No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/02/25 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -pLANNING COMMISSION , AGENDA WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 25, 1998 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call Chairman Barker m Vice Chairman McNiel m Commissioner Bethel ~ Commissioner Macias __ Commissioner Tolstoy __ i II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 11, 1998 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items am 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. DISPOSITION OF A PORTION OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY ADJACENT TO LOT 10 OF TRACT 13063 - JOHN JANSEN - A request to find the quit claiming of a portion of City owned property in conformance with the General Plan - APN: 227-071-28. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related projecL 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 si~Tn in after speaking. B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to modify the General Bikeways Plan . (Figure 111-7B) to designate Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard as Class III Bike Routes. VI. NEW BUSINESS C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-29 (MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-08) - CAP BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - A request to construct a 99,750 square foot industrial building on 6.8 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Arrow Highway and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-01 and 06 through 09. (Continued from February 11, 1998) (TO BE CONTINUED TO MARCH 11, 1998) :- D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-33 - PANATI'ONI-PHELAN - A request to construct a 172,998 square foot industrial building on 7.97 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Sixth Street and Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-263-01, 02, 03, and 06. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. VII. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS · E. APPEAL OF INCOMPLETENESS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-01 - MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENTERPRISES - An appeal of the City Planner determination of incompleteness for an application to use a portion of 'Southern California Edison right-of-way for a nursery on 3.8 acres of land within Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 12051 Arrow Highway - APN: 229-121-97. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place forthe generalpublic to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS X. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. Page 2 /, Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on February 19, 1998, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. / Page 3 VICINITY MAP CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 25, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: DISPOSITION OF A PORTION OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY ADJACENT TO LOT I0 OF TRACT 13063 - JOHN JANSEN - A request to find the quit claiming of a portion of City owned property in conformance with the General Plan - APN: 227-071-28 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On November 12, 1987, Assessor Parcel Number 227-071-28 was granted to the City through a Corporation Grant Deed for constructing flood control facilities. A record of survey was also recorded. John Jansen, property owner of Lot I0 of Tract 13063, is requesting that a portion of the City owned propeD' be incorporated to his property and later process a lot line adjustment. Tract 13063 was recorded on January 30, 1989. Staff has reviewed said portion and found it to be acceptable for disposition. Quitclaiming of the property is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan. RECOMNIENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission make the finding through minute action that the subject proposed quit claim of a portion of City owned properly by the City, is in conformance with the General Plan. This finding will be forwarded to the City Council for further processing and disposition of excess property. Respectfully submitted, an James /~ Senior Civil Engineer DJ:\W:dlw Attachments Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" - Quitclaim of a Portion of City Property ITEM g CITY OF RANCHOCUCAMONGA Trr~.~.: VI ~//VI TY Iv/~-~ --'~:NG~;~.~.G D~'~n_~:ON ~rl~. ~,~ ~' _ ~ "' ORA/,'VA~,e' FAC/LXT[. ' ~ 39.4 .- t ' N 89'53'40' W 4~1.1T N 89"53'.40" W~R) GREENSTONE DRIVE + ,+ CITY OF ~/rcz~/v/'~E ~' ~' z H0 CUCAMONGA Tm,~.--~P~n2'/o,,y o,= c/7,y PB ~ ~ ~t Z~// KNG~G D_rVISION ,~ ~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 25, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to modify the General Bikeways Ran (Figure IllqB) to designate Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard as Class Ill Bike Routes. BACKGROUND: This amendment is an administrative "clean-up" of the City's General Bikeways Ran, which is necessary to apply for federal or State funding for bicycle trail improvement projects. The General Bikeways Plan was adopted in 1991 in conjunction with the Trails implementation Ran. ANALYSIS: A. Haven Avenue - A Class III Bike Route' was installed on Haven Avenue in 1995 in recognition of use by bicycle commuters. The amendment is necessary to reflect existing conditions in the field. B. Foothill Boulevard - The San Bernardino Regional Bicycle Plan prepared by SANBAG designates Foothill Boulevard as a major east-west bike route. This planned route follows Highway 66 from the Los Angeles County line to downtown San Bernardino. The amendment will bring the City's General Bikeways Plan into consistency with this adopted countywide bicycle plan. ENVIRONMENTAL: The proposed amendment is a minor alteration to the City's Genera[ Plan and is categorically exempt per Section 15305, Class 5 Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations of the California Environmental Quality Act. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised with a one-eighth page advertisement as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper. ~Route is identified by "Bike Route" guide signing or pavement markings. Bicycle traffic shares the roadway with motor vehicles. ITEM B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 98-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA February 25, 1998 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the PlanFfing Commission adopt the attached Resolution's recommending approval to the City Council. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:DC:mlg :':' ~ Attachments: Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Approval City Council Resolution of Approval RESOLUTION NO, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-01 AMENDING THE GENERAL BIKEWAYS PLAN (FIGURE 111-7B), TO DESIGNATE HAVEN AVENUE AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AS CLASS III BIKE ROUTES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for the amendment as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafier in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 25th day of February 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on February 25, 1998, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to two major aderial roadways, which extend from City limit to City limit. b. The bike route along Foothill Boulevard conforms with the adopted San Bernardino Regional Bicycle Plan. c. The bike route along Haven Avenue is existing. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed modification is a minor alteration to the planned bicycle trail system. b. The proposed modification conforms to the policies and guidelines of the City's trail system. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been prepared and reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and further specifically finds that based upon substantial evidence, it can be seen with certainty there is no possibility the proposed amendment will have an effect on the environment and therefore, the proposed amendment is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15305, Class 5, Minor Alteration in Land Use Limitations. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 98-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA February 25, 1998 Page 2 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment No. 98-01 to amend the General Bikeways Plan, Figure 111-7B, as shown in the attached City Council Resolution. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall cedify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman A~'FEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly ihtroduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of lhe Planning Commission held on the 25th day of February 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. · -' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 98-01, TO MODIFY THE GENERAL BIKEWAYS PLAN. BY DESIGNATING HAVEN AVENUE AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AS CLASS III BIKE ROUTES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for the amendment as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 25th day of February 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and recommended to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 98-01. 3. On , the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on February 25, 1998, and to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing on , including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The proposed modification is a minor alteration to a planned bike trail system and is categorically exempt per Section 15305, Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations of the California Environmental Quality Act. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed modification is a minor alteration to a planned bike trail system. and is categorically exempt per Section 15305, Class 5. Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations of the California Environmental Quality Act. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA 98-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Page 2 4. This Council hereby finds that the project has been prepared and reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and further specifically finds that based upon substantial evidence, it can be seen with certainty there is no possibility the proposed amendment will have an effect on the environment and therefore, the proposed amendment is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15305. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Council approves General Plan Amendment No. 98-01, modifying General Bikeways Plan, Figure 111-7B, as shown on Exhibit "1" attached hereto. 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' ~ STAFF REPORT DATE: February 25, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Cecilia Gallardo, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-29 {MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-08} - CAP BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - A request to construct a 99,750 square foot industrial building on 6.8 acres of land in the General Industrial ~D~trict (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Arrow Highway and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-01 and 06 through 09. ABSTRACT: This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of February 11, 1998. The proposed project was pre-scheduled for this meeting under the assumption that all necessary information would be available to the City to support all the necessary findings for a staff recommendation of approval. However, at the time of the writing of this report, the required Habitat Assessment Survey that would determine if the property is viable habitat for the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSF) has not been received by staff. Because of the unavailabi[ity of environmental information relating to a Habitat Assessment Survey, staff recommends that this item be continued. Staff anticipates that the required repbrt will be received in sufficient time to allow this item to be heard at the next Planning Commission meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue this item to the March 11, 1998 agenda. Respectfully submitted, Brad BuHer City Planner BB:CG:gs ,/ ITEM C CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 25, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Bu[ler, City Planner BY: Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-33 PANATI'ONI-PHELAN ~ A request to construct a 172,998 square foot industrial building on 7.97 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Sixth Street and Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-263-01, 02, 03, and 06. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North - Vacant; General Industrial (Subarea 13) South - Vacant, existing industrial building; General Industrial (Subarea 13) East - Vacant, existing industrial building; General Industrial (Subarea 13) West Existing industrial buildings (Subarea 11 ) B. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - General Industrial North General Industrial South - General Industrial East General Industrial West General Industrial C. Site Characteristics: The site is a cultivated grape vineyard with no structures or other significant vegetation on the property. Sixth Street forms the north and west boundaries of the site and Rochester Avenue forms the eastern boundary. To the south, the site abuts two parcels, one has an existing industrial building and the other is vacant. Sixth Street narrows at the site and has temporary curb and gutter. Full frontage improvements along Sixth Street and Rochester Avenue are needed, including pavement, relocated curb and gutter, parkway, meandering sidewalk, and street trees. The site slopes minimally from north to south. ITEM D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97-33 - PANATTONI-PHELAN February 25, 1998 Page 2 D. Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footac~e Ratio Required Provided Office 8,589: 1 ~250 34 Warehouse 164,409 1/1000 (1st 20,000) 20 1/2000 (2nd 20,000) 10 1/4000 (40,000 plus) 31 TOTAL 172,998 95 103 ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is propos!ng to develop a 172,998 square foot warehouse and distribution facility on a spec basis. The building would accommodate either a single user or two tenants. The building is constructed of off-white tilt-up concrete panels with reveal lines banding the upper portions of the structure. The tilt-up panels have intermittent exposed aggregate columns with teal-colored tile accent squares and decorative reveal lines. There are two office areas, one at the northeast and the,' other at the southwest corner of the building. The office areas have exposed aggregate columns, reflective blue-green glazing, and freestanding panels to provide an entry statement. In the rear, there are 23 dock high doors, 2 ground level truck ramps, 25 trailer parking spaces, 2 trash enclosures, and a small (400 square foot) detached pumphouse. The rear truck loading area will be screened by a 6-foot high tilt-up concrete panel wall with sliding gates for truck access. The southern property line is proposed to have a wrought iron fence with landscaping to obscure views of the loading area. B. Desiqn Review Committee: The DeSign Review Committee (Bethel, Macias, Fong) reviewed the project on January 20, and February 3, 1998. The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to conditions in the attached Design Review Committee Action Comments from the meetings (Exhibit "C"). The recommended conditions include a dense landscape palette in conjunction with the wrought iron fence along the south property line to screen the truck loading area, and City Planner re~ziew and approval of the location and amenities of the outdoor employee plaza areas. To enhance the outdoor plaza areas, the City Planer may request the applicant shift or reduce surplus parking spaces and reorient bicycle lockers to provide a more open, defensible, and welcoming plaza area. An overhead trellis or specimen trees should be used to provide shade and an attractive ambiance. C. Technical Review/Gradinq Committee: The Technical Review Committee reviewed the project on January 21, 1998, and determined that, with the recommended conditions, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. The recommended conditions include provisions for median island landscaping, combining the four separate parcels into one parcel prior to building permits, and street improvements on Sixth Street and Rochester Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97-33 - PANATTONI-PHELAN February 25, 1998 Page 3 D. Environmental Assessment: The site is identified on maps prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as potentially having the appropriate Tujunga-Delhi soil classification to support the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSF). The applicant conducted a Habitat Assessment Survey of the soils, vegetation, and species composition on the site. The study noted that the site is a cultivated vineyard, with nonnative, invasive plant species interspersed between the vine rows and around the periphery of the site. The site is in an industrial area almost entirely encompassed by urbanization. The site does not appear to occupy a strategic location with respect to it's potential incorporation into a regional wildlife reserve or corridor system. The study concluded the site would not be acceptable DSF habitat or reserve area. No other potentially significant environmental impacts are identified in the Initial Study. Therefore, staff feels that no significant adverse environmental impacts would result from development of this project. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. "::" 'RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Development Review 97-33 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:RVB:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Site Plan Exhibit "B" Building Elevations Exhibit "C" Design Review Committee Action Comments dated January 20 and February 3, 1998 Exhibit "D" Initial Study, Part II Exhibit "E" Habitat Assessment Survey Resolution of Approval with Conditions DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Steve Hayes January 20, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-33 - PANA'FI'ONI-PHELAN - A request to construct a 172,998 square foot industrial building on 7.97 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Sixth Street and Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-263-01, 02, 03 and 06. Desian Parameters: The site has frontage on Sixth Street which is designated by the General Plan as a Special Boulevard for special landscape treatment. The project site is currently vacant and includes remnants of a grape vineyard. Buildings exist in close proximity in all directions around the site, but only to the south is a building developed on a contiguous parcel. Curb and gutter exist along the property frontages. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 2 percent. .... ::Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Commi~ee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. A more dramatic architectural statement should be provided at the northeast corner of the building. Suggested items include stepping the building back from the street and introducing a more significant focal point, both architectural and pedestrian oriented, such as a water feature, artwork, etc., near the orifice entrance. 2 Additional architectural embellishment and variations in the building planes should be provided, especially for the long stretches exposed to public view along Six~h Street and Rochester Avenue. 3, Additional architectural treatment should be provided at the southeast corner of the building. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. A more significant parapet wall should be designed for the building now to screen all anticipated roof-mounted mechanical equipment from public view and to avoid a "tacked-on" screen having to be added in the future. A second outdoor eating/plaza area should be provided near the secondary office area entrance because the building may be occupied by two tenants. 3. An architecturally integrated screen wall should be provided along the south property line, as opposed to the wrought iron fence shown on the pIans. Also, the sliding gates at the entrance to the truck loading/storage area should be of a solid. view obscuring material, painted to match the screen walls and building, 4. Bicycle parking at the north end of the site should be located closer to the northeast office entrance. DRC COMMENTS DR 97-33 - PANATTONI-PHELAN Janua~ 20,1998 Page 2 Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Additional herruing, low walls, shrub hedges, or any combination thereof should be provided to screen all parking areas from public view. 2. The required screen walls, trash enclosures, and pump house enclosure should be architecturally integrated with the buildings with a final finish such as painted tilt-up concrete or an exposed aggregate finish. 3. An overhead shade structure, plaza furniture. and landscaping, including specimen size trees around the plaza perimeter. should be provided in the outdoor eating/plaza areas. " ::'Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of Ihe project subject to the incorporation of the above items into th~ plans. to the satisfaction of staff. Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macins, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee recommended that the project return as a Consent Calendar item at the next available Design Review Committee meeting, addressing the following issues: The accentuated exposed aggregate. column and panel treatment used on the o,~ce entrance at the northeast corner of the building should wrap around the corner to the east elevation. similar to the application of this treatment at the office area at the southwest corner of the building; 2. Additional panels should receive the upgraded exposed aggregate and glass treatment, as follows: a. At the southeast corner of the building, the two southernmost panels on the east elevation and the one easternmost panel on the south elevation; and b. Verify that all panels adjacent to an angle in the building have this treatment. Of specific concern were to two locations along the Sixth Street frontage where the building has two 45 degree angles. 3. A dense landscape palette, including evergreen trees and shrub hedges. should be used in conjunction with the proposed wrought iron fence along the south property line to form an effective screen in lieu of a solid screen wall; 4. The roof parapet should be raised to a greater extent to assure that all future roof equipment will be screened from public view. The Committee recommended that a minimum parapet height of 4 feet be provided at the office areas and that the parapet be at least 18 inches higher than the crown of the roof; and DRC COMMENTS DR 97-33 - PANA3'i'ONI-PHELAN ~January 20, 1998 Page ~.. 5. The final location and amenities within the secondary office outdoor eating area, as well as the amenities within the primary plaza area should be reviewed and approved by the City Planner. 6. All other unaddressed secondary and policy issues should be addressed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Steve Hayes February 3.1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-33 - PANATTONI-PHELAN - A request to construct a 172.998 square foot industrial building on 7.97 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Sixth Street and Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-263-01, 02-, 03 and 06. Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee reviewed the revised building and Site Plan and recommended approval of the project subject to the following conditions: :;- 1. The final location of and the amenities within the outdoor plaza area for the north office area as well as the amenities within the southerly plaza area should be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. A dense landscape palette, including evergreen shrubs and shrub hedges, should be used in conjunction with the proposed wrought iron fence along the south properly line to form an effective screen in lieu of a solid screen wall. 3. All previously mentioned design policy issues from the January 20, 1998 Design Review Committee comments will be incorporated into the recommended Conditions of Approval for the project. . City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-33 2. Related Files: PRELIMINARY REVIEW 97-11 3. Description of Project: A request to construct a 172,998 square foot industrial building on 7.97 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Sixth Street and Rochester Avenue - " :~' APN: 229-263-01, 02, 03 and 06. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Mr. Jeff Phelan Panattoni-Phelan Development Company 19700 Fairchild Road, Suite 290 Irvine, CA 92612 5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial 6. Zoning: General Industrial (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is consists of a cultivated grape vineyard with no structures or other significant vegetation on the property. Sixth Street forms the north and west boundaries of the site and Rochester Avenue is the eastern boundary of the site. An existing industrial building exists along the western half of the southern boundary while the eastern half of the southern boundary consists of vacant land. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Rebecca Van Buren (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California Department of Fish and Game Cucamonga County Water District Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-33 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impac, t" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Transportation/Circulation (X) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing (X) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (X) Geological Problems ( ) Energy a,nd Mineral Resources (X) Aesthetics ( ) Water (X) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of SignifiCance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (X) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been:added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially SignifiCant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Rebecca Van Buren Associate Planner January 22, 1998 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-33 Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. 1, LAND USE AND PLANNING, Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) (X) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) (X) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) (X) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arran9ement of an established community? ( ) ( ) (X) 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) (X) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving.' a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-33 Page 4 b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) (X) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) (X) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) (X) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) (X) O Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) (X) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) (X) h) Expansive soils? (X) ( ) .... :':-' i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: h) The General Plan indicates the Tujunga-Delhi soil association for the site which "May have soil bearing capacities that could limit some development. Structures proposed on this soil type should be permi~ed only after a site specific investigation has been prepared that indicates that the soil can adequately suppo~ the weight of the structure." A soils repo~ will be required by the Building and Safety Division prior to the issuance of building permits. The impact is not considered significant. 4. WATER. W~II the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) (X) b) Exposure of people or prope~y to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) (X) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e~g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) (X) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) (X) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-33 Page 5 f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) (X) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) (X) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) (X) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) (X) 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ) (X) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ) (X) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ) (X) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ) (X) 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-33 Page 6 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyClists? (X) 0 Conflicts with adopted policies supposing alternative trans ~o~ation (e.g.. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (X) g) Rail or air tra~c ~mpacts? (X) 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened. or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants. fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) (X) ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage t~'ees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.. eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat. etc.)? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) (x) e) Wfidlife dispersal or migra!ion corridors? ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identifies, the project area soil type as Tujunga- Delhi Sand Soils which is a type of soil that iS associated with the endangered Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (DSF). A habitat assessment was prepared (Impact Sciences. January 8, 1998) by a biologist permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct surveys for DSF. In summary, results of the habitat-based survey indicate that the site does not currently support high quality potential DSF habitat, and the site is not located directly adjacent to other areas of high quality potential or known occupied DSF habitat. Based on the reconnaissance-level habitat evaluation of the Site's existing environmental conditions, the project site does not provide high quality habitat for DSF due to: 1) the lack of native vegetation communities and open sandy areas, 2) relatively dense coverage of invasive, non- native vegetation, and 3) repetitive exposure to human-related disturbances. Based on these assumptions, the proposed development of the 7.97 acre site will not likely result in adverse effects to DSF. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-33 Page 7 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conseNation plans? ( ) (X) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and ine~cient manner? ( ) (X) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that wouid be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) (X) 9. HA~RDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fiammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) In conjunction with the manufacturing activities within the building, materials such as oil and other chemicals may potentially be used. Use of any such hazardous substances will require special permits to ensure safe handling, storage, and operation. The impact is not considered significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-33 Page 8 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) Manufacturing activities may include use Of hazardous chemicals which would require special permits forthe Fire Prevention District. The impact is not considered significant. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would thee proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the fo~owing utilities: a) Power and natural gas? ( ) (X) b) Communication systems? ( ) (X) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) (X) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) (X) L Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-33 Page 9 Signscant e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 0 Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ( ) (X) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ( ) (X) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( (X) ( ) Comments: c) New light and glare will be created on the prope~y with development of the vacant site. A condition of approval requires an on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram of the entire prope~y, be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division and the Rancho Cucamonga Sheri~s Depadment prior to the issuance of building permits. The plan will be checked to ensure that it meets City policies relative to avoiding the casting of excess light and glare onto adjacent prope~ies. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-33 Page 10 15. RECREATION. Would the proposah , a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or ;' regional parks or other recreational facilitieS? ( ( ) ( ) (X) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ' ( ( ) ( ) (X) ..... 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habi(at of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time! Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively considerabler' means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-33 Page 11 EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check aft that apply): (X) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (X)Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (X) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would OCCUr+ Signature: Date: Print Name and Title: City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Development Review 97-33 Public Review Period Closes: February 25, 1998 Project Name: Project Applicant: Panattoni-PhelarOevelopmentCompany Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the southwest corner of Sixth Street and Rochester Avenue -APN: 229-263-01, 02, 03, and 06. Project Description: A request to construct a 172,998 square foot industrial building on 7.97 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: [] The Initial Study shows that there i~ no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Repofl will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the atlached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. February 25, 1998 Date of Determination Adopted By 17:10 S188781448 ZMPACT SCIENCES PAGE IMPACT SCIENCES ,~G~,~--~Hith 30343 Canwc~H Street, Suite ZlO iv. F'nmcLsco ][~nunry 29, 19~ Panattoni-Fhelan Development Company 19700 Fairchild Road, Suite 290 Irvine, CaLifornia 92612 Attention: ~'eff Phelan SUBJECT: Results of DeLhi Sands Hower-Loving Fly Habitat-Based Evaluation on the Panattoni-Fhelan 8-Acre Project Site, City of Rancho Cucomonga, San Bernazciino " ::' CounW, California Dear Ivlr. Phelaru This le~er report details findings of a reconnaissance-level survey to evaluate existing habitats potentially suitable to support the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas ferminaiads abdominalis) completed for an approximately 8-acre project site located in the City of R~ncho Cucarncrng~, San Berna.rdino County, California. A general evaluation for the potential occurrence ~f several additional sex~sltlve wi]dUfe species was also conducted during the one-day field survey. Introduction Impact .Sciences, Inc. (Impact ,Sciences) understands that a development plan is being prepared c.a an approximStety 8-acre project site located in the City of Rartcho Cucamonga (Figure 1). The project site is generally bordered by 6th Stzeet to the north and west, Rochester Coua to the east, and an undeveloped lot to the south (Figure 2). Th~ report is intended to provide the applicant general biological in{ormation regarding potentially Suitable hnbitat to support sensitive species for use in evaluating potential consequences of endangered sp~zies act compliance and permitting. Additionally, results of this study are intended to Frrbvidi~ early input into the planning process so that sensitive biological resources potential/y oc~azrLng on fine site are identified. Regional Location ~2/i7/1998 18:81 8188791448 ZMPACT SCI{NCES PAGE 83 ROUTE ' A;~O~ oject ~ f ST 4TH ~ ST Project Vici nity I 82/17/1998 17:18 8!887B1448 iNPACT SCIENCES PAGE panattoni-Fhelan Develcrpment . . January 29, 1998 Page 4 General Delhi San& Bower-loving Fly Background The Delhi sartds flowez-lovLng fly (DSF) was listed as an endangered spades by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (S~rvice) on ~c~pte.mber 23, 1993. Tt~is sped¢'s is only known to cxrur in association with Delhi sand deposits crt at lust ten dis'in. net sites (USFWS 1996), chiefly wTtth,Ln a radj. us o.~ about eight miles in the dries of Colton, Rialto, and Fcn~tana located in southwestern San Bema.rdino and norbhwestem Riverside counties, However, recent survey data (199~ indicates that DSF occur in low ntm~bers i~ the Ontario area. The DSF/.s restricted to the Colton Dunes whid't covers approximately 40 s~uare miles. More th~.rt 95 percent of the _,. :':- formerly icrtown habitat has been converted to human u.,~s or severely adfe~ed by human activities, rendet-ktg it apparently unsuitable for occupation by the speci~ (Smith 1993, USBq5 1996 Ln KLngsley 1996). 'An estLtnate of only 155 acres o~ habitat is documented to co~xtain populations of DSF. Potential habitat for ~he DSF is t.YpicaLiy de~ined as areas comprised of 'sandy soil (Delhi serieS) in crp~, areas domi.nated by CaLLfomia buckwheat (Eriogonum fascicuIatum), CaLifornia c~c~ort (Croton cali/ornica), and teleg-i'aph weed (Heterotheca grandifiora). Annual bur-sage (Ambro.~a acanthicarpa), fiddleneck (Amsinkia intermedia), vinegar weed (Lessingia glandullfera), sapphLre eriastnazn (Erias~rum sapphirinum), and Tcturbe. r's e_riogoram~ (Eriogonum thurberi) are also commonly pre~nt at occupied DSF sites. On D~,.aw/ver ~30, 1996 the Service prepared InterLm General Survey Guldelirtes for DSF. Ln · order to conduct afocused survey to determine the ]~resence or absence of this species such that the result is acceptable to the Service, these gttldel~nes must be followed. The guide.Hues req'u.tre that surveys be con4uct~:t in a}3. areas contalrting DeLhi sands t~'ice weekly (two days pex week) during the period from August 1 to September 20, for a two year periocL FL/es of the genus Rhaphiomidas prefer arid habitats and are typically large (up to 1.2ZS-~ches in body length). 82/17/'1998 17:18 8188791448 !NPACT SCIENCES PAGE Fana~ord-PhelanDevelopmen~ )anuary29,1998 · .. Page 5 Methods Literahtre Search Documentation pertinent to the biological resources in the vicinity of the site was reviewed and analyzed. Irfformation reviewed included: (1) literature pertainLng to habitat requh~,ments of sensitive spedes potent~,~lly occuxring on the preiect site; (2) the CalUornia Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 1997) information regarding sensitive species potentially occuning c~ the project site in a computer report format for the Ontario, San Dimas, and Guasti USGS 7.5- :~- , minute quadrangle maps, and (3) review of a~,ailable reporbs from this and other prc~eds located in the general x4cinity of the project site. Reconnaissance-level Field Suxvey Scott Caanexon and David Crawford, Impact Sdences Senior and Staff Biologists respectively, conduc'wxl a rec0nnajssance-level I'ield survey to evaluate potential habitat for the DSF on December 9, 1997. Both Nff. Cameron and b, ir. Crawford have ob~rved DSF in the field, and are landLiar with the biotic characteristics cff habitat occupied by DSF, as well as o~her sensitive wildli/e species potentially occtu:ring in the area. x, Veather conditions during the survey were cool, cleax, and windy (5-15 mph), with air temperatures of approximately 58 degrees Fahrenheit. The site was examined on foot by walking a series of transects across the subiect property. The prknary objective of the or.e-day field visit was to evaluate the site's pot~'~tial to support DSF, and generally ev~uate habitat suitability for other potentially occurring sensitive wlld3iqe spedes based m e,'-,istmg site conditions. General plant and wildlife species present at the site were identified to assess the overall habitat value. Existing Conditions The site is an actrely cultivated vineyard with an understory and periphery coml:rrsed of derc-e non-native weeds and annual gr~sses. Indications of regular pruni~ disldng, and weeding are evident across the site. As such, soils on the site have obviously been dLstuzbed in association with the recuxring agrlculkLral activities. Only small patches of exposed soft are evident on the pr~ect site due to the predominantly dense vegetative covez located between the vine rows. Surface soils that Wer~ .exposed appeared to be characteristic of silty sands intermixed with cobbles. Both com, paceecl a_n~ lo6~e soils axe present on the site. ~2/17/L998 17:le 8188791448 IMPAC SCIENCES PAGE 87 pmattord-Phelan Development iimuafy 29, 1998 Page 6 No native plant species were de~ed dur~g ~e r~o~c~level ~dd ~'ey of ~e site. ~e site ~ ~m~ed by ~ ac~e v~ey~d. ~t~spe~sM ~ ~e ~e rows ~d ~e p~phe~ of ~e site are non-native, ~vas~ve pl~t spedes su~ ~ mder~ (weedy) he~s ~d gra~s ~& as m~t~d (Brassica or HirSch~Idia spp.), fip~t ~s (Brom~ diandrus), B~uda ~ass (C~odon dactyl~L fo~a~ ~ess (Br~us madri~ensls s~. rubes), ~d filaree (Er0dium ~cuta~um). C~ ~d pn~ exist ~g the nor~, e~t, ~d wes~ site ~d~. Si~ photo~ap~ (Flare 3) ~te ~s~g condi~s of ~e s~j~t pro~'. Wildlife B~d sp~ obs~ed d~g ~e r~o~n~s~ce-level field s~ ~dude ~d yeHow-rumped wa~l~ (Dendroi~ coronata), ~d western meadowl~k (StunMl~ neglecta). ~ sped~ ~rectly obeyed, ~ of wM~ si~ was d~ected, ~dude Ca~fomia ~d sq~ (Sp~m~hilus be~heyi), desert c~tonta~ (Sylvila~s audubonii), ~d Botta's p~et gopher (Thomomys bo~tae). Surrounding Land Uses The subject property/is located Ln a conu'nerciaJ area of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The proper'cy is almost entirely encomp~s~l by existing commercial development. A small vacant lot is loca~:d south of the site. However, an existing commercial business is located south of the vacant lot. Discussion DSF prefer low growing perennial shrubs with frequent pa~ches of exposect sandy soil, characteristics which are not present at the site. HOwever, resul~ of recent m.u'veys (1997) Ln the Ontario area suggest that DSF may occuz in &teas that do not support perenn~ shrubs (e.g., buckwheat). Conversely, in a s~dy conduct~ in Colton, California by Kingsley (1996), DSF selected only those habitats that contained Califorrda buckwheat and telegraph weed. Observations of the 1996 Kingsley study suggest that both plant spedes nmy be necessary for iong-ferm suzvival of DSI:, and Hat arrangement and density of c~,er is important. Kingsley (1996) also suggests tha biologLsts would likely fin4 ~ites where bolt{ of these plant spades are 82/17/1999 17:18 8188791448 IMPACT SCIENCES PAGE panat~cani-Phelan De~,'eloPm'ent ]a'tuafy 29, 1998 Page 8 present in patcity armngement~ more suitable to support DSF than sites without these plat apedes c~ that suppor~ very dense vege+,ation. D~ have very narrow habitat requirements that are dotemined by appropriate plant spede~ and olden sand as defining characteristics (Kingsley 1996). Invasive non-native vegetation severely degrades or eliminates DSP habitat CUSFWS 1996a). Non-native plants especially notorious in rids resFa<:t include many spedes of in~oduced grasses (Bromu~ ap.). These exotic plants may also alter the soil moisture or make · the subsirate physicall), tinamiable for the survival of the DSt: and othex native subterranean invertebrates CUSiY~VS 1996a). Conclusion Results of the habitat-based sLtrvey indicate that tb.e site does not currently suppcrrt high qualib/potential DSF habitat due to the presence of an actively o. iltivated vineyazd, dense non-native grasses, and ruderal vegetation that comprise neasly 1CO p~cent of the site. Based solely enexisting conditions present at the site, the site does ncr~ likely provide potentially suitable DSF habitat becatL,-e the site does not contain characteristic vegetation cornmu. nities and crpen soil; consistent wi~ habitats lqno~m to supFL"rt D'SF. The site dc~-~ nvt supp~r~ any native vegetation commmmties due to ang~Ymg disb~bances related to agric,.dtural activLties. No shrubs, dune areas, or extensive open areas hat suppor~ friable sandy soLIs are present cn the project s~te. Optimal vegetative cover lot DSF is probably less than 50'percent, and may be in the range of 10-20 percent (USFW5 1996a, 199~). Moreover, ~e site does not conceptually appear to occupy a strategic location with ~,,espect to it's potential incorporation/onto a prospective Tegicrnal wildlife reserve or corridor system. Highly disturbed pacels that support non-native veg-aation encompassed by paved roadways and commercial buildings may be less important to preserve for DS'F than those areas thai cu~,tly support more suitable soLIs and plant communit/es. Additionally, due to ongoing agricultural practices, potentially o¢,wang sensitive small Ewa:mm2j. species ~uch as Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathz~s longimernbrls brevina~us), a federal species of cc~,cem a~d a Cal~ornia species of spedal concern; and S,tn Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipvder~ys merriarni parvus), a feterally-Listed endangered species (omer~e'ncy 'ride effective Ianuary 27, 1998) and CalLfomia spedes o{ spedal concern, are not expected to 82/17/1998 17:10 8!887914~0 IMPACT SCIENCES PAGE pm~attord-Fhblan Development .. January 29, 1998 Page 9 oco.~ m site. No diagnostic sign (burrows, fecal pelletb, ~acks) of the aforementioBed small mammals species were recorded cn site during ~e stt~vey. Likewise, the San Diego horned lizazd (Ptzr!fllosmTul coronafizrn blainviIIii) is also not ,expired to cccur on site. The high level of disturbance due to c~vk',g viEcultural activities, isolation from native plant communities, and the site's p-roximity ~o commercial developmeg, t, limit the site's LiltTent arid futtl.l~ potential to mappor~ low vagility vertebrate wildlife ~pedes. In summary, results of the. habitat-based survey indicate that the site does not currently " L~- support kigh quality potential 'DSF habitat due'to the absence of nat:lye vegetation communities and opm sandy a.reas, dertse cc, ve~age of invasive non*native vegetation, and repetitive expos'm-e to ongoing agricultural activities. Based on these assumptions, development of the site wLlj ndt li~ely repult in adverse acts to DSE Due to the limitations of unseasonal data, it is possibl~ that the Service may not accept any efforts short of the intensive seasonal DSF surveys identified M ~eir abovemenHone4 interim protoc91 because fie habitat-based evaluation was conduc't~ during December, a period fie IDSF's tmdePo'rotmd life cycle. Moreover, ~e Service has roueinel)' cortsidered actively cultivated ~4neyards.potential]y suitable DSF habitat. As such, the proposed project may be more dosely scrutinized by the Service during the environmental review process. Nonetheless, the highly disturbed condition and poor quality DSF habitat present m the subject parcel ILkely precludes current DSF occupat:icm. It has been a pleasure conducting th/s habitat-based evaluation for the Delhi Sands flower- loving fly at the '8-acre pr~jec~ Site located in Rancho Cucamcmga, San Bernardtrio Ccnm,ty, California, If you have any questiotas regardin8 the results presented in this report, please do'n't hesitate to call. Very, truly yours, David G. Crawford Senior Biologist Staff Biologist e'2/17/1938 17:18 9188791448 iNPACT SCIENCES PAGE REFERENCES . · Caiifomia Natural Diversity Data Base (C2qDDB). 1997. Compt~te~ Reports for the 0nta~do, San DLraas, and Guasti USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps. Kingsley, Karmeth J, 1996. Behavior of the DeLhi Sands FLoevet-Loving Ply CDiptexa: Mydidae), a Little Known Extdangexed Species. Ann. EntomoL Soc Am. 89(6): 883-891. U.S. Fish and WildlL{e S~xvice. 1996. Lnte~im General Survey Guidelines ~o~ the Delhi Sands Flower-loving B1y, December 30. U.S. l~ish 'and WLtdli/e Senice. 1996a. Technical/Agency Dr~t Recovery Plan for the Delhi sands Plow6r-loving Fly (RhaphioTnidas (errninabas abdominalis) U.S. Fish and ,Service, portlind, OR. 44+ U.S. Fish and WildMe Service. 1997. Delhi sands Hower-lo~dng Ply (Rhaphiomidas terminatss abdomi~alis) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and WildLife Service, portland, OR. 51 pp- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 97-33, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 172,998 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON 7.97 ACRES OF LAND IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 13) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SIXTH STREET AND ROCHESTER AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-263-01, 02, 03, AND 06 A. Recitals. 1. Panattoni-Phelan Development Company has filed an application for the approval of Development Review 97-33, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 25th day of February 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved 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, Par[ A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on February 25, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the southwest corner of Sixth Street and Rochester Avenue with a Sixth Street frontage of approximately 1,000+ feet and lot depth of approximately 580 feet with partial street improvements. b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant land, the property to the south is developed with an industrial building and has vacant land, the property to the east is developed with industrial buildings and has vacant land, and the property to the west is developed with industrial buildings; c. The application contemplates the construction of a 172,998 square foot industrial building on a 7.97 acre site. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings and facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; and, DR 97-33- PANATTONI-PHELAN DEV. CO. February 25,1998 Page 2 c. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan:; and, d. The proposed use, together with the co'nditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or ma!erially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the facts and information contair~ed in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. The Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated · :=- , thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Based upon the changes and alteratior~ which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. A Habitat Assessment Survey by a federally cedified biologist was conducted to assess the soils, vegetation, and species composition on'the site. The study noted that the site is a cultivated vineyard, with nonnative, invasive plant species such as m. ustard, ripgut grass, Bermuda grass, foxtail chess, and filaree interspersed between the vine rows and around the periphery of the site. The site is in an industrial area almost entirely encompassed by urbanization. The site does not appear to occupy a strategic location with respect to it's potential incorporation into a regional wildlife reserve or corridor system. The study concluded the site would not be acceptable habitat or reserve area for Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSF), d. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: 10 considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Furlher, based upon substantial evidence containing in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits. and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set fodh in Section 753.5(c-l-d).of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set fodh in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to bach and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: Planninq Division 1 ) The final location of and the amenities within the outdoor plaza area for the north office area, as well as the amenities within the southerly plaza area, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits. Amenities in the outdoor plaza areas shall include secured and durable seating, such as picnic benches and tables, trash receptacles, and shade elements, such as an overhead trellis structure or specimen size trees. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97~33 - PANATTONI-PHELAN DEV. CO. February 25, 1998 Page 3 2) A dense landscape palette, including evergreen shrubs and shrub hedges, shall be used in conjunction with the proposed wrought iron fence along the south properly line to form an effective screen in lieu of a solid screen wall. Dense landscaping shall include trees planted at a ratio of at least 1 tree per 30 lineal feet. 3) Berming, low walls, shrub hedges, or combinations thereof shall be provided to screen parking areas from public view and to provide visual interest along the Sixth Street and Rochester Avenue frontages. 4) The required screen walls, trash enclosures, and pump house enclosure shall be architecturally integrated with the buildings with a final finish such as painted tilt-up concrete or exposed aggregate finish. 5) The sliding vehicle access gates shall be decorative and view :~. obscuring so the truck loading and storage area will not be seen from the public right-of-way. 6) The final Landscape Plan shall be designed in conformance with the City's Xeriscape Ordinance. Enqineerinq Division 1) The developer may be entitled to be reimbursed for the cost of the median island landscaping improvements in excess of the cost for one- half the median between Buffalo Avenue and Rochester Avenue (Drawing No. 1269). Reimbursement monies will be from previously collected landscape fees and/or future developments adjacent to or on the opposite side of the street from the project. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF February 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buffer, Secretary I, Brad Buffer, 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 February 1998 by the following vote-to-wit: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-33 - PANATTONI-PHELAN DEV. CO. February 25, 1998 Page 4 A:~'ES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: Devebpment Review 97-33 SUBJECT: 172,998 sq. ft. warehouse building APPLICANT: Panattoni-Phelan Development Company LOCATION: Southwest corner Sixth Street and Rochester Avenue ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Time Limits completion Date t. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not __/__ issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. 2 Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to the issuance of building permits when no map is __/__ involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subidivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. B. Site Development 1 The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include __/__ site ptans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions __/__ of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and __/__ State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. Project No. Dr 97-33 Completion DatJ 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be __ __/ .... submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improver~ent plans shall be coordinated for __ __/ consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal. encroachment building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case ofa ~ustom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. L 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all ~ections of the Development Code __ __/ all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Commudity or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan. including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved / by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shaft indicate style. illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. - :!,- 8. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design. locations, and __ __/__ the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits, 9. All ground-mounted ut I ty appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers. etc.. shall be / located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry wails. berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments. transformers shall be place~ in underground vaults. 10,All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner. including proper illumination. 11. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be perma:nently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association. or other'means acceptable io the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. C. Building Design 1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction off the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. 2. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main building colors. D. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall / contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). 2. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavemenu across circulation aisles shall be provided __/__ throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/recreational uses. J Project No. OR 97-33 Completion Date 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 4. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. For residential development, private gated entrances shall provide adequate turn-areund space in front of the gate and a separate visitor lane with call box to avoid cars stacking into public right-of-way. 5. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall, whichever is greater, of the total number of stalls for use by the handicapped. 6. Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more parking staJIs. Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feet. - · :-.:- 7: Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily residential projects or more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first 50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 25 percent of the required automobile parking spaces. Warehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle storage spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent on the required automobile parking spaces with a minimum of a 3-bike rack. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed 100, Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater. the number shall be rounded off to the higher whole number. 8. Carpool and vanpool designated off-street parking close to the building shall be provided for commercial, office, and industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking area. If covered, the vertical clearance shall be no less than 9 feet. E. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. A minimum of 20% of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30% within commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. 3. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21, 4. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. 5. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shaft receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. sc. ;,:,, 3 t2 Project NO. DR 97-33 il Completion Dat_,~e 6. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included / "'in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping:plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 7. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock~,. specimen size trees, meandering / sidewalks (with horizontal change), and .intensified landsca,p~ng, is required along Sixth Street. 8. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed ~within the public right-of-way on the / perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 9. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the / design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 10, Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of /__ Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cuca~onga Municipal Code. F. ~igns 1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual 0nly and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. G. Other Agencies 1, The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lightjng. The final location of th~ mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: ~ H. Site Development 1, The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. : 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or:industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. Project No. OR 97-33 Completion Date Grading 1. "Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: J. Dedication and Vehicular Access . :~. 1. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City. K. Street Improvements 1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street ligh[s, and street trees. 2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike Other Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Sixth Street X X C X X X A B RochesterAve. X Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per STD. 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. 3. improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way. fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. Project No. DR 97-33 c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street nam~ signing, traffic signal conduit, and __/ interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with an~, new construction or reconstruction / project abng major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals end interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shaft be p~aced on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the!City Engineer. Notes: ; ( 1 ) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No'. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shaft be installed on ali corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at aEI times with adequate detours during construction. Street or ~ane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shai~ be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved bythe City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. 4.Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. 5. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. L. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: Sixth Street median between Rochester and Buffalo Avenues. 2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 3.All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. , Project NO. DR 97-33 Completion Date Drainage and Flood Control 1. "Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. N. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD). Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. O. General Requirements and Approvals 1.The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into one parcel prior to issuance of building permits. 2. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: P. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. 2. Fire flow requirement shall be 3,000 gallons per minute. a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the buildeddeveloper and witnessed by the fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 3. Fire hydrants am required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operahie prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing o materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. 4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a 4" and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. P~oject NO. DR 97-33 ~ Completion Date 5. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all~ hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 6. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as: noted below: X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. X Other: 1994 Uniform Building Code. Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, ~ammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. 7. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operation'al immediately upon completion of sprinkler system. ..... 8. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: X California Code Regulations Title 24. 9. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's'~re lane standards, as noted: X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection !District Ordinance 22. X Other: per Ordinance No. 22. 10. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 11. Gated/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 12. Plan check fees in the amount of $677.00 shall be paid: Prior to final plan approval. Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 13. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Q. Security Lighting 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on, photo sensored cell. Proiect No. DR 97-33 Completion Date 2, All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with __/__ direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3, Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. / R. Security Hardware 1. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within / 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 2. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. / 3. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal gates, / or alarmed. S. Security Fencing When utilizing security gates, a Knox box sub-master system security device shall be used since fire and law enforcement can access these devices, T. Building Numbering 1.Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. 2, Developer shall paint roof top numbers on one or more roofs of this development. They shall be a minimum of three feet in length and two feet in width and of contrasting color to background. The stencils for this purpose are on lean at the Rancho Cucamonga Police Depadment. U. Alarm Systems 1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in turn save dollars and lives. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 25, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buffer, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF INCOMPLETENESS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-01 - MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENTERPRISES - An appeal of the City Planner determination of incompleteness for an application to use a portion of Southern California Edison right-of-way for a nursery located on 3.8 acres of land within Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 12051 Arrow Highway - APN: 229-121-97 ABSTRACT: This application was deemed incomplete on January 20, 1998. The purpose of this report is a request to the Planning Commission to make an interpretation regarding whether or not the subject application should be filed as a Non-Construction Conditional Use Permit or as a full Construction Conditional Use Permit. If the application can be considered a Non-Construction Conditional Use Permit, the application fee will be $3,657.82 less than the fee for a full Construction Conditional Use Permit. The payment of the additional fees was referenced as a completeness item in the correspondence to the applicant dated January 20, 1998 (Exhibit "B"). Per the Development Code, an applicant has the ability to appeal the City Planner's determination of incompleteness within 10 days from the date of the incompleteness letter. ANALYSIS: A. Code Provisions: The Development Code Section 17.04.035 states that a Non-Construction Conditional Use Permit is "where there is no exterior construction involved," in other words, a fully developed site. This Code section was intended to recognize those instances where the applicant desires to occupy space within an existing building, such as a shopping center or industrial park. B. Proposed Project: The applicant proposes a whoiesale nursery on property owned by Southern California Edison and presently used for electrical power transmission lines. The property is undeveloped with the exception of one transmission line tower. A vast majority of the site would be occupied by stored plant materials; however, the following improvements are proposed: a 600 square foot modular office structure, five storage containers ranging in size from 160 square feet to 320 square feet, and parking and driveways paved with asphalt grindings. ITEM E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 98~01 - MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENTERPRISES February 25, 1998 Page 2 C. Analysis: The applicant feels that this not a constructi'on Conditional Use Permit because he is not building any permanent structures and has a 5-year lease. Staff believes this sidesteps the critical issue which is one of process. The Non-Construction Conditional Use Permit process was intended to relieve the Planning Commis,~ion of lengthy agendas and streamline the entitlement process by not requiring review by the~Design Review Committee, Technical Review Committee, and Grading Committee and allowing the City Planner to conduct the public hearing. The application fee for a Non-ConstrQction Conditional Use Permit adopted by City Council is much lower to reflect the simpler process because it is not necessary to review development plans. The various improvements proposed by the applicant to convert raw land into a wholesale nursery operation intensify :utilization of the site thereby requiring street dedication and other applicable street improvements per Ordinance No. 58, which relates to City public street improvement policies and requirements. The Planning Commission recently considered and denied a similar appeal for a church (MECCA) for which .... : ':' only parking lot and building addition improvements were being proposed. In staffs opinion, the proposed modular office and storage containers, site improvements, and related public street improvements constitute construction; thereby requiring a full construction Conditional Use Permit and payment of all applicable fees. Staff believes that the term of the applicant's lease is not relevant because it could be extended be, yond 5 years. The application also constitutes a "project" under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is subject to full Environmental Review. Only the Planning Commission has the ability to review and consider projects involving Environmental Review. Since the fees requested are essentially processing fees for the application and the application is subject to all steps in the City's Development Review process, staff feel~ that payment of the processing fees for a full Construction Conditional Use Permit should be required. All application fees are established by City Council Resolution 95-170. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal by minute action and interpret the application to be a full Construction Conditional Use Permit requiring an Environmental Assessment and payment of all associated fees. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:BLC:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's Letter Exhibit "B" Incompleteness Letter dated January 20, 1998 Exhibit "C" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "D" Site Plan ' N A R l P O S A H O R T t C U k T U R A L E N T E R P R I S E S I N C January 28, 1998 Dan Coleman Principal Planner JAN 2 9 1998 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 10500 City of Rancno Cucamonga Planning Division Re: Conditional Use Permit 98-01-12051 Dear Mr. Coleman: I am appealing the following completeness issue in section A. Item 1. of your letter dated Janua~' 20, I998 and received in my office on January 23, 1998. This issue states the requirement of a "construction" Conditional Use Pen-nit for our project. I ask that you reconsider your decision requiring a "construction" Conditional Use Permit. I base my request on the fact that there will be no actual construction on this site, but only mobile office space and modular storage facilities. Other critical information contributing to this appeal, is the fact that our (enclosed) lease agreement is for temporary usage (5 year lease term) only, with a 30 day right to terminate by lessor or lessee, which in essence, means tinat we have a 30 da.v lease agreement. I also have technical issues(1.4.S&Q that if not waived '.','ill make an>' attempt to pursue this project prohibitive. Taking this into consideration and knowing that Southern California Edison offered this lease agreement only after unsuccessful attempts to find a higher usage for this propert3,. I ask that you waive the additional fees you requested ofS3,657.82. Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter. SincereIx,. Terry Noriega President .~ ~.k, CA LANDSCAPE CONTRACT,OR'S UCENSE NO ~225i T H E C T Y O F E2 AN CPI O C U C;\b'i O N G A January 20,.1.998 Terry Noriega Mariposa Honticultural Enterprises, inc 15529 Arrow Route Invindate. CA 91706 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-01 - 12051 ARROW ROUTE Dear Mr. Noriega': Your application for the above-referenced project has been reviewed for como~eteness and accuracy of filing. As a result of the review, the project application has been found to be incomplete for processing. A~ached please find a lis~ outlining additional information needed prior to finding the application complete, non-canformities v;ith development standards, and major design iissues. Fur, her processing of your project cannot begin until, al a minimum,, the Completeness Items are submitted and the application accepted as complete. However, to expedite processing of your project, it is recommended that all issues on the attached list be addressed n6w. Submit seven copies of the revised application to the Planning Division. The applicant must submit the information and/or plans necessary to make the application complete within 60 days of the date o~ this letter. FaiZure to submi~ within this time limi~ may result in denial of your application. This decision regarding the incomplete status o~ your apalica ion :shall be final following a ten-day appeal period beginning with the dale of this letter. Only Completeness:Items may be appealed at this time. A .... :'=- statemere of reasons for the aDoea[ must be s' 'b-:"-~'~ ' ;~ P:annin"' Commission Secretany and be accompanied by a S62 appeal fee, Shoul5 you have any questions regarding the rev ew process, or if we can be of further assistance. please feel free to contact the project p anner. Brent Le Count, at (909) 477-2750, Monday through Thursday from 7:00 am. to 6:00 p.m. Sincerely. CStWMU~ DEVEL PMENT DEPARTMENT P,L NN1NG IVISIQ Principal Planner Attachment cc: Dan James. Senior Civil Engineer EJj Koran Mosley, Office Specialist II ~ h!c,lo: Wii',icm j. F,~e:<cnde: :: .~:Z~ 7,(<.( ~ CouPs -eracar ~cj ~;cne .", . '; ' Sod-: -eTz, e,' ,~a.< 3zr:errez FILE NO.: CUP 98-01 (COMPLETENESS COMMENTS) : El)is information is provided to assist in the preparation of a development package complete for processing. Additional information or comments may be necessary based upon a more thorough analysis during the Development Review Process, I. Planninq Division: A. Completeness Items - Additional information that must be submitted prior to finding the application complete: /~fj __~ The application was incorrec~:ly filed as a "non-construction Conditional Use Permit." Development of this site requires a "construction" Conditional Use Permit; therefore, the application fees are as follows: Conditional Use Permit 54,089.00 Initial Study 1,168.00 .... :'~' 54,402.00 Fees Paid -744.t8 Balance Due 53,657.82 2. The nature of your proposed improvements necessitate provision of a Conceptual Landscape P!an in accordance v`'ith ~he attached checklis~ applicable ~o development related Conditional Use Permits. These plans should clarify intent to provide "formal landscaping" along northern frontage and around the office s~ructure. Also. clarify what landscaping is proposed around perimeter of site. Soecif',, saecies of existing trees near center of site and '.'.'h='h~r ~h~" '.','ill remain or be removed. Note thai removal of non-fruit bearing trees requires a Tree Removal Permit 4. Clarify ',','hat is proposed just north the power line structure. 5. Clarify ',','hat office and storage structures will look like. Manufacturers pamphlets have been provided without a clear identification of which product is proposed. 6. Provide a copy of your lease agreement. and any restrictions, with Southern California Edison. 7. Revise business description letter to clari~ length of time you wish to operate the business and whether it will involve on-site retail sales (i.e.. open to the general public) of nursery products. B Technical Issues - The following preliminary technical issues are minimum code requirements which must be satisfied before the project can be recommended for approval to the Planning Commission. it is recommended that these issues be addressed in the revised plans: ~ 1. Modular structures are only allowed on a temporan/basis until permanent structures can -_- be constructed. If the proposed ooera ion will be [emporary, a condition of approvaI will require removal of all modular buildings within 5 years. If the operation is proposed to exist longer than 5 years, permanent structures will be required. Your letter states that the only reason a temporary modular structure is proposed is because of a Southern California COMPLETENESS COMMENTS CUP 98-01 January 20, 1998 I Page 2 .... Edison lease restriction; however, Sourher6 California Edison representatives, Ric Greenwood and Dwayne Whirfield, told staff cJn June 12, 1997 that Southern California Edison policy has changed and they are now ~llowing permanent structures within their property. 2. Minimum parking space dimensions are 9 feel~by t8 feet and minimum aisle width is 24 feet (26 feet for fire lane). 3. The Industrial Area Specific Plan requires a 4,5-foot average landscape and minimum building setback from ultimate face of curb on Arrow Route. ~L '~,:) Use of chain link fencing is not permi~ed unless ihe project is proposed as an "interim use" .,' of less than 5 years. Perimeter walls shall be d~corative masonry or metal. ~ a..; The Industrial Area Specific Plan requires all prc~jects within 600 feet of the 1-15 Freeway '- ' to completely screen any outdoor storage areas from view of the freeway. ~[ ~.~ Planning Commission Resolution No. 87~185 rec~uires all new development along the 1-15 Freeway to pay in-lieu fees for future landscapind and irrigation your project frontage along the freeway (i.e.. 630 feet). Please contacl the Engineering Division for calculation of the fee amount. This will become a condition of approval. C. Desi~an Issues - The following are; pretiminan/design issues that are recommended to be addressed in the revised plans: I. Screening of storage comainer~ and asphai{ area, s from i-15 Freeway should be provided with dense, evergreen trees along easterly pro ect perimeter. 2. At a minimum, modular buildings should have a look of permanence. This includes screening of temporan/foundat on, screening utility equipment, landscaping around the foundation, and using overhangs, walkways, and s~epped roofs. 3. Provide decorative masonry wall or me~al fence "along Arrow at setback line. 4. Driveway at entry should be re.oriented to be more perpendicu ar to the street frontage. tl. Enaineerinc] Division: A. ComPleteness: 1. Indicate existing driveways on the noah and south side of Arrow Route within the project frontage and 300 feet beyond. B. Issues: i. Righi-of-way shall be dedicated on Arrow Route 9s measured from center line a total of 50 feet. COMPLETENESS COMMENTS CUP 98-01 January 20, 1998 age 3 2. Install street trees to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and in accordance with the attached Street Tree Requirements form. 3. Arrow Route frontage shall be fully improved to current City standards, including street lights, traffic signing and striping. 4. Install R 26 (s) "No Stopping Any Time" signs along Arrow Route. [11. Building and Safety Division's Fire Prevention/New Construction Unit: Please contact John Thomas, Plan Check Coordinator, at (909) 477-2710 to discuss these items. 1. Plan check fees in the amount of 562.50 shall be paid prior to final plan approval. Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, ..... :':' etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 2. Plans shall be submi~ed and plans approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC. UFC, UPC, UMC. NEC and RCFD Standards 22, 15. 3 Special permits may be required. depending on intended use. as noted belov.,: a. General Use Permit shall be required for any activity or operation not specifically described below, which in the judgemerit of the Fire Chief is likely to produce conditions hazardous to life or property. NOTE: SEPARATE PLAN CHECK FEES FOR FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS (SPRINKLERS, HOOD SYSTEMS. ALARMS, ETC.) AND/OR ANY CONSULTANT REVIEWS WiLL BE ASSESSED UPON SUBMITi'AL OF PLANS. NOTE: A SEPARATE GRADING PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL tS REQUIRED FOR ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AND FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS WHERE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PROPOSED WILL GENERATE 50 CUBIC YARDS OR MORE OF COMBINED CUT AND FILL. THE GRADING PLAN SHALL BE PREPARED. STAMPED, AND SIGNED BY A CALIFORNIA REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIV'IONGA ENGINEERING DIVISION STREET TREE REQUIREMENTS DATE: IAN I~. COFiMENTS PREPARED BY: PIARiA E. PEREZ. ASSISTANT ENGhNEER PROJECT: CUP 98-01 i . LOCATION: S/S ARRO',,V AT DAY CREEK : DESIGN NOTES: I. STREET TREES ARE TO BE SHOI,VN ON STREET OR OTHER PUBLIC t/IPROVEHENT PLANS SIGNED B'r' THE C[T't' EN.3~NEER. AND CONSTRUCTED PER THE S,RPIE.' 2 STREET TREE3 SHO~.'VN ON PL-',NNING :DIVISION SUBi"dlTT.RLS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY 3. INTERIOR STREETS WILL'BE REQUIRED TO SELECT DECIDU,OUS TREES FOR .EA. ST-',VEST STREETS .RIND D/ERGREEN TREES FOR NORTH-SOUTH STRZETS FROPI THE CITY'S APPROVED STREET TR~_E ' "" '::-' LIST. WIND-FRONE AREAS PiAY BE REQUIRED TO UTILIZE A P'iORE DECIDUOUS P,=LEiTE. 4. INDICATED SP.-'.CINGS AND SIZES ARE REQUIREPIENTS FOR CtTY,-i"!AB\ITAINED TREES ONLY. · ..man,= i ,m: TREE CONGE?T GOES BD'OND ~ H: ~',.O.'vV. AND,.'OR AN'r' Ci7;' I":Aif',;TENA,"jCE E'kSEI"~ENT. SPACINGS AND SIZES WILL BE PER THE ON-SITE] PLANS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION. ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE PLANS SHALL BE COORDINATED. ; ?U-'NS SHALL PEF_ECT THE LEGEND AND NOTE5 INDICt. TED BELO',~V. STREET I BOTANICAL NA. NE CO"M'i'~ON NAf~iE t SPACING I SIZE' ,.:R. ROv./ROUTE LIqUID,=~"iBAR S~'YP.-'.CIFLUA ',°ALO ALTO' CONSTRUCTION NOTES FOR STREET TREES ALL STREET TREES ARE TO BE PLANTED IN ACCOR.DANCE WITH CtT'( STANDARD PU-'.N3. 2. PRIOR TO THe_ COi'~ENCEMENT OF ANY PLANTdNG, AN AGRONO~iC SOILS REPORT SHALL BE FURNISHED TO THE CtT'r' INSPECTOR. AN'( UNUSUAL TOXICITIES OR NUTRIENT DEFICIENCIES ~AY REQUIRE BACKFiLL SOIL ,",HENDi'IENTS. AS DETER~INED BY THE CITY INSpECTOR. 3 ALL STREET TREE ARE SUBJECT TOINSP~CTION AND ACCEPTA~NCE BY THE ENGINEERING DIVISION. '-' STREET TREES ARE TO BE PLANTED PER PUBLIC IHeP, O',/EI~'iENT PLANS ONLY. '~ "!"-RADIUS 300' RADt-US :, xc .-. 105 ]' ., P-'~ _ .~c.cZ i' ~ ~6.~..7,~ PROJ~ SITS- ~ .... :':.- ~ ,~ ~,t ; ,,~ ,~ ~ .55 ~C. Z tl ~C. ARROW HWY. OFFICE ~ ., ~'-,,. <, :.. ,.,,%..-:,. ,..- ~.. , .--.. ,:.'. ,% ,. ~ . ~..- . ~ .., -, .-, .:, '.:, '.~ '-,., .., :,:....'. ... __., ~ ~ ~ .. ",., '. :~;'-K~ ~." :-., :., ~ ''..' ~..,~ · -:-:-~7_-.~:.'. ~.',.~.K.'-.~:...,-..: ; --: K," -~ ~['.""-~ ',""" '~K':'' --"." '. ~2~" '1' "'. ' "- ~'. "'. ~ ..',,,- ~-,.- .....'..'. <..~ ~',~: ;- ~<.: .:-.... ,.--,, '..: .-'~ ---'" · - ~.. ' ~' "'., .'~ ~ . L~L:'.c~L~ --~"'-" ,""--'' ,.~~ ' - "... ':' ·-' · ". >.::~t~'c~,~,~s _,--.:>.-'..,- i~[ ':. . ,. ,· . ..... ,~ ~ . ~,.:,~>: ~ ~ ~ '--"'-K ' ' · """:'~;~ , . 50' ~ ~ '': "' ;:" ' " ";'~ "~ · ,.-~ ',. , ~..',. ? .-'~uT . ::,:. - ~ ~ .,~/ .- f ~ ~'.~// .. . .- ~-[~ -. .,