street pattern and lot Configuration has been modified from the previous submittal to eliminate the cul-de-sacs. One lot has been deleted from the previous submittal (71 lots proposed)- The most recent Design Review was conducted on September 19, 1991. At that time, the Committee (Tolstoy, Vallette, Coleman) recommended that the plans be revised to address the following concerns: Architecture: 1. Generally, the maximum roof pitch should not exceed 6:12. However, there be selected lots where 7:12 and 8:12 pitches could be utilized. 2. The Committee expressed reservations about the use of barrel roof tile. The applicant should provide samples of proposed colors. 3. No "glazed" roof tile should be used. The applicant should provide samples utilizing a dull finish. 4. Variation should be provided in the stone type proposed for the elevations (i.e- flagstone, slate, etc.). Samples should be provided for review. Site/Gradinq Plan: 1. Slopes should be varied to provide a "naturalized" appearance rather than a "manufactured" look. 2. Greater separation should be provided between units and trails (i.e. lots 57 and 67)- DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS ~T 14475 - SAHAMA NOVEMBER 21 , 199 1 Page 2 ~" 3. The Street "F" and Street "G" cul-de-sac bulbs should be pulled south to minimize the impact to areas in excess of 20 percent, to reduce the grading for driveways, and increase the spacing between driveways. Staff Comments: The applicant has provided revised plans to address the Committees comments · In reviewing the plans, the Committee should consider the following: Architecture: 1. The applicant has provided plans that lower the roof pitch of the units previously reviewed- The applicant would like to use some plans with the steeper roof pitches in the project to create variety and interest- These units would be placed in less prominent locations (i.e., interior lots)- 2. The applicant will be providing samples of roof tile and stone types for Committee review. Site Plan: 1. The applicant has modified the grading of the site to create a more naturalized appearance through gentlet slopes. Staff is continuing to work with the applicant on further refinements- 2. The northeast corner has been redesigned, eliminating the two cul-de-sacs by shifting the Skyline Road connection' between the two cul-de-sacs to their north ends. Where the new Lot 42 is now, there was formerly two oddly-shaped lots. The house plotting on Lots 36-44, 43 and 44 is identical to the former plan, and the house on Lot 42 has been shifted slightly to the south of the former. In addition, the access to Lot "M" (the future CCWD reservoir tank) was shifted to utilize Lots "N" (Forest Service Road). The effect of these changes is: a) That ther impact of grading to areas in excess of 20 percent has not changed (because the house on Lot 42 wasn't moved). No significant change in impact of grading to areas between 15 and 20 percent. b ) That the grading for driveways has increased as described below; however, grading design has been modified to incorporate more contouring and variable slope grades. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS ~ 14475 - SAHAMA NOVEMBER 21, 1991 Page 3 Lots 36-40 - The house plotting and driveways remain unchanged. Toe of s lopes smoothed out ( more curviiinear). Lots 4 - Different floor plan with front entry garage; hence, a shorter driveway- Driveway grade reduced from 14 percent to 10.6 percent. By using a front entry driveway, the net effect is greater driveway separations- Lot 42 - Driveway twice as long as before and steeper. The deletion of the grading for former Lot 46 was traded-off for grading of the realigned street. Lot 43 - D'riveway length increased from 125 feet to 200 feet; however, 20 percent grade changed to 13.2 percent qrade. The deletion of the grading for the reservoir access at the end of the cul-de-sac (former plan) will require cutting an access road into steep hillside at rear of lot which will be visible from the street. Lot 44 - Drive length unchanged- c) That the spacing of driveways has been increased: 1) by reducing their number from 5 to 3 on the easterly cul-de-sac, and 2) using a front entry garage on Lot 41 on the westerly cul-de-sac. Design Review Cos~ittee Action: Members Present: John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Scott Murphy The Committee reviewed the revised architectural and site plans and was pleased with the changes made by the applicant to address the Committees previous comments. The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the following conditions: 1. The retaining wall along the water tank access road should be treated to blend in with the natural area. 2. Native landscape materials should be used on all slopes to be landscaped- The plant species should be coordinated with any requirements of the Wildland Fire Study being prepared for the project. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS IT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS NOVEMBER 21 , 199 1 Page 4 3. The applicant should work with staff on further refinements to the grading plan to create a more natural and less manufactured appearance. Once all Technical Review Committee comments have been addressed, the project can be scheduled for full Planning Commission review. · STATE OF CALIFORNIA--THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ~ 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 Long Beach, California 90802 ..... ~. (310) 590-5113 June 30, 1992 CJ"" Mr. Larry HcNiel Chairman, Planning Commission ';' JI91 1 1 1112 814 ! City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Dear Mr. McNiel: The Department of Fish and Game (Department) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the FEIR for Tentative Tract No. 14475, Sahama investments, Inc. The FEIR addresses development of 71 single-family homes on 113 acres of land within the City and immediately abutting the southern boundary of the San Bernardino National Forest. The project would affect approximately 58 acres of coastal sage scrub, 23 acres of chaparral, and 9 acres of alluvial scrub. Coastal sage scrub and alluvial scrub represent habitats which are considered a high priority for preservation by the Department because 65%-90% of once-existing habitats have been destroyed, and equally as important, more than 70 species either listed or proposed for listing by the State/Federal governments or considered species of concern are found within these areas. The Department is concerned that the proposed project will result in localized reductions in both coastal sage scrub and alluvial scrub that will further fragment and isolate these important habitats from surrounding similar habitat. In addition, alternatives considered in the FEIR did not address the issue of habitat fragmentation. The Department recommends that habitat fragmentation and human disturbance could be substantially reduced if the project was redesigned to cluster development in the south central portion of the project which contains predominantly disturbed vegetation. Upon review of the Biological Assessment information presented for this project, the Department contends that adequate biological and botanical surveys have not been conducted. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15125, states that "special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to that region." Botanical surveys done in 1984 and 1990 were conducted at the wrong time of year to identify rare plant species and did not follow the Department's "Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed ff / z/ / F' ' " Mr. Larry McNiel June 80, 1992 Page Two Developments on Rare and Endangered Plants and Plant Communities" which have been in widespread use since 1984. Subsequently, the Department has learned that the Planning Commission, on April 8, 1992, had directed that focused surveys be conducted this spring for sensitive species. Yet it is apparent from the information we have received from your staff that these surveys were focused on only two species - the California gnatcatcher and the coast horned lizard. Surveys should have been conducted for rare plants as well as the orange-throated whiptail lizard and the red-sided garter snake. The Department is also concerned about the proposed "Fuels Modification Plan" and its effect on any remaining open space and set aside areas. The FEIR contends that there would be "no" project impacts to the wash and alluvial scrub habitat and that some habitat value would remain in open space areas. However, the Fuels Modification Plan strongly suggests that this would not be the case. Although vague with regard to the actual techniques that would be implemented, the plan clearly states that "Fuel modification must be provided in any on-site open spaces" . . "Vegetation on certain onsite bluffs should be modified" . . . and in the Summary, "It is imperative . . . that all vegetation on the site be required to be properly maintained on an ongoing basis". ~he Department finds that the FEIR fails to adequately disclose the impacts associated with fuels modification and fails to reconcile conflicts between fuel modification requirements and biological resource mitigation measures. Because coastal sage scrub is becoming increasingly rare in the state, the Department contends that compensation for loss of this habitat should reflect a replacement ratio of 2:1. Resolution of these issues could be greatly facilitated through the Natural Communities Conservation Planning effort. The Department has provided the City of Rancho Cucamonga the opportunity to participate in this effort, and we once again encourage the City to enroll in this important program that focuses on a voluntary and cooperative approach to broad-based land use planning, preservation, and development within coastal sage scrub habitat. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Questions regarding this letter and further coordination on these issues should be directed to Glenn Black, Natural Heritage Supervisor, a~ (310) 590-4807. Sincerely, Regional Manager Region 5 cc: Mr. John Hanlon, USFWS-Carlsbad ~ts. Leona Klippstein, S. Bdo Sage Friends CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: July 8, 1992 STAFF REPORT TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS BACKGROUND The Planning Commission last reviewed committee membership on July lO, 1991. There has been a suggestion that the Industrial/Commercial and Residential Committees be combined into one Committee with two members and an alternate. The Commission may wish to also select a back up committee in the event that it is later determined that a second committee is needed. The current membership is as follows: COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL Suzanne Chitiea Larry McNiel Wendy Vallette Peter Tolstoy Alternate: John Melcher A history of Design Review Committee membership since January 1988 is attached as Exhibit "A." RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should determine appropriate membership of the Design Review Committee. BB:GS/gs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Design Review Committee Membership History ITEM G DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP January 1988 to present COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL JanUary 1988 - July 1988: Larry McNiel Suzanne Chitiea Peter Tolstoy David Blakesley Alternate: Bruce Emerick July 1988 - February 1989: Larry McNiel Suzanne Chitiea Peter Tolstoy Bruce Emerick Alternate: David Blakesley February 1989 - June 1989: Suzanne Chitiea Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy Bruce Emerick Alternate: David Blakesley June 1989 - February 1990: Suzanne Chitiea Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy David Blakesley Alternate: Betsy Weinberger February 1990 - April 1990: Suzanne Chitiea Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy Betsy Weinberger Alternate: David Blakesley May 1990 - September 1990: Suzanne Chitiea Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy Betsy Weinberger Alternate: John Melcher September 1990 - November 1990: Suzanne Chitiea Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy John Melcher November 1990 - February 1991 Suzanne Chitiea Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy Wendy Vallette Alternate: John Melcher February 1991 - present Suzanne Chitiea Larry McNiel Wendy Vallette Peter Tolstoy Alternate: John Melcher July 1991 - present Suzanne Chitiea Peter Tolstoy Larry McNiel Wendy Vallette Alternate: John Melcher Exhibit "A" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 8, 1992 TO:~? ~ha' .'/man and Members of the Planning Commission FR ~ ad Buller, City Planner 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 to serve for one-year terms. BB:GS:gs ITEM H