The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998/06/24 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY JUNE 24, 1998 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Aliegiance Roll Call Chairman Barker __ Vice Chairman McNiel __ Commissioner Bethel __ Commissioner Macias __ Commissioner Tolstoy __ II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 10, 1998 June 10, 1998, Adjourned Meeting IV. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. VACATION OF A SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ARROW ROUTE WEST OF WHITE OAK AVENUF 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 shaft be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. B. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-13 TRINITY BIBLE CHAPEL - A request for a time extension of an approved Conditional Use Permit to use an existing single family home for a church and preschool on 0.83 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 9244 19th Street - APN: 201-341-04. C. TIME EXTENSION FOR VARIANCE 96-03 - TRINITY BIBLE CHAPEL - A request for a time extension of an approved Variance to reduce the interior landscape setback from 10 feet to 0 feet for a church and preschool on 0.83 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 9244 19th Street - APN: 201-341 D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15072 - VILLAGE OF INDEPENDENCE, LEWIS HOMES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A subdivision of 90 acres of land into 531 single family lots, a 1.3 acre private open space lettered lot, a 1.3 acre future service station site, and a 5 acre public park site; and the design review of building elevations, site plan, grading plan, and landscape plan for the construction of 531 single family homes and an alternate scheme with 545 homes and no service station site in the Low- Medium and Medium Residential Districts (4-8 dwelling units per acre and 8-14 dwelling units per acre, respectively) of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the southwest corner of Rochester Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 227-151-35, 36, and 37. Associated with this application is Tree Removal Permit 98-10 for the removal of nine existing trees. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. E. ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTANDTENTATIVETRACT15814- FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES: The proposed subdivision and design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 191 single family homes on 40 acres of land in the Low Medium District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) within the Victoria Vineyards of the Victoria Community Plan, located at the southwest corner of Highland and Rochester Avenues -APN: 227-011-09 & 13. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related file: Tree Removal Permit 98-05. Page 2 F. CONSIDERATION TO AMEND TERRA VISTA PARK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 1 LEWIS HOMER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY VI. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS G. COUNTY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP/97-0007NV139-45 - Update on Buddhist Temple project, located approximately 1 mile north of the intersection of Wardman Bullock Road and Wilson Avenue within the City's Sphere of Influence - APN: 226-061-72, 73, and 74. VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. , VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS IX. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 1 ~:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. I, Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on June ~ 8, 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 "k CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAIVIONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 24, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Maria E. Perez, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: VACATION OF A SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ARROW ROUTE WEST OF WHITE OAK AVENUE, BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On August 23, 1988, the City Planner approved Minor Development Review 88-19, submitted by Garcia and Associates. As a condition ofapprovai the applicant was'required to reserve a shared access for the parcel to the west f~onting Arrow Route. This condition was placed to allow for the development of both parcels in conformante with the City adopted driveway policy. An easement for shared access was recorded June 24, 1989. The parcel to the west has subsequently developed independent of the intended shared access. The shared access easement is no longer necessary and vacation of the same would be.consistent with the General Plan. RECOMMENDATION ' Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the finding ttffough minute action that the subject vacation conforms with the General Plan. This finding will be forwarded to the City Council for further processing and final approval. Respectfully submitted, Senior Civil Engineer DJ:MP Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" - Shared Access Vacation ITEH CITY OF iTEM: V- ,s~ RANCH0 CUCAMONGA TiTLE: VICmXTY MAP ENGINEERING DIVISION EXHIBiT:"A" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT '. DATE: June 24, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-13 - TRINITY BIBLE CHAPEL - A request for a time extension of an approved Conditional Use Permit to use an existing single family home for a church and preschool on 0.83 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 9244 19th Street ~ APN: 201-341-04 TIME EXTENSION FOR VARIANCE 96-03 - TRINITY BIBLE CHAPEL - A request for a time extension of an approved Variance to reduce the interior landscape setback from 10 feet to 0 feet for a church and preschool on 0.83 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 9244 19th Street - APN: 201-341-04 BACKGROUND: Conditional Use Permit 94-13 and Variance 96-03 were approved by the Planning Commission on July 12, 1998, for two years. The approvals therefore expire on June 12, 1998. The applicant is currently in plan check for issuance of grading and building permits but does not anticipate permit issuance until after the June 12, 1998, approval expiration. The Engineering Division is withholding grading permit approval until bonds and agreements for street improvements are resolved. The applicant filed the subject time extension request in a timely manner on May 7, 1998. ANALYSIS: The Development Code allows the Planning Commission to grant time extensions of Conditional Use Permit and Variance approvals in one year increments up to a total of 4 years (from original date of approval). The characteristics in the neighborhood have not changed appreciably since the Conditional Use Permit and Variance were approved in 1996. Furthermore. the standards of the Development Code have not changed since approval. The approvals meet all current requirements. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the project site. ITEHS B - C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 94-13 & VAR 96-03- TRINiTYBIBLE CHAPEL June 24,1998 Page 2 RECOMMEN.._ _ DATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant a one-year time extension for Conditional Use Permit 94-13 and Variance 96-03 through adoption of the attached Resolutions. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:BLC:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Applicant's Letter Exhibit "B" Staff Repod dated June 12, 1996 Exhibit "C" ResolUtion No. 96-37 (Conditional Use Permit Approval) Exhibit "D" Resolution No. 96-36 (Variance Approval) Resolution of Approval - Conditional Use Permit Resolution of Approval - Variance RECEIVED May 7, 1998 0 ? 199E City at Ranc~o Cucamonga Mr. Dan Coleman planning Division Principal Planner City of Rancho Cucam~nga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Request For Extension of Time For GRAYSTONE CHURCH, 9244 19th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, Project No. 96002, C.U.P. 94-13 Dear Mr. Coleman: The ConditiOnal Use Permit (C.U.P.) for the above-referenced project has an expiration date of June 12, 1998. The C.U.P. is for site improvements and remodel of an existing structure to accommodate its use as a church. The building is currently in Building Department Plan Check. An extension of time is required to finish city processing of this project, therefore, please consider this request. Thank you for your time in this matter. Sincerely, ' Reverend H.R. Burnett letters\col-gn/.ext CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: June 12, 1996 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission · FROM: Brad Buller. City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-13 - MAX WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS - A request to re-use an existing vacant single family home for a church and preschool in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 9244 19th Street. - APN: 201-341-04. Related File: Vadance 96-03. (Continued from May 8, 1996) VARIANCE 96°03 - MAX ~/ILLIAMS-ARCHITECTS - A request to reduce the interior landscape setback from rl0 feet to 0 feet for a church and preschool in the Low Residential District (2-4 swelling units per acre), located at 9244 19th Street. - APN: 201-341-04. Related File: Conditional Use Permit 94-13. (Continued from May 8, 1996). PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoaina: The properly is surrounded on all sides by residential development in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre). B. General Plan Desiqnations: The project site and all surrounding property falls within the Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) land use designation. C. Site Characteristics: The .84 acre site slopes slightly from north to south and is improved with a single story detached home, which is currently vacant. The house was used during the 1980's and early 1990's as a private preschool/school. Access to the site is taken off 19th Street via a single driveway along the east side of the site. D. Parkin Calculations: Number of Number of Type Number Parking _. _ Spaces Spaces of Use. of seats Ratio Required Provided Church 108 I per 4 seats 27 33 ANALYSIS: A ~_~¢__g. round: The site was used by the Wise Oak Elementary School for many years beginning prior to Rancho Cucamonga's incorporation. The school had been established ',\ ,2-,~ "'~'~ '/) : Z/L/ ,~!~ ,. ..... PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 94-13 & VAR 96-03 - MAX WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS · ' June 12, 1996 Page 2 under a County approval similar to a Conditional Use Permit. A church also used the building for a period during the 1980's without a proper Conditional Use Permit. The school constructed a room addition at the rear of the house, contrary to their approved plans for a patio cover. This triggered the need for a new Conditional Use Permit that was conditionally approved by the Planning Commission on May 22, 1991, including a related variance. The school relocated to another site in the City; hence, the conditions of approval, such as improvements to the site that were never implemented. The City did not receive any complaints from neighbors about the school/church during its operation. B. General: The proposed church will hold services on Sunday mornings from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and eveningS. from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. along with adult bible study and fellowship classes. During the week, the church will be in operation from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Saturdays. There would also be weddings, funerals, and receptions on an irregular basis. The church may submit a separate Conditional Use Permit in the future to operate a preschool/day care facility. C. Proiect Construction Phasinq: The project construction is intended to be phased to synchronize improvements with growth of the congregation and availability of construction funds, see Exhibit "A-3." All on-site and off-site improvements would be completed with Phase I prior to occupancy, including grading, paving, landscaping, repainting the house, new monument sign, and replacement of doors and windows. Architectural enhancements would be constructed in Phases II and III during the first and second year of operation. D. Variance: There is insufficient room between the existing structure and the east properly line to accommodate the required 10-foot wide interior side landscape setback and a 26-foot wide driveway needed to access the Code required parking spaces at the rear of the site. The landscape setback is proposed to be reduced from 10 feet down to between 0 and 3 feet along approximately 230 feet (70 percent) of the east property line. Most of the diminished landscape setback area would be behind a 6-foot high decorative wall. A 26-foot long portion of interior side landscape setback along the west property line would be reduced to 7 feet as well. This is necessary to provide an area for backing out of the end parking space. Similar reduced landscape setbacks exist in the neighborhood. Multi-family projects have been approved on 19th Street just east of the subject property with 5-foot wide landsqape setbacks between the driveways and the side property lines. One of these projects, the Alta ' Loma Woods condominiums, has been built with no adverse affects regarding the 5-foot landscape setback. E. Desiqn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Lumpp, Buller) reviewed the project on April 16, 1996, and requested that the prcjject be brought back before the Committee with certain changes. The applicant worked diligently with staff to revise the project to accommodate these changes. The revised project was reviewed by the Committee (Lumpp, McNiel, Henderson) on May 14, 1996, at which time the Committee recommended approval with conditions, see Exhibit "B." F. Technical Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Technical Review Committee which determined that, together with the recommended conditions of approval, the project is in conformance with applicable standards and ordinances. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 94-13 & VAR 96-03 - MAX WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS June 12, 1996 Page 3 G. Tree Removal: Associated with this project is Tree Removal Permit 96-12, which calls for the removal of 14 existing Italian Cypress trees. The removal of these trees is necessary to install parking and pedestrian pathway improvements. The City's Tree Preservation Ordinance requires replacement planting and appropriate conditions have been attached. H. Environmental Review: The subject application is exempt per Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act FACTS FOR FINDING: Conditional Use Permit: 1. - That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. ' "~hat the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto. will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. Variance: 1. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Code. 2. That tt~ere are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 3. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone. 4. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the-same 2'me. 5 That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Staff believes the following facts concerning the subject property support the Variance request: 1. The combination of the narrow lot and the location and setback of the existing structure crea~e a unique design challenge. 2. The existing structure location at the front of the property necessitates a rear parking lot served by a driveway down the side yard. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 94-13 & VAR 96-03- MAX-WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS June 12,1996 Page 4 3. If the property were developed with only a residence, there would be no requirement for landscaping along this side yard. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 94-13, Variance 96-03, and Tree Removal Permit 96ol 2 through adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval. City Planner BB:BLC:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's Letter Exhibit "B" Design Review Committee Action Exhibit "C" - Location Map Exhibit "D" - Site Plan Exhibit "E" - Floor Plan Exhibit "F" Elevations Exhibit "G" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "H" Grading Plan Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit 94-13 with Conditions Resolution of Approval of Variance 96-03 [ WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS, INC. Rrchitect Me"' 6. UJilliams, RIR, RICP Rrchitecture ~ Urban Planninc March 7, 1996 Mr. Dan Coleman Principal Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 RanCho'Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Conditional Use Permit 94-13- 9244 19th Street, Graystone Church and Preschool, Ranct- Cucamonga, CA, Architect's Project No, 95002. Mr. Dan Coleman: Reverand H.R. Burnett is proposing to operate a community based church at the above-referenced ucture The chur- ~ will hold -services on Sunday morningsa~d location in an existing one-story ~ttr~dy or'fellowship"ciasses. In addition there would be rel e~d evenings along with adult bible . and sl i a activities which may occur on an irregular basis such as weddings, funerals, receptions re. Ill r at n functions. These may occur during the .week and in the evenings. The anticipated hours of oper will be: Sunday Activities: 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday - Friday 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. ' Saturday Activities: 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The church intends to establish a preschool/day care in the future. In anticipation of that use, the site, building and parking are designed to accommodate the projected number of staff and children. The hours of operation are not yet established but will probably be from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. ]I.~_A separate use application will be submitted when that function is desired. Sincerely, Max E. Willjams, AIA, AICP Architect/President MEW/kvg .. ""- "' letters\col-cond.use 276 Not~h Second Avenue · Upland, California 91786 · (909) 981-2845 · FRX (909) 98548S6 - _ G GLUILLIAMS ARCHITECTS, INC. " Architect Max E. Williams, AIA, AICP Architectur~ Q UFL~an Planning ATTACHMENT TO VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR GRAYSTONE CHURCH AND PRESCHOOL ' ' ' ARCHITECT PROJECT NO. 96002 CONDITION USE PERMIT 94-13 - 9244 19TH STREET MARCH 8, 1996 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of site improvements and remodel of an existing structure to accommodate its use as a church and preschool/day care facility. The existing driveway is to be widened to city standards and the site is to be graded, landscaped and paved as per the submitted drawings. The structure is an existing one-story wood frame building with stucco exterior finish and drywall interior finish and asphalt shingle roofing. Minimal changes will be made to the building to provide for the proposed use. Remodeling will include: two new entries and three new exits. Some existing windows and doors will be framed in and finished to match existing conditions, The building will be painted when remodeling is complete. VARIANCE JUSTIFICATION A variance is requested for the required side yard landscape area along the east property line for approximately 230' of length. A 3' and 5' wide landscape planter are provided along a portion (_ 155') of the variance area as shown on the submitted plans. The variance is necessary due to the narrow width of the p~oper:ty and the proximity of the structure to the east property line and the need for maximizing the drive aisle width for two-way traffic at this location. The variance is necessary to allow the owner to use the property in compliance with the zoning. The strict application of the development code would deprive the property owner privileges (use) enjoyed by other properties in this district, The special circumstances which exist on site create a hardship. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to adjacent properties or the zoning district and neighborhood. attach.mnt\gray.chr.app 276 North Second Avenue · Upland, California 91786 ° (909) 981-2845 · FAX r909~ 985-z. 836 b.[iLLi~N? ~,CHiTF_CT? TEL ~:.:..9~1~%:i-'_-'~$~-~:::~, II_=.Lj 21,'~6 iz::':( ;]Cs.OC!~ F'.L_':2 " WlLLIAMS ARCHITECTS, INC. ._ Architect Max E. LUilliams, AIA, AICP Architecture &Urban Planning May 21, 1996 Mr. Brent Le Count, AICP Planning Associate City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Graystone Church, 9244 19th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, Project No. 96002, C.U.P. 94- 13 & Variance 96-03 Dear Brent: Please accept this letter as further clarification of the proposed phasing for Graystone Church. Phase I improvements would occur prior to occupancy and would include the following: all on-site and off-site improvements including grading, paving, landscaping and all conditions of approval. Modifications to existing structure will include replacement of doors end window!; as shown on proposed plans, new monument sign, and painting exterior of building. Phase II improvements would occur during the first year of operations end would include the following: re-roofing entire structure, cutting back roof overhangs and applying new fascia boards as shown on proposed elevations, new entry ~tructures, and new awnings at south-f~,cing windows. Phase III improvements would occur during the second year of op.aratlons and would include construction of the new tower element. Sincerely, .~[~j~S ,A~H~STECTS, IN C. :7'c, ; ager7 ' MRG/kvg let t e rs\lec:g ry. imp DESIGN ILEVIE\V CO.\INIENTS 6:10 p.m. Brent LdCoum May !4, 1996 CONDITIONAL USE PER~,\'IIT 94-13 - MAX \VILLIAMS ARCHITECTS - A request to re-use an existing vacant single family home for a church and school in the Low Deposit,',' Residential District, located at 9244 19th Street - APN: 201-341-04. Related File: Variance 96-03. B~ck~roUnd: The Design Review Committee (Lapp, Butler) reviewed this project on April 16, 1996, and requested that it be brought back before the Committee with a revised entry design. The applicant was unable to finish the requested revisions in time to distribute plans for Committee review. Staff will present the revised design with comments at the Committee meeting. Attachment: DRC Action dated April 16, 1996 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Heinz Lumpp, Larry MeNtel, Larry Henderson Staff Plarmer: Brent LeCount The Design Review Committee reviewed this project and recommended approval of the project subject to the following additional conditions to be added to those from the April 16, 1996 meeting: 1. Specify that the entire building will be repainted as part of the initial remodeling (first Phase). 2. Specify that dimensional (thick butt) asphalt shingles will be used for the new roof. 3. Revise awning design to blend better with the building architecturally. .:- :- / DESIGN KEVIE\V COMMENTS 6:10 p.m. Brent LeCount April 16, !996 CONDITIONAL USE PER_MIT 94-13 - ._",lAX WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS - A request to re-use an existing vacant single family home for a church and school in the Low Densit}' Residential district, located at 9244 19th Street. - APN: 201-341-04. Associated with this application is Variance 96-03. Background: The applicant originally submitted on March 31, 1994, which ',,,'as deemed incomplete. The application was resubmitted several times and deemed complete for processing on March 26, 1996. Design Pdrameters: - The applicant proposes to remodel an existing vacant single family home (former Wise Oak School) and provide on-site parking improvements to accommodate a church ( 100 seat chapel) and preschool/day care facili~' (classrooms for up to 23 children). He intends to perform as lirde modification to the existing building as possible in order to keep costs to a minimum and preserve the single family character of the building while upgrading to meet current Codes. He has provided a total of 33 parking spaces (27 required), and sufficient landscaping in conformance with the Development Code requirements. The applicant has requested a Variance from the required 1 O-foot landscape setback along the east side of the properly because of the narrowness of the lot width. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. .Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Restudy the design of the church and preschool entries to provide--a-more formal entry statement. Consider the following design elements: a. Architectural treatment such as entry framing, color or material variation at entry', or a trellis or small pergola leading to entry. b. Landscape treatment such as the use of plants and/or colored/textured paving tO dd'ine the entry' and/or the pedestrian pathway leading to the entry'. 2. Consider use of deciduous tree species along the west and south sides of the building to provide shade in summer and sun exposure in winter. 3. Provide 2" by 6" trim around all windows. 4. Provide decorative treatment for property line wails such as slump stone block or stucco with a brick cap. 5. Provide a pilaster at the ends of the property [ine walls. 6. Provide decorative colored driveway paving at entry. 7. Provide a minimum 2-foo~ planter alon~ nerimeter wall directly east of house by reducing driveway width to 24 feet in this area ifa~16wed by the Fire Distr{ct. This would be consistent wilh previously approved plans for \Vise Oak School (CUP 90-25). / DRC CO.MNIENTS CUP 94-i 5 .-,M.4X WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval with the above modifications. Design Reviexv Committee Action: Members Present: Heinz Lumpp, Brad Buller StaffPlarmer: Brent LeCount The Committee recorn~ended the following changes: 1. Enhan~ the main entries to the church and school to provide a more formal entry, statement. I is recocmized that such enhancement may require construction p~asing; however, the Committee wishei~to review the entry' design with the overall project· Provide decorative/colored driveway paving at the entry. up'to the north end of the landscaple " planter island adjacent to the front parking area. Submit sample of decorative material for Cit~' Planner review and approval, pri.o_r to issuance of Building Permits. 3. Provide vine pockets along property line walls and specify that vines will be trained to grow up sides of walls. 4. Show where a trash enclosure would be located· It is recommended that the trash enclosure location be away from property l!nes and hidden from vie~of the~ street. 5. Eliminate wheel stops. Instead design p.lanter curbs to function as ~vheel stops. Provide mature/specimen size trees (24" box to 36" box) w'ithin front yard area and specify trunk 6. size. · e berm and landscapin" within front landscape setback area to buffer views of parki g ~a provide further separation between parking and street. 8. Specify deciduous trees species along the west and south sides of the building to profide shade ' in summer and sun exposure in winter. 9- provide 2;' by 6" trim around all windows. 10. provide decorative treatment for property, line wails such ~s slump stone or stucco with brick c~ p- 11. Provide pilasters at ends of property line wall~; .... . k · --k ............................ ' - ~ -, [.- ';;dT'~. [ ~ ~ ........... ;:.'.~"L~,'.~.~;; ......... I ........... .__is -~-V ........... '-:.;. I "~7~i ~ "~-~:--:.~'~'2,?L'~2~;7'~,,, ' ................... I;., ........................ " ....i~":L'':L; : .d,'.-.',* "-2 ' DRAWING INDEX~ ........... ;t,, . ;: . t,.,,,;.,,;:.;,. · : - . ,., ................. , ........ -.::,;!] -".. ¢- ' ~, ~ ..................... ; ..... ~ Z 7 []. '., ~ .... = =SI~E~pkAN~EEGEND ~ ~DE~AI~ED~SI~E.PLAN ,~;.t ~ ,'. zo' (6) VICINITY MAP NORTH ELEVATION ,~,,,~_'~'1'''' '~ · ~ -~- SOUTH ELEVATION PROPOSED - NORTH & SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PROPOSED - EAST & WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ....................................... ::"' l "';!=;'~T~''F'Ii ' %'' "" "' ~' ,- 8:' cure ONLY ~ ..... , [ ~'?'-. :::.... .,...,,:.=::..~.'.,,.;.',.=,...:,.'..=,=.,,,.' .... ' ...... ~.... ...Z' ,, ~:~' """""""""'"""""""""""""""""""":~ ;" ' r.;:~ ' :"'~': ........................... Q .... ': ,.."', :S":: ~ ~,. ~ ,- · ~ ............ ..................................:~ Z""' """ '~"~l' ' .... ' J I """ ..: ..:..... ......... ....~: .,,.,..~.. .............. ::::.....- ~-~ ..~.~'. -.--. ...... ............................................. ~. ., ,.-.,......~ :~;:7: ..................... '~'1 '~2~ C ' ...................... ; ..... . ,: ,~ ,,.~. ,... l .,. ;~ ......... ~ ~ ~ ' ". :2 ~ ~ ' ............................................. ; j * -, ~" " ~ VIC'.NIIY HAP ="':' ..............................................~.... 'T:L'~""',( ~ ~ '"""""~ ............ ' ';:*" ' ~:'Z i~H STREET RESOLUTION NO. ,a5_37 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 94-13 FOR A CHURCH LOCATED ON .80 ACRES OF'LAND AT 9244 19TH STREET IN TH.E LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-341-04. A. Recitals. 1. Max Williams has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 94-13, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution. the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On May 8, and continued to June 12. 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred, B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals. Pan A. of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- - referenced public hearing on June 12. 1996. including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony. this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a: The application applies to proper{y located at 9244 19th Street v.,ith a street frontage of 110 feet and lot depth of 331.72 feet and is presently improved with a single story home; and b The property is surrounded on all sides by residential development; and c, A similar use occupied the site for a number of years without generating complaints from adjacent property owners; and d Planned parking for the site is adequate to meet Code requirements, 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented ~o this ~ommission 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 fofiows: a The proposed use is in accord wi(h the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto. will not be detrimen:a/to ~he public health, safe~y. or weif-~re or materially fniurio.,.z,s to properties or improvements in the vicinity, PLANNING CO~J~MISSION R-SOLUTION NO. CUP 94-13 - MAX WiLLfAMS June 12, 1995 Page 2 c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. The Planning Commission hereby_finds and determines that the project identified in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15301 of the' State CEQA Guidelines. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated heroin by this reference. Plannind Division 1) Approval is granted for a church use only. Any expansion of use, such as a school, preschool, building addition, or change in the hours of operation, shall require approval by the Planning Commission for a modification to this Conditional Use Permit. ' 2) Approval shall expire, unless extended by the City Planner, if building permits are not issued or the approved use has not commenced within 24 months of this date. 3) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Development Code, State Fire Marshors regulations, Uniform Building Code, or any other City Ordinances- 4) If operation of the facility causes adverse effects upon adjacent properties, the Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission for consideration and possible termination of the USe. 5) The facility shall be operated in conf~mance with the performance standards as defined in the DevelOpment Code including, but not- limited to, noise levels. 6) The hours of operation for the church shaft be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. seven days a week. 7) Tree Removal Permit No. g6-12. for the removal of italian Gypress trees, is hereby approved subject to replacement planting on ache-for- one basis ~;ith the largest nursery grown stock availabJe as determined by the City Planner. The existing Palm tree located in the front yard shaft be preserved through teloration within the project landscape Repl2:ement trees shall be noted on the Jands;ape pJans for reviev; and .- "royal by the City Planner. 8) Submit a sample of the decorative material to be used j,q the driveway paving for City Planner review and approval. prior to the issuance of buitding permits ,f2, _ :- _ ,? 4/ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 95-37 CUP 94-13- MAX WILLIAMS June 12. 1996 Page 3 9) Provide vine pockets along propetiy line walls and specify that vines will be trained to grow up the sides of the walls. 10) Provide mature/specimen _size trees {24-inch to 36-inch box) within front yard area and specify trunk size. 11) Provide berm and landscaping within front landscape setback area to buffer views of parking as much as possible. 12) Raise front parking area as necessary to avoid sloped parking lot and provide furlher separation between parking and street. 13) Provide deciduous tree species along the west and south sides of th building to provide shade in the summer and sun exposure in winter. 14) Provide 2-inch by 6-inch trim around all windows oEequiva[ent to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 15) Provide decorative treatment for property line-walls such as slump stone or stucco with brick cap. 16) Provide pilasters at the ends of property line walls. 17) The entire home shall be re-painted prior to occupancy. 18) Provide dimensional (thick butt) asphalt shingles for new roofing. 19) Revise awning design to blend better with the building architecturally. 20) The free-standing front entry feature shall be rodesigned to be better integrated with the building to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 21 ) Eliminate wheel stops and use planter curbs instead. 22) Remove existing chain link fence gate across drive aisle, at southeast corner of house, or replace with decorative metal. 23) Approval o[ this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to approval of related Variance 96-03. Ena(neerino Division 1) Dedication (easement) of 11 feet shall be made for right-of-way along 19th Street, across the project frontage, for a total of 44 feet as measured from street conrecline. Easement Deed shall be accepted by the City Engineer and recorded by the County Recarder's Office, prior ta the issuance of building permits 2) Public impro,;ements shall be constructed across the frontage of the -proper~y along 19th Street, including but not necessarily limited to curb and gutter, drive approach, sidewalk, street lights, street trees, and asphalt paving. and shall join the existing curb and gutter to the east ann transition to the existing asoha[: berm to the ,,,zest, pursuant ta . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 95-37 _ CUP 94-13 - MAX WILLIAMS 'June 12. 1996 Page 4 - - standards,'policies, ordinances, etc.. to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3) A non-refundable deposit_shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated cost of operating all street lights during the first six months of operation, prior to the issuance of building permits 4) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the' future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical) on the project side of 19th Street shall be paid to the City, prior to the issuance of building permits. The fee shall bethe City's adopted unit amount times the length of the project frontage (110 feet). 5) The existing street light located on the wooden utility pole shall be removed and a standard street fight constructed, pursuant to City and Southern California Edison standards, policies, etc., paid for and coordinated by the Developer, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This conditions is related to Condition No. 2 above. 6) R26 "No Parking Anytime" signs shall be installed on the street light standards or posted along the project frontage in accordance with City standarc%. This condition is related to Condition No. 2 above. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JUNE 1996. PLANNING OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~' [3~vi~c~ E ~'rker, -~airman ATTEST' ~ '~ , -,---- I, Brad Buffer, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the Cit~z of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regu',arly 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 12th day of June 1996, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: B.~R,<-"P,, LU:-I.-'P, HCNf. EL , TOLST0'," NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ~10:;-2 ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HELCHER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJEC'I=#: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-13 (RELATED FILE VARIANCE 96-03) SUBJECT: CONVERSION OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING TO A CHURCH APPLICANT: WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS. INC. LOCATION: 9244 19TH STREET ALL OF THE FOLt.:OIA;'ING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. Time Limits completion Date 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. B. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign prsgram, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon. all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior Io occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building eIevadons incorporating all Conditions of Approva{ shall be submi~ed for City Planner review and approval prior to the iss~Eance of building permits. 5 AlE site, grading. landscape. irdga~on, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency pdor to issuance of any permits (such as grading. tree removel. encroachment. building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced. whichever comes first 6 Approval of this request shall not waive compIiance with all sec'tions of th~ Development Code, aU other applicable C~ Ordinances, and applicable Communit'/or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan shaft be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and P,olice Department (477-2530) prior to the issuance of building permits, Such plan shall indicate s~le, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not io 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 utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers. etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, betruing. and/or andscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 10. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner. including proper illumination. 11. All parkways, open areKs: and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shaft be submitted for City planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 12. Six (6) foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least thirty (30) days pdor to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's perimeter. C. Building Design 1. All roof appurtenances, inclu~ting air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections. shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. D. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minin%um outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). 2. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entr'? ~ces, and exits shaft be striped per City standards. 3. 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. E. Land~;caping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in this / case of residen~al development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for C~/Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approvat in *~-= ,'as= of a custom lot subdivision. I 2 Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at'a rate of on 15-gallon tree for every three parking staffs. sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. 3,3. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along struc[ures at a rate of one tree per / 30 linear feet of building. 2 All private slopes in 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope. but less than 2:1 slope. shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control Slope planting required by this section shall incIude a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 5. For multi-family residential and non-residential development. propecb/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 thrMng condition. and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any .damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. 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 landscaping, is required along the front yard area 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 Poncho Cucamonga Municipal Code. F. Signs 1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance 'and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. G. Other Agencies The applicant shall Contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type end location of mail boxes. MullS-family residential developments shah provide 8 solid overhead structure for mail boxes with . adequate ligh~ng. The final localion of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR CO,',iPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOV~/ING CONDITIONS: H. Site Development The applicant shall comply with the-latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances. and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits, Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an e~s~ng developmenL the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not ~imP~ed to: Transporta~on Development Fee, Drainage Fee. School Fees. Permit and Plan Checkfng Fees. Existing Structures I. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering use, / area. and ~re-resistiveness of existing buildings. Z. Existing buildings shall be made to comply with correct building and zoning regulations for the intended 1 use or the building shall be demolished. J. Grad.ing 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 CalF~rnia to perform / such work. 3. The final grading plans shaft be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. I~1 APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: K. Dedication'and Vehicular Access 1. Dedica'don shall be made of the following rights-of-waY on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): 44 total feet on 19 th Street / / (see Engineering special condition No. 1 in the Resolution) L. Street Improvements 1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: / .- %..,, s,,::,s,,¢,co.,,. Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irfigaljon on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and o,;erlays 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 construc6on fee shall be provided for this item. ~ ~Soecial Condition No 2. '. 2. Improvement Plans and Cons ruction: / 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 CiviI Engineer and shall be submitted to and appro,;ed by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the Cit,/Bngineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvementS, prior to the issuance of building permits. b. Prior to any work being performed {n public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and e construeion / permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing. traffic signal conduit. and / interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed-w~th any new construction or reconstruction project I / along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect · wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: (1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet aparL unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall'be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards / or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours dudng construction. Street or lane closure permits are required, A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concenti'ated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shah be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. 3. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all private streets shall be provided for review and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being performed on the private streets, fees shall be paid and construction permits shall be obtained from'the-C~ Engineer's Office i,n addition to any other permits required, 4. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Walls. signs, and slopes shall be located outside the fines-of-sight Residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines or sight plotted as required. 5 A permit shall be obtained from Oaltrans for any work within the following right-of-way: 19th Street.. 1,1. PubliE Maintenance Areas A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be flied with the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits, N. Utilities 1. Pro,/de separate uti',ity services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system. water, gas, electric power. telephone. and cable ~ (arl underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements sharl be provided as required The dave!spar shah be responsible for the reEsca~ion of exis:[n~ utifities 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 CC%ND is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits. whichever occurs first, O. General Requirements and Approvals 1. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way: ,See Condition, L.5. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DIVISION, {909) 477-2780, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: P. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Fire flow requirement shall be 3,000 gallons per minute. __/__ F , a. A previous fire flow conducted revealed gpm available __ / at 20 psi. b. ~fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/develOper and w~tnessed by fire department personnel /__ prior to water plan approval. c. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow_test of the on-site hydrants shall be / conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 2. Bdsting fire hydrant Ioc~tions 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. ' / 3. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection DistriCt Ordinance 15. __1__1 Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, fiammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. 4. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required aS noted below: Per Rencho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. / / / / California Code Regulations Title 24. _ X Other: 1994 Uniform Buildinq and Fire Code /--/ 5 Roadways within project shali comply with the Fire District's - e lane standards, as noted: I___i: X All roadways. 6. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspectio" Proof of purchase shall be / / submitted prior to final buiIding plan approval, Contact the Fire Safer; ,,ision for specific details and ordering information. --::" /2._/' 2¢2 .. Gatedlrestricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key sys[em. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 8. Plan check fees in the amount of S__0 have been paid, An additional S82500 shall be paid: X Prior to water plan approval. Prior to final plan approval, Note~ Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Q. Security Lighting 1.. All park ng, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1 -foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. R. Security Fencing When utilizing secuffty gates, a Knox box sub-master system security device shall be used since fire and law enl'orcement can access these devices. S. Building Numbering 1, Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. / RESOLUTION NO. 95-36 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 96-03 TO REDUCE THE INTERIOR LANDSCAPE SETBACK FROM 10 FEET TO 0 FEET FOR A CHURCH LOCAT. ED AT 9244 19TH STREET IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-341-04. A. Recitals. 1. Max Willlares has filed an application for the issuance of Variance No. 96-03 as described in the title of this Resolution- Hereinafter in this ResolutiOn, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." 2. On May 8, and continued to June 12, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearlELg on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW THEREFORE. it is hereby found. detenT~ined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City :~ Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals. Pad A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on June 12, 1996, including written and oral staff reports. together with public testimony. this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property consisting of .80 acres of land located at 9244 19th Street with a street frontage of 110 feet and lot depth of 331.72 feet and is presently improved with a single story home. The property was previously used by an elementary school and church; and b. The property is surrounded on all sides.by residential development; and c. All uses proposed in the application conform to the General Plan and Development Code, and the proposed uses are permitted in the Low ResLdentia[ District subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. The appficant, in conjunction with the subject application, has filed for the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit; and d. The application applies to property containing an existing residence with a building set~"ck of 10 feet on the west side yard and.25.5 feet on the east side yard; and e. The allowance of a reduction of the side yard landscape setback, contrary to the requirements of Table 17.10.040.B- of the Developmen Code. shall not grant a special privilege since the setbatiK, as proposed, will be consistent and compatible with side yard landscape setbacks which exist or are approved on surrounding prope~ies; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, ~6-35 VAR 96-03 - MAX WILLIAMS: June 12, 1996 Page 2 f. The allowance of a reduction in the side yard landscape setback, contrary to the requirements of Table 17.10.040.B. of the Development Code, shall not grant a special privilege since the development of the subject site requires utilization of the existing building served by parking at the rear of the site which is accessible only via a two-way driveway along the east side yard; and g. The allowance of a reduction of the side yard landscape setback, contrary to the requirements of Table 17.10.040.B. of the Development Code, shall not grant a special privilege since all surrounding propedies are not required to maintain 10 feet of landscaping along the side yard. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set fodh in p?ragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a, That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. b. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. c. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regul:~tion would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. d, That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. e. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below: 1) All conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No, 96-37 approving Conditional Use Permit 94-13 shall apply. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JUNE 1996, PLAN~-N'G C't)MMtSSION OF 'E, HE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA · , "\\.f , ,.,~_a ,,,:~:j~ B a~'~ - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 96-35 VAN 96-03 -' MAX WILLIAMS June 12, 1996 Page 3 ATTEST: rad Bull~,,c/e ' Sect of the remission 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 12th day of June 1996, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LU~4PP, r, ICNI EL, TOLSTOY NOES: C' MMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: :COMMISSIONERS: ~.FLCHER RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION' OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR ' · ' TIME EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-13 TO USE AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME FOR A CHURCH AND PRESCHOOL ON 0.83 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT 9244 19TH STREET - APN: 201-341-04 A. Recitals. 1. Reverend H. R. Burner has filed an application to request a time extension of the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 94-13, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 241h day of June 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on June 24, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The previously approved Conditional Use Permit is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and b. The extension of the Conditional Use Permit approval will not cause significant inconsistencies withe the current General Plan, specific plan, ordinances, plans, codes, and polices; and c. The extension of the Conditional Use Permit approval is not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and d. The extension is within the time limits established by State Law and local ordinance. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension for: Application Applicant Expiration CUP 94-13 Reverend H. R. Burner June 12, 1999 pLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TE FOR CUP 94-13 - H.R. BURNET June 24, 1998 Page 2 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JUNE 1998. pLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman A'ETJEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the .City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of June 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION OF VARIANCE 96-03 TO REDUCE THE INTERIOR LANDSCAPE SETBACK FROM 10 FEET TO 0 FEET FOR A CHURCH AND PRESCHOOL ON 0.83 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT 9244 19TH STREET ~ APN: 201-341-04 A. Recitals. 1. Reverend H. R. Burner has filed an application to request a time extension of the approval of Variance 96-03, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafier in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 24th day of June 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho CUca__monga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. - 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on June 24, 1998,. including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The previously approved Variance is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and b. The extension of the Variance approval will not cause significant inconsistencies with the the current General Plan, specific plan, ordinances, plans, codes, and polices; and c. The exteOsion of the Variance approval is not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and _ d. The extension is within the time limits established by State Law and local ordinance 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension for: Application Applicant Expiration ~/ariance 96-03 Reverend H. R. Burner June 12, 1999 1 pLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 96-03 - H.R. BURNET June 24. 1998 Page 2 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JUNE 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of June 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: June g, lgg8 To The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: I am responding to your notice concerning the public hearing considering the tentative "Village of Independence". I am in favor of this future development. Your notification mentioned that either 533 or 546 homes would be built. As a twenty-year resident of this neighborhood, I am interested in using this land only for homes, with no service station being included in the plan. The last time a service station was being considered for this property, I know that many of my neighbors were not in favor of adding a service station in this residential area. Thank you for your consideration. Barbara Dynes George and Barbara Dynes R E C E i V E D 7378 Fennel Road Etiwanda, CA 91739 JUN 10 1998 City of Rancho Cucamonga Plannin9 Di~'is~n CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA ' ~ STAFF REPORT DATE: June 24, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTAND TENTATIVE TRACT 15072 - VILLAGE OF INDEPENDENCE, LEWIS HOMES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A subdivision of 90 acres of land into 531 Single family lots, a 1.3 acre private open space lettered "tot, a 1.3 acre future service station site, and a 5 acre public park site; and the design review of building elevations, site plan, grading plan, and landscape plan for the construction of 531 single family homes and an alternate scheme with 545 homes and no service station site in the Low-Me¢ium and Medium Residential Districts (4-8 dwelling units per acre and 8-14 dwelling units per acre, respectively) of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the southwest corner of Rochester Avenue and Base Line Road -APN: 227-151-35, 36, and 37. Associated with this application is Tree Removal Permit 98-10 for the removal of nine existing trees PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Project Density: 5.90 dwelling units per acre for the 531 home-scheme, and 6.05 dwelling units per acre for the 545 home scheme. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning' Nodh - Single Family Homes; Victoria Community Plan Medium Residential (8 to 14 dwelling units per acre) South - Vacant Land; Terra Vista Community Plan Low-Medium Residential (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre) East Single Family Homes; Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) West Single and Multi-Family Homes; Terra Vista Community Plan Low-Medium Residential (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre), and Medium Residential (8 to 14 dwelling units per acre) C. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Low-Medium Residential (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre) North - Low-Medium Residential (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre) South - Low-Medium Residential (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre) East Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) West Low-Medium Residential (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre) and Medium Residential (8 to 14 dwelling units per acre) ITEf,~ D pLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 15072 -VILLAGE OF INDEPENDENCE June 24, 1998 Page 2 D. Site Characteristic_.._ _ s: The vacant site slopes at approximately 3 percent from north to south. There are nine existing Eucalyptus trees along the eastern edge of the site which appear to be a remnant of a previous windrow. Perimeter streets include Base Line Road, Rochester Avenue, Mountain View Drive, Terra Vista Parkway East, and Church Street . ANALYSIS: A. General: The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission as a Pre-Application Review on July 23, 1997, and by the Design Review Committee (conceptual only) on August 19, 1997. The Commission toured the Village of Independence product under construction at Tustin Ranch in September of 1997. The project is organized into four "n~ighborhoods" within a gated community. There is a fifth neighborhood that will have representative home types from all of the other four neighborhoods. The neighborhoods will have access to a main spine street (Street "A") with 9ated entrances at Mountain View Drive and Church Street and a third entrance off of Rochester Avenue. Street "A" includes a community trail. A 5-acre future public park site is proposed at the western edge of the site next to an existing elementary school. A 1.3 acre private open space/park area is proposed roughly in the center of the project. The four neighborhoods will have three different floor plans each with two alternative front elevations. Home size will range from 1,500 square feet to 3,683 square feet. Many of the homes are proposed to have large porches and/or courtyard areas surrounded with low masonry walls bringing useable, defined outdoor living space out in front of the garages. The project has been designed with the "innovative" development standards of the Terra Vista Community Plan, which allows certain flexibility in lot size, setbacks, etc., in exchange.:~or provision of upgraded design methods. B. Alternatives: Lewis Homes is requesting two alternative development schemes. One scheme wouid have 531 homes and a 1.3 acre future service station site located at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue, the other alternative '. '.;Id -- replace the service station site with homes for a total of 545 homes. The Conditiona~ ~Jse Permit 91-10 for the service station, which was previously approved by the Planning Commission, has expired. The Planning Commission is being asked to approve both development schemes. C. Tree Removal Permit: There is a remnant of a mature Eucalyptus windrow along the Rochester Avenue frontage of the site that will be removed for street widening. These trees are considered "heritage trees,' and are subject to the City's Tree preservation Ordinance (Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code 19.08). These Eucalyptus GI0bulus ( Blue Gum) trees are not suitable for urban development due to their branch drop and toppling problems, which is exacerbated by seasonal high winds. The applicant has submitted an application for a Tree Removal Permit. which is required to be reviewed and approved concurrently. The project design includes extensive landscaping, including street trees, along Rochester Avenue; therefore, no further mitigation is necessary. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 15072 -VILLAGE OF INDEPENDENCE " June 24, 1998 Page 3 D. Telecommutinq Center Requirement: The Development Code requires that, "Single family developments of 500 or more units shall provide a telecommuting center or contribute toward the development of one in an amount satisfactory to the City Council." A condition of approval to that effect is contained in the attached Resolution of Approval. The Independence project is the first 500 unit development to be processed in the City since this requirement was established. There are no other projects in the City which have provided a telecommuting center to serve as an example. It is staffs opinion that the concept of an actual remote office-like setting with computer terminals, fax, phone, etc., is outdated in light of current Internet and E-mail technology and the relatively inexpensive availability of fax machines and computers. Staff is of the opinion that the intent of the requirement to encourage telecommuting would be better served by allowing Lewis Homes flexibility to utilize state-of-the-art technology such as provision of category 5 cable phone lines for each home to facilitate faster internet data tra'nsmission capability. This way, each home could be equipped with an efficient home office if future homeowners choose. E. Street Desiqn: The Applicant is proposing the use of a gated community with private streets consisting of rolled curb and curb adjacent sidewalk. The internal spine street however, will use standard curb with property line adjacent sidewalk. All will be designed and constructed under the direction and approval of the City Engineer pursuant to current City Standards. F. Desiqn Review Committee: The Committee (Bethel, Macias, Fong) reviewed the project on May 5, 1998, and requested that the project be revised and brought back for further review. The Committee (Bethel, Macias, Buller) reviewed the revised project on June 2, 1998 and recommend approval of the project design, see Exhibit "J." G. Technical Review/Gradinq Committees' The Committees have reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to the ConditiOns outlined in the attached Resolutions of Approval. H. Environmental Assessment: Staff has completed the Initial Study and determined that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be in this case because mitigation measures will be required. Since the site is currently vacant, the development will increase the amount of runoff from the site via hard scape and roo~ops, which will require upgrades to the storm drain system. A condition of approval requires _ necessary upgrades to accommodate the project. The site is subject to excessive noise levels from Base Lin~ Road and Rochester Avenue. An acoustical analysis was prepared which indicates that 4 to 5-foot high masonry walls along the street frontages will address exterior noise to acceptable levels and that specialized glazing techniques will address interior noise to acceptable levels. Finally, the project will .generate additional traffic trips. A Congestion Management Program/Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the project, which includes detailed analysis of traffic generation from the project and the impact upon the regional backbone system. In order to address traffic impacts, improvements to the surrounding roadways are required per conditions of approval in the attached Resolution of Approval.. pLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ' TT 15072- VILLAGE OF INDEPENDENCE June 24, 1998 Page 4 CORRESPOND_ _... ENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 600-foot radius of the project site. RECOMMEN. __ _ DATION: Staff recommends that t~:e Planning Commission approve Tentative Tract 15072 and Tree Removal Permit 98-10 and issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Respectfull ubmitted uller - ' _ BB:BLC:mlg - Attachments: Exhibit "A" Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" Site UtiliZation Map Exhibit "C" Tentative Tract Map Exhibit "D" Site Plan Exhibit "E" Grading Plan Exhibit "F" Landscape Plan Exhibit "G" Floor Plans Exhibit "H" - Elevations '- Exhibit "1" - DRC Action Agenda - May 5, 1998 Exhibit "J" DRC Action Agenda - June 2, 1998 Exhibit "K" Initial Study Part II Resolution of Approval of Tentative Tract 15072 Resolution of Approval of Design Review for Tentative Tract 15072 =,.-,:. I I AREA DEVELOPH~NT PLAN TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15072 SITE UTILIZATION MAP TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15072 · ill " ~' ~"/' ,.:jl~.. \\\\ ,: .. = .. .- ,.. . .. ..:.::-:: I='---'. ~'L I .,r. L~ I .":..'~':..'~'~'.' '~'~.L'.--=""'= ~ ., · 1 .. ::I ' ----.- I- ' "'/1 b ./. ,~,. ./, ~ '/ ....". · -- '/. - '... ) /' ) .. ,,. ..... · I I~= ~'~, ,_. ~ .... -. ~ ~ · . .- =j.: . - . .-. ', ,. ~ I '.~ .,l~. ,~;"., ~ ' ~ "" .....,, ........ E: It ........... ................ I SITE UTILIZAIION MAP TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15072 ~ :'~'//Z I' ~/~'~"' ' ". I I' . I ....... ,..=,. · ~. >.,, ~ '. ~" .~ ............ XX ', ~:t~ [~ ' ~, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15072 TENIAT[VE TRACT RAP TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15072 \ ~.,, / ~mr~-T'ra TENTATIVE TRACT HAP TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15072 [N THE C[Iy OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA. ,.. :.,;; "!!:' ." ,.· :. i:::: :.::.:';. '. , ,,., .'.'.., . ~ ,. ~ , ..... , , ,, I ~ i . /~ , z TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15072 I ALTERNATE TENTATIVE TRACT t4AP I TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1,5072 "' "~'~""~ .... "~' ""'JL " "" ' ~t ~ ,. ~ ........ '" ,. ' ::~;JZ; " ~ }-..:: .-';~: ,~:.. :37 ~" "~" ":"~ ..........:C,,, ALTERNATE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15072 IN THE CXIy OF FIANCHO CUCAMONGA. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDIND. STATE O~ CALIFORNZA IINIAIIVI. II~ACI NO. 1!'0'/2 ~, o ) · .. ."' ,'..: .-. "' '~I · .., "X e -,- . ........,,,, .~,,;,....,.~; , ... _ ': ....... ~ ', - ...:~' ,, ~ "' :::~::::,,· t~:~ ~ ~ '~d~ ~ ~ f ,"f ~..... ~.:~~ ~L,..,-.~'.-;..,.., ..... BETA|LEO SIIE PLAN ~E I[SHELrr D3 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15072 DETAILED SITE PLAN TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15072 ............ ' ... j, , % ...... I .................. I DETA|LEO S[IE PLAN TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15072 : ! . ... ALTERNATI~ DETAILED SIIE PLAN TENTATIVE TRACT NO, 15072 ... \\ ............ ,,,, B ~;~' ...~:'.T'! '\\X '~ ' "', ¥" :' '~*'U;~ .";"' ,,....,.,,, - ........ DETAILED S1EE PLAN TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15072 '11~N'IA'IIVI'~ '1RACT NO. 15072 i ~ ,. ~'~ -.,': . ._, ~ .~,:,. .~, '.l~ · - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15072 I TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15072 COUNTY OF SAN B£nNAROINO. SLATE OF CALIFORNIA "': :~,.=::':T % ..... :::: ....... "-~: ..... :-: .... ::: .... : ..... ::::--~"J'""-:-: ........ :---: ........... : ....... : ....... .:-: ...... , TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15072 . ., ~ . ,~ .,~, ~ ... "'..:, '~,. _~ _ _ " ~" TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1.,5072 ,,. TENTAI'IVE TRACT NO. 15072 .\ ,,' /. i f ................ ALTERNATE TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15072 ~,~.~::~.~L~2~'.~:~..~::~,~:== .. ~ .., ~ ' ', ,' ....... ....-' TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15072 / CONCI~I'I UAL I,ANLISCAI'E NIAS'I'ER PLAN VILLAGE OF INDEPENDENCE CONCEI~IUAL LANDSCAIIE ~ASTEI'~ PLAN '~,~ VILLAC~E Ol~ INDEPENDENCE -ENLARGED VILLAGE COMMON A~A ....... ~'~'~ TERRA VJSTA~ RANCHO CUCAMON~A~ CA. VILLAGE OF INDEPENDENCE STREET SCENE ENHANCEMENT CONCEPT To add value to each home and variety to the street scene, all houses will have varied street setbacks and will receive two of the following four in~provements: 1. Enhanced Front Porch 2. Enclosed Courtyard PLAN 5H - ELEVA'~lON 3. Enhanced Landscaping4. Upgraded Hardscaping 505B 490AR 504A 505AR """ !,~,..~:.:!;,;:.,,,:,:., ....: ~-~.-,,-. ....... . ~ ...... ",~-,,, ..........: CONCEI'IUAI, SIREIHSCAi,Ei~LAN ' VILLAGE OF INDEPENDENCE '*HERITAGE" SERIES 'It ,,,..., 510A 506CR ~ .......... ' ~;::;'.::;'Z:; ...... 15.7:1 VILLAGE OF INDEPENDENCE - ~TRADITION~ERIES~ ' 1ERDA , I~ANCtlD CUCAMONGA, 477C 476B 476A1~ O ................... , 478C: 477AR 476C 478AR ............. : CONCI~I'I'UAI, S'II~EE'ISCAI'EPLAN ' ti~:='~:~=:::~::~'d:~:~::'~ .............~ ........ VILL~GLOF INDEPENDENCE - "LIBER~" SERIES i::::: ....................................... .....· ............... TERRA VISTA RANClIO CUCA&IONGA CA VJLLAC E Oj INDEI I-:NDENLE - LI-:GAcY ~EI,,IES VILLAGE Of' INDEPENDENCE - "LIBERTY" SERIES , CONCEI~I'UAI. LAN~AI'E N~AS'I'EI~ I'LAN ~'~'~ OF IND~PgNDENC~- SECTIONS VILLAGE TERIt~VVlSTATR~NCIIO:CtlCA~ ONGA~C~. DECOI'~ATIVE WOOD SHADE TRELLIS - PLAN VIEW ... ] ............ . ............ .......... DECOI~ATIVE WOOD SI'IADE TRELLIS - ELEVATION IIAC'K YARD I)I~COI~A'I IVE W(~ )S A )E" EL S;EXI lIBIT TEI/I(t~ VISTz% I~ANC'JJO CUCAMONGA, CA. (~,,, K.,~,.~...~ ...,.,.,.2.,:, ;:~..,. .... VILLAGE OF INDEPENDENCE - ENLARGED NON-BI,IILDABLE EASEMENT SECOND FLOOR PLAN 476 1500 S.F. PLAN 477 - 1755 S.F. SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR PLAN 478 - 1977 S.F. Oatage FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR t ............ L ...... ~.i,7 .... PLAN 1 - 1957 S.F. edroom Opt. Bdrm 2 SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR PLAN 504 - 2005 S.F. SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR PLAN 505- 2268 S.F. PLAN 510 -2255 S.F. Dining Bedroom5 LivingRoom Garage Olvl'. BUNK ROOM LAYOUT Bo,,.~ I~1 PLAN 519- 3683 S.F. OFF. BATII & BEDROOM 3 LAYOUT "!s .~;' ",-,,, ,,-. ~'i ~'==.~'.,_'. ~,:___~ ..... ~-~ ~...."' "..... PLAN 506- 2537 S.F. ...... ~ ~.~,,;; 'i' Opt Dedrog~ 4 I~nrning · ,. C~,~I~/ ~dr~m 3 ,' PLAN 511- 2830 S.F. PLAN 516-2984 S.F. A -26 _SECOND FLOOR WITII SECOND MASTER SUITE OPTION ne~?opm 2 Bonus Space ,' :~,,.., ,' :"':'~C)~ ~.__~/""',,,~ .,,,. . -,.~.~ ._;."7~,~ y:_~...... ...~ ~ ,, ',~1 SECOND FLOOR WITH BEDROOM 4 & SUPER BONUS SPACE [ PLAN 476 - ELEVATION "C" PLAN 476 - ELEVATION I ::-, .~;-=: ' -' ' ........ I'ARTIAL YARD PI.AN pARTiAL YARD PLAN A'I , ~:,~,.~ ..... I PLAN47~- ELeVATiON'C' PLAN477- ~L~VATION , ,, :::::~ ~:] ......... ;, ~.::::: . .' L I B-E~R T~Y .- V I-L-L~G~E DF I:N~E:P~E_ND E N C E PLAN 477 LIBERTY- VILLAGE OF INDEPENDENCE PLAN 490. ELF, VATION 'C' PLAN 4gO'BLEVATION . ~. [ ELEV. "C' PARTIAL YARD PI.AN ELEV. sA" HERITAGE VILLAGE OF INDEPENDENCE I I ]C]DODDDD C]DC]Cl sn~c,m PLAN 504 - ELEVATION 'A' PLAN 504- ELEVATION ,.,.. ~.~ :: .....-_..-. ........L,.,,, ~.~ __'_:~rtt-, .......:.; [~ t:-,' pARTIAL PORCI I PI AN A't' El .II. VA'rlON "C* I,ARTIA[. PORCtl pLAN AT El .EVATION I=IER]TAG;E- VI LAGE OF INDEPENDENCE HERITAGE VILLAGE OF INDEPENDENCE PI.AN 490 PLAN 504 i.-..: ......... ~ ~..'~ ...... ~~' "";-;" ".~ ........ PLAN 505 PLAN 510 - EI,EVATION "C" ~T~,~a:Sl0 - ELEVATION "A" ,._ I ............ i ~ , ~,. -.,~ ~ ...... TRADITIONS:-VILLAGE OF INDEPENDENCE A-9 ,. ..: ~ . _?~ ..~"' Illfill PLAN 510 Irl4OTE: PI.AN 506 .,; .... . .... ....... PLAN LA GE 0F_LNDE P_E N D E N C E · ~.~...,~ PARTIAl. COURI'YAIII~ ~,~,a. .~__ PARTIAl. COURTYAtID LEGACY VILLAGE OF INDEPENDENCE A-13 ,LEGACY VILLAGE OF INDEPENDENCE LEGACY- VILLAGE OF INDEPENDENCE A-16 DESIGN REVIEI,N COMMENTS 8:40 p.m. Bren~ Le Count May 5, 1998 ENV1RONMENTAE ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15072 VILLAGE O;" INDEPENDENCE. LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A subdivision of 90 acres of land into 533 - single family lots, a 1.3 acre private open space lettered lot, a 1.3 acre future service station site, and. · a 5 acre public park site; and the design review of building elevations, site plan, grading plan, 'and landscape plan for the construction of 533 single family homes in the Low-Medium and Medium Residential Districts (4-8 dwelling units per acre and 8-14 dwelling units per acre respectively) of the Tetra Vista Community Plan, located at the southwest corner of Rochester Avenue and Base Line Road -APN: 227-151-35, 36, and 37. Backoround: The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission as a Pro-Application Review on July 23, 1997, and by the Design Review Committee (conceptual only) on August 19, 1997. The minutes from both meetings are attached for reference. The Commission toured the Independence project under construction in Irvine in September of 1997. Desion Parameters: The 533 homes would be organized into four "neighborhoods" within the gated community. Th~ neighborhoods will have access to a main spine street (Street A) with gated entrances on Mountain View Drive and Church Street and a third entrance off of Rochester Avenue. Sircot A includes a community trail. A five acre future oublic Dark site is proposed at the western edge of the'site next to an existing elementary school. X 1.3 Acre private open space/park area is proposed roughly in the center of the project. Lewis' design intent is to provide "individual scale and diversity, capitalizing on streetscape (different species of street trees) to convey an identifiable image and character" for each of the four neighborhoods. Three of the neighborhoods are proposed to have three different plans each with three alternative front elevations with floor areas ranging between 1,500 square feet and 2,948 square feet. The fourth neighborhood is proposed to have two different plan types each with two alternative front elevations. These would be large homes with 3.345 square feet to 3,683 square feet of floor area. The project has been designed with the 'innovative" development standards of the Tetra Vista Community Plan which allows certain flexibility in Ipt size. setbacks, etc., in exchange for provision of upgraded design methods. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. i. The various home designs have a boxy appearance with minimal visual interest and variation from home to home. All homes are proposed to have front-on garages which tend to dominate the streetscape. Provide increased variation in plane and visual interest. Front entries and pdrches should all have significant depth (such as Plan 519). Side and rear elevations should be fu~her articulated to avoid singular, fiat stucco Walls. Suggest use of differing color schemes to visually identify the various neighborhoods. 2. The service station use will have a significant impact upoh adjacent homes. Provide a substantial physical buffer between the service station and proposed homes. This would likely involve pulling the cul-de-sac bulb for Street N westerly, away from the service station site. 3. Note the atlached annotated excerpts from the Tetra Vista Community Plan Design Guidelines and the Residential Design Guidelines. Marked items are those staff feels are deficient in the project. DRC COMMENTS ~ 15072 - LEWIS DEV. CO. May 5, 1998 Page 2 SecondaN I.__ssues: Once all of the major issues have been addnessed, and time permitting., .'.he Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Limit the number of.steep (in excess of 10%) driveways to provide more useable drive,"ra~- ,.. · area. Note that the City's Residential Design Guidelines suggest provision of a minimum of 18- foot area in front of garages of no more than 5% slope. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Revise gate designs at entry points for Street A to allow public access to trail along Street A. Otherwise, the trail cannot function as a link be~,veen Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue per the Tetra Vista Community Plan. 2. River rock veneer shall consist of real or natural river rock cobble _.~ opposed to a - - manufactuE~d product. Other types of rock veneer (i.e., slate, etc.) can be manufactured product. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised in light of the above comments and brought back before the Commi~ee prior to being forwarded to the Planning Commission. Attachments: Planning Commission Minutes dated July 23, 1997 Design Review Comments dates August 19, 1997 Excerpts of Residential Design Guidelines of Tetra Vista Community Plan and Cityv~ide Residential Design Policies Desiqn Review Commit'tee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy. Fong Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Comrr:~ee (Bethel, Macias, Fong) reviewed the project and requested that the project be brought bar before the Committee with the following changes: .1. Reduce the dominance of the garages on the street scope. This should include expanding front porches and bringing porches out in front of garages, add patio courtyards to entries and front porches (include pilasters, hard scope, wrought iron 'fencing to frame courtyards), tenured driveway treatment (take advantage of steepnest'of driveways/tile towards street), increase front yard landscaping, use sectional garage doors with windows. 2. Increase level of detail on side and rear elevations, especially those elevations visible from streets and school/park sites. This should include color changes be,%veen first and second floor levels, nrovide key elements from front but not limited to elevations on side and rear, provide mor~ substantial trellis structures in rear yards and provide more homes with trellises. Increase the area of the decorative paving within the gated eat,-'/areas. 4.Provide gates far access to park site from rear sf tots adjacent to park. 5.Prefer installation of park improvemen:s at earfiest possib!e phase of home construction. DRC COMMENTS ~ 15072 - LEWIS DEV. CO. ,May 5, 1998 Page 3 6. Not necessary to provide signs at neighborhood entry poinf~s with name of neighborhood.' "' 7. Recommend eliminating third elevation and replacing with upgraded street scape design features as recommended above. Incorporate lettered lot open space (remnant parcels) areas into home sites. 9. Prefer service station over replacement with homes. Revise street layout per staff"s recommendation if site is replaced with homes. 10. Revise Lots 122 and 230 to be betler oriented relative to adjacent intersection/avoid having ., · driveways so close to street intersection. While not specifically discussed at the meeting, staff recommends the following items also be addressed with revised plans: 1. Provide special landscape treatment for the main interior spine street, street sides, exterior streets (Base Eine Road, Rochester Avenue, Church Street, Terra Vista Parkway, and Mountain View). 2. Create sizable and usable landscape noes that are interlinklng with the green ways, park, school. and open space. 3. Provide a hierarchy and uniformity of decorative walls - exterior streets, interior main spine streets. corner side streets. etc. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA pLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES" Adjourned Meeting ' ' July 23, 1997 Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 9:15 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California- _ROLL CAL_._._~L COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker. William Bethel, Rich Macins. Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: Larry McNie{ STAFF pRESENT:-'- Brad Bullet, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Pdncipal Planner; Dan James. Senior Civil Engineer NEW BUSINESS A. pRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 9%05 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO~ - The review of conceptual plans for the Village of Independence within the Terra Vista Planned Community, consisting of 541 dwelling units on 84 acres of land, located south of Base Line Road, west of Rochester Avenue, north of Church Street. and east of Tetra Vista Parkway East and Mountain View Drive. Brad Buffer, City Planner exp ained the purpose and goals of the pre-Application Review process. Pat Loy, Lewis Homes, gave a presentation of the village concept. He provided a statistical analysis of the village concept compared to three multi-family projects within Tetra Vista. Dan Coleman. Pdncipal Planner, commented upon the overall concept. He indicated that staff felt that the applicant was on the right track and appreciated the benefits of being able to plan for an entire village all at once as opposed to tract-by-tract review. He stated that the overall concept was sound, particularly the four distinct neighborhood units arranged along a central circulation spine. He indicated that the major issue is the land use compatibility of the gas station. He explained that the concept plan proposes a local interior residential street across most of the common property line with the gas station and that only two tots would share a common property line. He noted that durin the Commission's original deliberations regarding the station, there was great concern with bufferin residences from this intense Commercial use with its attendant traffic, noise, gin. re, and loitering. noted that up to 50 feet of landscape buffer was discussed between the planned apartments and the' gas station. He said that the buffer was not adequate in the village concept plans. He identified the following minor issues that staff felt could be addressed through the continued refinement of th~ village concept plans: . ' 1. Site plan/Circulation a. The central spine needs further study to address adequate sight lines on the inside of th~ curve. The west side of the s.oine should be upgraded to a Trail Type 'E' with a 6 foot sidewalk. _ c b. The village common is surrounded by streets and has multiple intersections in los proximity which is a traffic safety concern. Also, staff suggested eliminating front-on lots on the street west of the village common to avoid drivers backing out of driveways onto th~ street near intersections- c. Plotting of units appears to be very uniform with a minimum 18 foot driveway. The inten: was to create a variety of front yard shapes or varied setbacks. 2. Park - The park concept was last reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission in 1990. City requirements for certain park features have changed. For example, a 90 foot baseball field, full court basketball, and at least 25 parking spaces should be provided. Since this is the last park within Terra Vista, an analysis of park land dedication for the entire planned comm'uriity iS needed and adjustments to park acreage as necessary. 3. Architecture a. The elevations are not consistent with Lewis' stated intent "that each neighborhood area express its own unique character which could include a variety of architectural styles and scale." All of the houses appear to be the same architectural style. b. All of the houses are bulky 2 story with straight walls that may overwhelm the street. c. Eight out of the nine floor plans have the garage in the same location which is closest to the street. The garages will dominate the streetscene. d. Side and rear elevations need architectural treatment. In some cases there is no feature other than a small window or two on a side elevation to break up the straight 2 story walls. The plans should provide 360 degree architecture. 4. Development Standards - The proposed concept is consistent with the existing standards except for one product which is proposed with a 3.000 square foot minimum tot area; whereas, the Terra Vista Community Plan currently requires a 3,500 square foot minimum lot area. Commissioner TolstOy asked where the public community trail will be located. Mr. Coleman replied that the trail will continue around the perimeter of the village from lhe terminus of the Major Greenway Trail easterly along Terra Vista Parkway and Church Street to Rochester Avenue. Commissioner Bethel asked what type of fencing would be provided along the school and park boundary. -' Mr. Buller replied that 6 foot block wails are standard; however, in some cases a combination of low walls with wrought iron view fencing has been used near public parks. Mr. Loy indicated that Lewis is considering installing gates to provide direct access for each homeowner that backs up to the park. Commissioner Macins inquired about what policy exists regarding gated communities in terms of their function, location, and compatibility. Mr. Buffer explained that in the past it was considered inappropriate for 10 acre in-fill sites surrounded by non-gated neighborhoods, but could be appropriate for larger sites. He stated that Terra Vista has one existing gated community at the corner of Haven Avenue and Base Line Road. Commissioner Tolstoy reminded the Commission that the City's General Plan encourages flexibility " to allow different housing products. Commissioner Macins felt uncomfortable with the gated community concept. He expressed a desire for a sense of community. He felt that this gated community is a divisive land use mechanism. He asked when the park would be built. PC Adjourned Minutes -2- July 23, 1997 Mr. Bullet replied that the public park phasing would be tied to occupancy release of a certain, as yet to be determined, number of houses. ._ .z . ' ' Commissioner Macins thought the park should be built in the first phase as a concession for gated community. He asked how the village construction will be phased. : - Mr. Loy indicated that no decisions have been made by Lewis regarding phasing; however. they will probably initially offer all four housing products. Commissioner Macins agreed with staff's concerns regarding the gas station land use compatibility and buffering. He stated that the architecture is not impressive. He said the elevations appear interchangeable, plain. He felt that the overall village impression is favorable. He indicated confidence that the same quality can be achieved without gating the community. Ernie Gotrill, Lewis Homes. indicated that the elevations were French and Italian Mediterranean style. He stated that textural variations could be included to distinguish the products. Commissioner Bethel said that he agreed with sta~'s concerns regarding circulation conflicts around the village commons. He asked when it would be built? Mr. Loy replied that phasing had not been determined yet. Stan Bell. Lewis Homes, indicated that it will probably be within first or second phase. Commissioner Bethel stated that the village commons had potential danger of children chasing balls rolling out onto streets. He felt that the gas station would hihder sales of nearby lots. He questioned how a gas station would be buffered. He observed that the streetscene would be nothing but garage doors. He was concerned about the separation, of homes fro::- the school and park. He said he liked the separate neighborhoods and different housing produc~5. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that flexibility is important. He supported gating the community. He indicated that Rochester Avenue should be completed from Base Line Road to Foothill Boulevard with this development. He said he was opposed to a gas station with the concept as presented due to inadequate buffering. He stated that the public park should be built in the earliest phases and noted that the configuration may change to meet City's latest criteria. He felt that the product was good provided that the garage door issue is addressed, He suggested that side entry garages were a possibility. He stated that architectural treatment on all sides of the houses is extremely important because of proximity to ne~--:t}ors' homes, even when not visible from the street. He saw the village concept as a great oppon: ., for an alternative to the apartments and condominiums that could be built on this site. He expressed concern with potential for Lewis Homes to attempt transferring this density somewhere else within Tetra Vista. He questioned what the solution might be. He was pleasac- ~"~at the project does not include auto courts because he felt neighbors sharing a common driveway does not work. Cha rman Barker ndicat~d that it was mandatory that Lewis use all their design skills, particularly in the architecture, to address the Commission's concerns with the small lot product. He stated that he liked the village common as a good focal point, the entry statements, and the ability to comprehensibly plan this large of an area. He indicated that view fencing has not always been successful along public park edges, but that he supports the idea, as we!l as the use of gates into each backyard. He said that he was not opposed to a gas station, but the: ~. design must mitigate the compatibility and buffering issues. He fet that garage doors should not oominate the streetscene and encouraged the applicant to offer creative solutions. He expressed concern with small lot area and how units will fit. He indicated that attention should be paid to designing the streets so they don't appea= ~s a parking lot. He recommended building the public park as early as possible. He said that the front yard landscaping concept is good. He suggested creative landscape designs, ee e e eo:q such as curvilinear entry walks and plant differences between lots. H r comm nd d that th f PC Adjourned Minutes '3,7/,~ july 23, products be distinct in their design, yet not clashing. He stated that trails should be useful and identifiable. He indicated that Le~Nis Homes has a good reputation as a property m.an~ger and he hoped they would use that experience in setting up a homeowners association:" H'e stated that the village must be the highest standard of quality possible. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that one of the best features of this village is its large size. He said that he was not opposed to a gas station, but couldn't see how it will be buffered. He recommended that each product neighborhood should be noticeably different. He suggested entry signs. He recommended that porches be large enough to be functional. Commissioner Bethel stated he would prefer the village to appear as a single neighborhood. He explained the importance of providing architectural treatment around all sides of the homes. He stated he did not want to see any flat rear elevations. Mr. Loy requested Commission comments regarding the proposed lot sizes. Chairman Barker referred to a field trip of small lot projects that the Planning Commission took in Orange County. He said that he had not seen anything that sufficiently addressed the Commission's concerns with small lots. He indicated that he was very concerned with small lot Sizes. He stated that he would also be concerned with large homes being proposed on small lots'. Mr. B,,.~r explai;~ed that only one half of the units would be on small lots. He asked the Commission if that was generally acceptable. The Commission agreed that it was. Commissioner Bethel asked how big the backyards are. Mr. Gorrill replied that they would be 15 feet deep across the full width of the lot. Commissioner Tolstoy recommended creative front yard design, such as curving entry walks, different porches, and different pop-out elements. The Commission agreed to another workshop as design evolves. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT 10:30 p.m. ~ The Planning Commission adjourned. Brad Buffer Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes -4- July 23, 1997 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS g:00 p.m. Dan Coleman August 19, 1997 VILLAGE OF rNDEPENDENCE - LEW'IS DEVELOPMENT c0. - The discussion of cohc~t~t~al development plans for the Village of Independence within the Terra Vista Planned-Community, consisting of 541 sLngle family dwelling units on 84 acres offand, located south of Base Line Road, west of Rochester Avenue, north of Church Street, and east of Tetra Vista Parkway East and Mountain View Drive. Dan Coleman, Principal Plarmer, opened the meeting and stated that Lewis Homes this meeting was a continuation of the dialogue with the Planning Commission which started with the Pre-Application Review on July 23, 1997. Pat Loy, Lewis Homes, gave an overvie~v of the "value to customer" concept behind the Village of Independence. He explained that part of the concept is to offer a great house with only those features the buyers feels have value. Buyers can choose from a long list of options to include or not include certain feltures or upgrade~. Copies of literature from Independence at West Irvine. Leon Swales, Lewis Homes, indicated that in their independence at West Irvine project in the Tustin Ranch area the average buyer has spent $15,000 on options. Commissioner Macins stated he needed to understand how far City could modif,v exterior elevations c, iven the economic realities of the project. Emie Gotrill, Lewis Homes, presented the renderings and photographs of the Independence at West Irvine. He invited the Commissioners to tour their product in Irvine to experience how the value is reflected in the interior spaces and features. He ind cared that they were willing to treat the sides and rear of these houses consistent with their other projects in Rancho Cucamonga, such as Renaissance, but did not want to resort to heroic efforts, such as pop-outs. He stated that Lewis was proposing to upgrade the product to meet the City ofRancho Cucamonga's design goals, including: 1. Adding a third elevation (Plan C). '. -. 2. Expanded color palette. 3. Lart, er lot sizes. 4. Trim around atl windows on side and rear elevations. 5. Addin{' architectural details to front elevations such as stone or brick veneer, corbels, and railin¢,s. Brad BulleL City Planner, summarized that the developer ~as as'king the Commission to embrace interior value in exzhanae for exterior value. He asked the developer to illustrate the exterior shell amenity tickage for the Gllage. He asked if the side and rear elevations gave a sense of value? He noted that no exterior options were offered in West Irvine. He suggested that the developer consider offering exterior upgrades. Mr. Swales said they would be v,'illing to offer shade structures as an option because man,',' buyers have asked for them. Commissioner Macins stated that he would have difficulty accepting interior value instead of those design ': elements the City would normall,',' require on exteri6r. Commissioner Bethel agreed and stated that he was concerned with individual neighborhoods becoming isolated. DRC COMNIENTS LEx,VIS DEVELOPMENT CO. August 19, 1997 Page 2 Mr. Gorrili said fiat Lewis Homes was not asking the Cite, to violate their design policies. He explained how the village concept was intended to create an innovative and unique project which emphasized the perimeter treatment. He said that since in Rancho Cucarnonga the public could not drive through this gated corrununity that addressed concerns about public vie~vs of design; hence, Le~vis Homes felt that the project would be consistent with the City's 360 degree architectural treatment policy. Mr. Swales asked the Commission to identif-j' a Lewis Homes project in Rancho Cucamonga, such as Renaissance, as a good example of 360 degree treatment for them to follow. Commissioner Macias indicated that gates did not abrogate the developer from complying with the Ci~"s 360 degree architectural treatment policy. He asked in what phase the park would be built? Mr. Loy said that it.was too early in the process to identiS' phasing; however, indicated that it would be constructed in the ~arlier phases. Commissioner Macias said that the park should be built as early as possible. There was discussion about possible dates for a Commission tour of Independence at West Irvine. The consensus was to call all Planning Commissioners regardin,, a tour on a Saturday toorain,, in September, preferably September 6. The tour would return to Rancho Cucamonga at noon. r-b" / DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Brent Le Count June 2, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15072 - VILLAGE OF INDEPENDENCE, LEWIS HOMES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.- A subdivision of 90 acres of land into 533 single family lots, a 1.3 acre private open space lettered lot, a 1.3 acre future service station site, and a 5 acre public park site; and the design review of building elevations, site pin, grading plan, and landscape plan for the construction of 533 single family homes in the Low-Medium and Medium Residential Districts (4-8 dwelling units per acre and 8-14 dwelling units per acre, respectively) of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the southwest corner of Rochester Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 227-151-35, 36, and 37. Backqround: The project was reviewed by the Committee on May 5, 1998 at which time the Committee requested that the project be redesigned and brought back for further review. The following is a list of the Committee's coqcerns and how Lewis Homes has addressed them: 1. Reduce the'dominance of the garages on the street scape. This should include expanding front poT~hes and bringing porches out in front of garages, add patio courtyards to entries and front porches (include pilasters, hard scape. wrought iron fencing to.frame courtyards), textured driveway treatment (take advantage of steepness of driveways/tile towards street), increase front yard landscaping, use sectional garage doors with windows. Front yard setbacks proposed to var~ between 18 and 25 feet, sectional garage doors with color enhancements (with intent to not provide same garage door design on adjacent homes) are proposed, and a minimum of two of the four following upgrade enhancements are proposed ;for each lot: a) Expanded front porch. b) Patio courtyards with masonry walls/picket fences. c) Enhanced front yard landscaping. d) Enhanced hard scape treatment for driveways and walkways. 2. Increase level of detail on side and rear elevations, especially those elevations visible from streets and school/park sites. This should include color changes between first and second floor levels, provide key elements from front but not limited to elevations on side and rear, provide more substantial trellis structures in rear yards and provide more homes with trellises. Window surrounds for second story windows proposed on all homes and surrounds plus shutters for second st: windows cf all homes visible from streets. Proposing upgraded trellises on 2/3 of the homes Backing onto perimeter streets and half the interior lots. 3. Increase the area of the decorative paving within the gated entry areas. Lewis Homes is not proposing to increase de&oratiV~ p~ving in gated entry areas. Staff recommends that the gated entry areas receive increased decorative paving given that these are the main points at which the project connects to surrounding community. 4. Provide gates for access to park site from rear of lots adjacent to park. Lewis Homes proposes such access gates as an option for home buyers. DRC COMMENTS TT 15072 - LEWIS HOMES DEV. CO. June 2, 1998 Page 2 5. Prefer installation of park improvements at earliest possible phase of home construc{io~.' Lewis Homes intends to construct park as early as possible. 6.' Not necessary to provide signs at neighborhood entry points with name of neighborhood. No neighborhood signs are proposed.' Lewis Homes is open to any specific suggestions the Committee or staff may have for neighborhood entry design. 7. Recommend eliminating third elevation and replacing with upgraded street scape design features as recommended above. Third elevation eliminated, added upgraded street scape features per Item 1 above. ' 8-. · Incorporate. lettered lot open space (remnant parcels) areas into home sites. Lettered lots have been eliminated with exception of Lot "E," which is a private open space/park site near the center of the project and Lot "G" next to Lots 399 and 412, which remains for no apparent reason. Staff recommends incorporating Lot "G" into adjacent lots. 9. Prefer service station over replacement with homes. Revise street layout per staffs recommendation if site is replaced with homes. 10. Revise Lots 122 and 230 to be better oriented relative to adjacent intersection/avoid having driveways so close to street intersection. For Items 9 and 10, lot layout has been revised in service sation site area and throughout project to avoid having driveways too close to street intersections. Other Issues: While not specifically discussed at the meeting, staff recommends the following items also be addressed: 1. Provide special landscape treatment for the main interior spine street, street sides, exterior streets (Base Line Road, Rochester Avenue, Church Street, Terra Vista Parkway, and Mountain View). 2.Create sizable and usable landscape nodes that are interlinking with the green ways, park. school, and open space. _ 3. Provide a hierarchy and uniformity of decorative walls - exterior streets, interior main spine streets, corner side streets, etc. Lewis Homes is of the opinion that these items are already adequate!y addressed and that no changes are. needed. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project as revised and with the above recommendations. Attachments: ,, DRC COMMENTS TT 15072 - LEWIS HOMES DEV. CO. June 2, 1998 Page 3 ' Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Enl Bethel. Rich Macias. Brad Bullet Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee (Bethel, Macias, Buller) reviewed the project and recommend that the Planning Commission approve the project subject to the following: 1. Park construction must occur at earliest possible time. Staff shall prepare a condition of approval which ties park construction timing to issuance of building permits and/or occupancy similar to what has been required of other large tracts with parks. Committee suggests completion of park constructlop no tatter than issuance building permits for 150th home baring any City imposed - · delays. - 2. ProVide enhanced paving throughout entire pared entry areas for all three entry points. Intent is to provide high quality appearance relative to surrounding public Streets. 3. Revise gate design for pared entry areas to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 4. Continue specialized wall treatment'in pared areas out onto public street frontage to further enhance entries. 5. All homes shall either have enhanced front porches per plans or front yard courtyard areas surrounded by low wall and/or low picket type fence. LEWIS HONES ~L-'MNAGE~'LENT CORP. 1156 N. Moun~.in Avenue / P. O. Box 670 / Upland Cai/forn a 917S5-0670 (909) 985-097t FAX: (909) 946-7520 May I9, 1998 H.~ND DELWERED Mr. Brent Le Count, AICP Associate Planner Community Development Department Planning Division - City ofRancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Re: TENTATIVE TP,_~.CT 15072 DESIGN REVIEW PACKAGE REVISIONS Dear Brent: Enclosed please find ten development package sets of revised plans for Tentative Tract Map 15072 located in our Terra Vista project. Each package contains the follo~ying: 1. .Architectural plans showing elevations for the front, side, and rearg showing porch and courtyard details. 2. Landscape architectural drawings including the main entry gate and elevation details, neighborhood entries, large village common area exhibit, typical front yard street scenes at selected locations throughout the project site, typical neighborhood cross sections, and the landscape easement buffer of the comer gas station site on the Baseline . Road/Rochester Road intersection. 3. Engineering drawings including Site Utilization Map and Area Development Map, Tentative Tract Map 15702, Site Plan, and Conceptual Grading Plans. We have revised the Site Plan and Tentative Tract Map to include residentiaI lots to the intersection of Baseline Road and Rochester Avenue. This map yield-s 545 residential lots. Included as an alternate plan, with a Tentative Tract Map, Site Plan, and Conceptual Grading Plan is a plan allowing for a gas station at the comer of Baseline Road and Rochester Avenue. included with the engineering package is a driveway exhibit showing t2v'picaI slopes of Mr. Brent Le Count May 19, 1998 Page 2 driveways for ~_::ious site conditions. The proposed dropped garage alternative will allow us to keep driveway slopes at ten percent or less throughout the project. Attached is a listing of changei made to the project plans for the community that have been incorporated to address Desig-n Review comments from the May 5, 1998 meeting. We appreciate your assistance with this project and look for-.vard to presenting our revised project to the Desi~ Review Committee on June 2, 1998. Sincerely, LEX.VIS HOMES M.~NAGEMENT COP,-P. G b Project Manager GTC:kjw\024RC enclosure Tract No. 15072 Tetra Vista Independence May 19, 1998 Revisions to AdcLress Desi:,~q Revie~v Concerns ' A. Dominance of garages on streetscene 1. Varied front setbacks from 18-25' 2. Expanded front porches standard as shown on elevations 3. Added patio cout'tvards with masonry v,'alls/picket fences standard as sgow'n on elevations ' ' 4. Added variety. of driveway upgade treatment/patterns 5. Added variety of ent.ry walk locations and upgade trea.m'nent/panerns 6. Added enhanced fron,tyard landscape packages-standard to complement each elevatzon 7. Added sectional garage doors with varied window panems 8. Added Car_age door color scheme variations Lewis will guarantee: __ Every. ihdividual home will receive 2 of 4 streetscape enhancements from the followin~': I. Front porch 2. Courtyard 3. Enhanced Landscaping · --waded harriscap no-dr vewavs/walks tr~amaent/pa--ms These elements are arranged into complementan, packa,,es that will be a standard for a particular ' Elevation desired to provide varie~ and interest in the streetscape as a collection. Lewis w guarantee' Garage door varie.ry so that no 2 houses side bv side will have the s~me exact standard gara~,e door. ' , _ B. Detail on side and rear elevations 1. Added side elevation flag-outs with different stucco colors-exposed to public view 2. Added side elevation accent shutters on selected w ndows-exposed to public vie~vs 3. Added enhanced sill detail and shutters at second floor rear elevations-exposed to public Added more trellises at selected rear elevations along perimeter s~eets 5. Added several trellis designs for variety and to create useable patio areas Lewis will guarantee: Trellises will be standard for 2/3 of the homes exnosed to ou'blic view on the perimeter StreetS. ' On interior lots trellises :'.'ill be sandard for ever,,' second house at dow'nhiH lots where an adjacent ' Uphill lot overlooks the rearyard. C. Ga~s tbr access to park from rear of ~ots adjacent .~o :he pa;k 1. We a~ee and will offer '~his to the buyers at their choice. D. Siteplmn issues 1. Incorporated lettered lot open space parcels into residential lots 2. Revised residential lot layout over ~he g~s station sea -- 3. Revised lots 122 and 230 to be~er inter'ate wi~ neighborhood ~ 4. Revised sn'eet layout to meet Engineering Dept concerns E. Driveway gzsdes · I. Alternative gsa-age plem will reduce driveway slopes to 10% or less City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Tentative Tract 15072 2. Related Files: Pre-Application Review 97-05, Tree Removal Permit 98-10 3. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15072 - VILLAGE OF INDEPENDENCE, LEWIS HOMES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A subdivision of 90 acres of land into 531 single family lots, a 1.3 acre private open space lettered lot, a 1.3 acre future service station site. and a 5 acre public park site; and the design ~'eview of building elevations, site plan, grading plan, and landscape plan for the construction of 531 single family homes and an alternate scheme with 545 homes and no service station site in the Low-Medium and Medium Residential Districts (4-8 dwelling units per acre and 8-14 dwelling units per acre, respectively) of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the southwest corner of RochesterAvenue and Base Line Road - APN: 227-151 - 35, 36, and 37. Associated with this application is Tree Removal Permit 98-10 for the removal of nine existing trees. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Lewis Development Co. 5. General Plan Designation: Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) 6. Zoning: Low-Medium Residential and Medium Residential Districts (4-8 dwelling units per acre and 8-14 dwelling units per acre respectively) of the Terra Vista Community Plan. 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is surrounded by single family and multi family residential development and graded 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: Brent Le Count (909) 477-2750 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15072 "Independence" Pa~le 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED _ The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "F;otentialty Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Untess Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning (./) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing (./) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (./) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (./) Aesthetics (./) Water ( ) Hazards ' ( ) Cultural Resources , ( ) Air Quality (~') Noise (,/) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION - - On the basis of this initial evaluation: ( ) 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 t~e 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. !~ the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Uni,-:,s 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. Signed: ~ Brent Le Count, AICP Associate Planner May 26, 1998 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15072 "Independence" Pa~le 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. Polenllal[y 1. 'LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) zoning? b) .Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ( ) ( ) (,/) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? i' ) ( ) ( ) (,/) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community?-- ( ( ) ( ) (,/) 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) . Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g.. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? _. ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15072 "Independence" Page 4 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( (/) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( (/) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( (/) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( (/) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( (/) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) (/) ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) (/) ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) Comments: f) The topography will be altered to accommodate the project because the site is currently vacant. Grading of the site will be done under supervision of a licensed Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor. The impact is not considered significant. 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 permitted only after a site specific investigation has been prepared that indicated that the soil can adequately support the weight of the structure." A soils report will be required by the Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of building permits. The impact is not considered significant. 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) (/) ( ) ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15072 "Independence" Page 5 d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) ( ) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) 0 Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) (/) g) Altered direrion or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) _ ( ) (~) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) i) Substantial redu~ion in the amount of groundwater othe~ise available for public water supplies? Commen~: a) The proje~ will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage pa~ems, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff due to the amount of new hard scape and roof tops proposed on the currently vacant site. ~th required mitigation, the impact is not considered significant. The developer will be required to construct Master Plan drainage facilities pumuant to the Terra Vis~ Master Plan Drainage Study including potions of Master Plan System 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 from .the site to Deer Creek Channel, to adequately provide drainage protection for the project. 5. AIR QUALI~. Would the proposal: . .. a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected a r quality violation? ( ) ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) (/) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) Comment: The shod and long te~ air quality impacts were addressed in the previous EIR ce~i~ed for the Terra Vista Planned Community initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15072 "Independence" Page 6 6. TRANSpORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or tra~c congestion? ( ) (Z) ( ) ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (~.g., sharp cu~es or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (Z) c) hadequate emergency access or access tO nearby uses? ( ) ( d) Insu~cient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) e) Hazards or barrie~ for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) O Conflicts with adopted policies supposing alternative transpo~ation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) g) Rail or air tra~c impacts? ( ) ( ) ( TM (Z) Comments: a) The proje~ will generate additional trips because of new construeion. A Congestion Management ProgmmRraffic Impa~ Analysis (LSA Associates, Janua~ 27, 1998) was prepared for this proje~. The repo~ concluded that the proje~ will generate 5,080 average daily trips w~h 398 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 536 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. Existing ' signal~ed intersections which will be impacted include: Base Line and Rochester, Base Line and Milliken, Milliken and Terra Vista Parlay, and Foothill and Rochester. The repo~ presents several recommendations for on-site and off-site improvements. As mitigation, the Conditions of Approval will require the developer to do the following: a) Developer shall pay transportion development fees upon issuance of building pe~i~, at the rate adopted by the Ci~, as fair share contribution for area wide improvement.. b) Constructcomplete Base Line Road,. Rochester Avenue, Terra Vis~ Parkway, and Moun~in View Drive full width along the project frontage. c) Constructcomplete C~urch Street full width along the project fron~ge to connect to existing te~inus to the west. Fu~hermore, the Development Code requires provision of a telecommuting center with any residential project of 500 or more dwelling units to reduce Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15072 "Independence" Page 7 vehicle trips. A condition of approval will require the developer to provide such a telecommutin9 center or make a fair share contribution towards a telecommuting center in an amount satisfactory to the City Council. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) (). (./) b) -Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( )- ( ) (./) ( ) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? -( ) ( ) ( ) (/) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) Comments: b) There is a remnant of a mature Eucalyptus windrow along Rochester Avenue that will be removed for street widening. These trees are c'6'~iClered "heritage trees" and are subject to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance (RCMC 19.08). These Eucalyptus GIobulus ( Blue Gum) trees are not suitable for urban development due to their branch drop and toppling problems which is exacerbated by seasonal high winds. The applicant has submitted an application for a Tree Removal Permit which is required to be reviewed and approved concurrently. The project design includes extensive landscaping, including street trees, along Rochester Avenue; therefore, no further mitigation is necessary. 8. ENERGY AND MINE~L RESOURCES. Would the proposal a) Conflict with adopted energy consedation plans? ) ( ) ( ) (/) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ) ( ) ( ) (/) initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15072 "independence" Page 8 Signfficant Pot~l~ny Unless igm~n~a~ mNP~ ~ lls and Sup~g Ir~aUon ~s: Slmgmn~'~nl M~tmgglmn Si t ~) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resoume that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil. pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( TM (/) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ( ) ( ) (/) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with ~ammable brush, grass. or trees? ( ( ) ( ) (1) 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (/) (') b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ,* ( ) (/) ( ) ( ) Comments: a) The project would increase noise levels since the site is currently vacant and the development would add people and traffic to the area. The impact is not considered. b) The project is located along Base Line Road, a major arterial street, and is subject to exposure to traffic noise in excess of the General Plan standard of 65 CNEL exterior and 45 CNEL interior. An acousticat analysis (Gordon Bricken and A~sociates, February 9, 1998) confirms that noise levels will exceed the allowable noise levels for this zone based upon existing and projected traffic volumes. The acoustical engineer concluded that the project will require exterior noise mitigation Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15072 ulndependence" Rage .q to achieve 65 CNEL in the form of 4- to 5-foot high sound walls along Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue. Since the project design includes 6-foot h~gh block walls along these street frontages, exterior noise levels are mitigated by virtue of project design. To mitigate interior noise levels, special glazing will be required to achieve an interior noise level of 45 CNEL for those homes identified by the acoustical analysis (Gordon Bricken and Associates, February 9, 1998)o 11. PUBLIC SERV_ICES. 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? ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Police protection? ) ( ) ( ) (/) c) Schools? ) ( ) (,/) ( ) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ) ( ) ( ) (,/) e) Other governmental services? ) ( ) ( ) (,/) Comments: c) The project is proposed with fewer dwelling units than anticipated by the Terra Vista Community Plan. The Etiwanda School District and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District serve the project. Both Districts have entered into mitigation agreements with Lewis Homes for the entire Terra Vista Planned Community and formed Mello-Roos Districts to fund school facilities. School impact fees are regulated by the State of California Government Code Section 65995 et seq. wherein the City is prohibited from denying the project based upon the adequacy of school facilities. The project site adjoins Terra Vista Elementary School. Project will be conditioned to join the Mello-Roos Districts; therefore, the impac:~ is considered to be reduced to a level not significant. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the fo~owing utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) (/) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) (/) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15072 "Independence" Page 10 Signscant d) Sewer or septic tanks? - ( ) ( ) ) (l) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( 0 Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) (Z) ( ) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (Z) Commen~: The project will increase demand upon sto~ drain system due to increased runoff from new hard scape and roof tops proposed on the currently vacant'site. ~th required mitigation, the impa~ is not considered signifi~nt. The developer will be ' 'required to construct Master Plan drainage facilities pursuant to the Tetra VisD Master Plan Drainage Study including potions of Master Plan System 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 from the site to Deer Creek Channel, to adequately provide . . drainage protection for the project. t 3. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ~ ( ) (~) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( TM ( ) (/) c) Create light or glare? ( ) (/) ( TM Commen~: c) New light and glare will ~ created sin~ the site is currently vacant. The impact is no greater than other existing residential developments in the City. 14. CULTU~L RESOURCES..Would the proposaT: · ' ' a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15072 "Independence" Page 11 d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) (~') ( ) b) Affect existing recreational oppo~unities? ( ) ( ) ( ) Comments: a) The project is proposed to include a 5.0 acres public park. This is intended to sere the parkland requirement established by the Terra Vista Community Plan. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15072 "1 ndependence" Page 12 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate s plant or animal community, reduce the number or restri~ the rangear a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate impo~ant examples of the major - periods of California histo~ or prehisto~? b) Sho~ te~: Does the project have the potential to achieve sho~-term, to the disadvantage of Iong-te~, environmental goals? (A sho~-term impa~ on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-te~ impa~s will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impa~s that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in conne~ion with the effects of past proje~s, the effects of other current proje~s, and the effe~s of probable future proje~s.) (-) ( ) ( ) d) Subs~ntial adverse: Does the project have environmental effe~s which will cause substantial adverse effects on human ~ings, either dire~ly or indire~ly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (Z) EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pumuant to the tiedrig, program EIR, or other CE~ process, one or more effe~s have ~en adequately anal~ed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Se~ion 15063(c)(3)(D). The effe~s identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately anal~ed 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 o~ces, 10500 Civic Center Drive: (/) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15072 "Independence" Page 13 (Z') Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) ' (l') Terra Vista Planned Community EIR (SCH #81082808, certified February 16, 1983) MITIGATION MEASURES: Water: a. The developer will be required to construct Master Plan drainage facilities pursuant to the Terra Vista Master Plan Drainage Study including portions of Master Plan Syste~ ;I, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 from the site to Deer Creek Channel, to adequately · provide drainage protection for the project. TranspOrtation: 1. Developer shall pay transportation development fees upon issuance of building permits, at the rate adopted by City, as fair share contribution for area wide improvements. 2. ConstructJcomplete Base Line Road, Rochester Avenue, Terra Vista Parkway, and Mountain View Drive full width along the project frontage. 3. ConstructJcomplete Church Street full width along the project frontage to connect to existing terminus to the west. Noise: 1. Individual dwelling units shall be constructed with special noise dampening glazing consistent with the recommendations of the noise study prepared by Gordon Bricken and Associates, February 9, 1998. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15072 "Independence" Page 14 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. LEWIS DE LOPMENT CO., . aC 1 e Signature: / / - Date: June 4, 1998 print Name and Title: Gerald T- Brvan. Authorized Anent 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 and21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Tentative Tract 15072 Public Review Period Closes: June 24, 1998 Project Name: Village of Independence Project Applicant: Lewis Development Co. Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the southwest corner of RoChester Avenue and Base Line Road -APN: 227-151-35, 36, and 37. Project Description: A subdivision of 90 acres of land into 531 single family lots, a 1:3 acre private open space lettered lot, a 1.3 acre future service station site. and a 5 acre public park site; and the design review of building elevations, site plan, grading plan, and landscape plan for the construction of 531 single family homes and an' alternate scheme with 545 homes and no service station site in the Low-Medium and Medium Residential Districts (4-8 dwelling units per acre and 8-14 dwelling units per acre, respectively) of the Terra Vista Community Plan. Associated with this application is Tree Removal Permit 98-10 for the removal of.nine existing trees. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to detern~ine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: [] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a ' significant effect On the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) .477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. June 24, 1998 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15072, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 90 ACRES OF LAND INTO 531 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, A 1.3 ACRE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE LETTERED LOT. A 1.3 ACRE FUTURE SERVICE STATION SITE, AND A 5-ACRE PUBLIC PARK SITE AND AN ALTERNATE SCHEME WITH 545 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND NO SERVICE STATION SITE IN THE LOW-MEDIUM AND MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND 8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, RESPECTIVELY) OF THE TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ROCHESTER AVENUE AND BASE LINE ROAD AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-151-35, 36, AND 37. A. ' Recitals. 1. Lewis Homes Development Co. has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 15072, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 24th day of June 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution haye occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on June 24, 1998, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the southwest comer of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue with a street frontage of 2,600 feet on Rochester Avenue and 1,600 feet on Base Line Road and is vacant; and b. The properby to the north of the subject site is developed with single family homes, the property to the south consists of vacant land, the property to the east is developed with single family homes, and the property to the west is vacant and developed with single and multi-family homes; and c. The project contemplates development of 531 lots with an average lot size of 4,554 square feet and a future service station site, and an alternative scheme with 545 lots, also with an average of 4,554 square feet and no service station site; and d. The project site is subject to noise levels of 65 CNEL along Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue, which can be mitigated to acceptable levels per the acoustical report; and pLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 15072 - LEWIS HOMES DEV. CO. June 24, 1998 Page 2 e. The project site conta ns nine Eucalyptus trees, which will be removed to accommodate necessary street widening, the removal of which will be mitigated by significant street scape landscaping; and f. The project will generate traffic tdps which can be accommodated through public street improvement upgrades as conditioned herein. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the Tentative Tract is consistent with the General Ran, Develo; -nent Code, and any applicable specific plans; and b. The design or improvements of the Tentative Tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and ' c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and e. The Tentative Tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and f. The design of the Tentative Tract w not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large. now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration. together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard _to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the prov sons of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California COde of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In cons dering the record as a whole, the initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project. there is no evidence that the proposed projet will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence conta ned in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the pubtic hearing, the Panning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the Ca ifornia Code of Regulations- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT15072-LEWIS HOMES DEV. CO. June 24, 1998 Page 3 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning_Division 1) The approval granted herein is for the subdivision of 90 acres of land into 531 single family lots, a 1.3 acre private open space lettered lot, and a 1.3 acre service station site and an alternate subdivision of 90 acres into 545 single family lots, a 1.3 acres private open space lot, and no service station site. En ineerin Division 1) With the use of rolled curb and gutter, and curb adjacent sidewalk, 5-foot Public Utility Easements (P.U.E's) are required. The P.U.E. easements shall be shown on the final map. Please note, no above grade utilities, including mailboxes, will be allowed within the curb adjacent sidewalk. 2) Street "A," a functioning collector street, with the reduced width of 36-feet curb to curb shall be posted no parking. 3) All arkwa areas between the curb and walk shall be graded in a 2 percent plane, with the maximum slope area behind the walk at 3:1. 4) Dedications for Streets, Highways and Related Purposes and/or Sidewalk Purposes shall be labeled as such to the City of Rancho Cucamonga as Easements. Lettered lots shall be for open areas and/or parkways for landscaping purposes only to be maintained by a homeowners association or other means acceptable to the City. 5) All parkways, open areas, and landscaping, including the perimeter streets, shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approval prior to final map approval. 6) Construct the following perimeter street segments, including, but not necessarily limited to, curb, gutter, street lights, street trees, sidewalk, median island, asphalt paving, etc., pursuant to City standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: a) Rochester Avenue -6hufch-Btfeet Malaga Drive (Poplar) to Base ~'~ ~ Line Road b) Base Line Road -Mountain View Lane to Rochester Avenue c) Terra Vista Parkway -Mountain View Lane to Church Street d) Church Street - Rochester Avenue to existing improvements east of the Medical Center D -/oG PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 'IF 15072 - LEWIS HOMES DEV. CO. June 24, 1998 Page 3 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 ahd 4 ab~vve this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition,~;t forth belo; and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this, reference. Plannine Division ,,' 1) The approval granted herein is for the subdivision of 90 acres of land into 531 single family lots, a 1.3 acre private open spice lettered lot, and a 1.3 acre service station site and an alternatedSubdivision of 90 acres into 545 single family lots, a 1.3 acres pdvate,,dpen space !or, and no service station site. / Engineerinq Division /' 1) With the use of rolled curb and gutter, ,and curb adjacent sidewalk, 5-foot Public Utility Easements (P.U.E's) are required. The P.U.E. easements shall be shown on the final map. Please note, no above " grade utilities, including mailboxesf ,will be allowed within the curb adjacent sidewalk. , 2) Street "A," a functioning collg,ctor street, with the reduced width of 36-feet curb to curb shall be posted no parking. 3) All parkway areas betweeh the curb and walk shall be graded in a 2 percent plane, with the/maximum slope area behind the walk at 3:1. 4) Dedications for Stre/e(s, Highways and Related Purposes and/or Sidewalk Purposes/Shall be labeled as such to the City of Rancho Cucamonga as E.~/~ements. Lettered lots shall be for open areas and/or parkways/f, or: la. ndscaping purposes only to be maintained by a homeowners a~soc~atlon or other means acceptable to the City. 5) All parkways,{/.,/o~/pen areas, and landscaping, including the perimeter streets, sh~ll be permanently maintained by the properly owner, homeowners' assodation, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this lan(l~cape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Eil'neer review and approval prior to final map approval. 6) Con ;)ruct the following perimeter street segments, including, but not neb~s)sadly limited to, curb, gutter, street lights, street trees, sidewalk, ~gjian isl;~nd, asphalt paving, etc., pursuant to City standards and to t /~e satisfaction of the City Engineer: '/2~; Rochester Avenue -Church Street to Base Line Road b) Base Line Road -Mountain View Lane to Rochester Avenue Terra Vista Parkway -Mountain View Lane to Church Street Church Street- Rochester Avenue to existing improvements east of the Medical Center PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 15072 - LEWIS HOMES DEV. CO. June 24, 1998 Page 4 Note: All parkway improvements, with the exception of street lighting, and median island landscaping located o~f-site of the project boundaries shall be deferred until development of the adjacent · properties, with the exception of street lighting. In addition, for the street segments of Terra Vista Parkway and Church Street, upon -. request, the developer shall be eligible for fee credits and reimbursements from the Transportation Development Fee for backbone improvements, including the middle 38 feet of pavement width, in conformante with City policy. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover the cost of off site improvements other than the backbone podion (and one half the cost of the median island landscaping) from future development of the adjacent properly and across the street properties f the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement(;2 within six months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 7) Fully improve all internal streets, including. but not necessarily limited to curb. gutter, street lights, street trees, sidewalk, asphalt paving. etc., pursuant to City standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 8) Modify the existing traffic signal at the intersection of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue as required, pursuant to City standards and specifications, and to the satisfaction. of the City Traffic Engineer and City Engineer. 9) Install a pedestrian crosswalk and signal at Tetra Vista Parkway and trail, south of Palm Meadows. 10) Construct the following master plan drainage facilities, pursuant to the Tetra Vista Master Plan .Drainage Study, to adequately provide drainage protection to the proposed project: a)Portions of Master Plan System 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 from the site to Deer Creek Channel b) Portions of Master Plan System 6 from the site to Day Creek Channel 11) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except the 66kv lines) on the opposite side of Roc~ter Avenue shall be paid to the City prior to the recordation of the Final Map. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length from the center of Base Line Road to the south project boundary, minus the amount previously paid by Tentative Parcel Map No. 13987, located at the . northeast comer of the site... 12) The proposed project shall be annexed into Landscaping Maintenance District No, 4 and Street Lighting Districts No. I and 4. 13) Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) plans shall incorporate cost efficient, low maintenance designs, inc uding the use of harriscape, .,. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT15072-LEWIS HOMES DEV. CO. June 24, 1998 Page 5 compatible with or transition to existing LMD areas, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The maximum slope within publicly maintained landscape areas shall be 3:1. Where slopes occur, a 1-foot flat area behind the sidewalk shall be provided, and at the top of slopes, where the slope height is 6-feet or greater, a 2-foot wide flat shelf shall run along the base of walls. Slope widths should be minimized through the use of 30-inch maximum height free standing retaining walls. Low maintenance wall treatments should be used. Planting areas for shrubs should have a minimum width of 3 feet, clear of wall footings. Trees will require wider planting areas, as determined by the City Engineer. 14) In addition to implementing the City's gated entrance design guideline, the throat dimension at the street intersections shall be a minimum of 44 feet curb to curb to allow for two outbound lanes, left and dght, 12 feet and 16 feet wide, respectively, and one 16-foot inbound lane. 15) With the use of rolled curb and gutter, fire hydrants shall be protected by the installation of crash posts, pursuant to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire District Fire Hydrant/Installation Standards. Copy can be obtained from the Building and Safety Department Fire Safety Division. 16) The drainage system(s) within the interior of the proposed project, up to and connecting to the drainage system(s) within the public streets, shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approval prier to final map approval. 17) The proposed project requires a Congestion Management Program/Traffic Impact Analysis (CMP/TIA) study. The study shall be approved by SANBAG prior to final map approval. As determined by the City Engineer, make a fair share contribution to traffic mitigations. 18) Additional right-of-way is required to accommodate any right-turn lanes. In this case, all entrances to the proposed development, where the number 2 lane is 18 feet or less, shall include a separate right-turn lane. The final location and length of aft right-turn lanes to be based on traffic volumes as indicated in the required traffic study for this project, with dedication made on the final map. 19) The Park design, including grading, shall be approved by the Park and Recreation Commission prior to final map approval, to verify that the site consists of 5 net, developable acres, with no encumbrances. The Park shall be built per City Standards and Specifications, and under the direction of the City Engineer. The site shall include a continuous 6-foot perimeter block wall. The entire Park shall be completed and accepted by the City prior to =.ssuar, c~ ~f bu~',d;n,.3 pcrm..:.ts fc, r ths 15Or:, home-occupancy of the 150th home or prior to issuance of building permits for 50 percent of the homes, whichever occurs first and barring any City imposed delays. D -/08 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT15072-LEWIS HOMES DEV. CO. June 24, 1998 Page 6 20) Install a traffic signal at the following intersections, pursuant to City standards and specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer and City Engineer. a) Church Street and Rochester Avenue b) Milliken Avenue and Mountain View Drive c) Base Line Road and Mountain View Drive The developer shall receive credit against, and reimbursement of costs in excess of, the Transportation Development Fee in conformance with City policy. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within six months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 21 ) Project shall comply with the Terra Vista Park Implementation Plan. ~ Environmental Mitigation Measures: Water: 1) The developer will be required to construct Master Plan drainage facilities pursuant to the Terra Vista Master Plan Drainage Study including portions of Master Plan System 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 from the site to Deer Creek Channel, to adequately provide drainage protection for the project. Transportation: 1) Developer shall pay transportation development fees upon issuance of building permits, at the rate adopted by the City, as fair share contribution for area wide improvements. 2)Construct/complete Base Line Road, Rochester Avenue, Tetra Vista Parkway, and Mountain View Drive full width along the project frontage. 3) Construct/complete Church Street full width along the project frontage to connect to existing terminus to the west. Noise: 1) Individual dwelling units shall be constructed with special noise dampening glazing consistent with the recommendations of the noise study prepared by Gordon Bricken and Associates, February 9, 1998. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JUNE 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 15072- LEWIS HOMES DEV. CO. June 24, 1998 Page 7 BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of June 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNaTY DEVELOPMEN] DEPARTI STANDARD. GONDITiONS PROJECT #: Tentative Tract 15072 SUBJECT: Village of Independence APPLICANT: Lewis Homes LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. THAT APPLY T0' yOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477,2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents. officers, or employees. because of the issuance of such approval. or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shaft reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents. officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits. whichever comes first. the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Me[Io-Roos Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District. the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such existing District prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void. This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts as a result of this project. 3. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to the issuance of building permits when no map is involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be, submitted to the Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water district 1 D -/// within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. B. Time Limits 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations. extedor materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Tetra Vista Community Plan. 2. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shali be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 3. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced. whichever comes first. 5. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, / all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 6. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC conde.nsers, etc., shall be / located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 7. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the / adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. 8. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) and Articles of Incorporation of the . . / / Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with Ihe Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 9. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be pe~'ma..nently .maintained by the property / / owner. homeowners'association, or other means acceptable to th~City. Proof ofthis landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of lots for Gity Planner and Oily Engineer approval; inoluding, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fenoing. 11. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. if a double wal~ condition would result. the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoinin~ property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notif'/, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's podmeter. 12. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each support post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two %-inch lag bolts, to withstand high winds. Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall extend at least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade. 13. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. 14. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron or black plastic coated chain link to maintain an open feeling and enhance views. 15. On comer side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. 16. For residential development, return walls and comer side wails shall be decorative masonry. 17. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real dyer rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. D. Building Design 1. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectura detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 2. All roof appurtenances, including air conditionors and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be ' ' included in building paans. E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All units shall be provided with garage door openers-if driveways are less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk. 2. On flag lots, use a 12-foot driveway within flag to maximize landscape area. 3. :he Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles on tl':ls site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit parking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas. 4. Plans for any secudty gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. For residential development, private gated entrances shall provide adequate turn-around space in 3 front of the gate and a separate visitor lane with call box to avoid cars stacking into the public rig ht--of-way. _ , F, Trip Reduction 1. Telecommuting center shall be provided for single-family development of 500 or more units or / con!ribute toward the development of one in an amount satisfactory to the City Council. G. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping / in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. All pdvate slopes o.f-5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 / slope, shall be, at minimum. irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. . 3. All pdvate slopes in excess of 5 feet. but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater __ __ / slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 4. For single family res dential development, all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously __ __/ maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 5. Front yard and comer side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development __ __/ Code and/or Terra Vista Community Plan. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 6. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included / in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 7. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intens fled andscaping, is required along spine street, main spine street trail, perimeter streets. 8.All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 9. Tree maintenance cdteda shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits, These cdteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. II 10. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of __/! Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19 16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code for model homes only. H. Environmental 1. Mitigation measures are required for the '~roject. The applicant is responsible for the cost of/ implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $719.00, prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shail be considered grounds for forfeit. In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final certificate of occupancy), the applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner pdor to issuance of building permits. Said program shall identity the reporter as an individgal qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. I. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: J. Site Development 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issu~:nce of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to '-:' / existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee. Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checkihg Fees, ahd School Fees. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and __/__ prior to issuance of building permits. 4.Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday / /__ through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday. ~ ' - - ' K. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering/__/ use, area, and fire-resistiveness. "-""" //_5 2. Roofing material shall be installed as for wind-resistant roof covering at wind velocity not less than 90 mph. L. Existing Structures 1. Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for building permit application. M. 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: N. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, / community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street tree. s, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Note: The interior streets for the proposed project are to be private. 2. Dedication shall be made of the following perimeter streets for rights-of-way, sidewalk, and trail, per the tentative tract map: Base Line Road / Rochester Avenue ChUr(:h Street : Terra Vista Parkway Mountain View Drive 3. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. ,4. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for approved openings: Base Line Road. Rochester Avenue, Church Street, Tetra Vista Parkway, and Mountain View Drive. 5. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage (if required) shah be provided and shall be / delineated or noted on the final map. h-oject No. ri' 15077 Completion Date 6. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the / /__ final map. 7. Easements for public sidewalks, trails, and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way . _/ shall be dedicated to the City. 8. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes (if required), to provide a / __ __ minimum of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided. See also the Special Conditions for requirements for a right turn lane. O. Street Improvements 1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped I areas, etc.) shown on the plans an'jfor tentative map shall be ccnstructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include. but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches sidewa ks, street lights, and street trees. - 2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: ~1__ __ Street Name Gutter ~t walk A~pr. Ligtlts Trees Trail Island1 Ot~er Rochester Avenue X X f X e e Church Street X X c X e X X e Terra Vista Parkway X X X X ~ Mountain View Drive Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and ovadays will be determined dudng plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per STD. 114. (d) If so marked. an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. (e) Parkway landscaDino (odvatelv maintained~ (~ Soecial desicln matchinq eestedv Side- 3. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights __/~_ on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans-shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a /_ __ construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and / interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 7 Project No. 7f 15072 Completion Date d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction / project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect widng. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Epgineer. Notes: (1)Pull boxes shaft be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. - Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with / adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon qompletion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be / installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots., h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner pdor to submittal for first plan check. / 4. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all pdvate streets shall be provided for review / / and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being performed on the private streets, fees shall be paid and construction permits shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. 5. 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. 6. 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. P. 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 int_o the ~.andscape Maintenance District: Church Street and Terra Vista Parkway median islands . 2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting __/__ __ Districts shall be flied with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. 3. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the __/___ developer until accepted by the City. Completion Dale 4. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective/ Beautification Master Plan: Base Line Road. Rochester Avenue, Church Street. Terra Vista Parkway, and Mountain View Drive . Drainage and Flood Control 1. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map __ __/__ approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. See Special Conditions for drainage requirements. 2. ' Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of~any public storm drain pipe measured __ __ from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. 3. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in __/__ __ a sump catch basin on the public streets and or/private streets. R. Utilities 1. Provide sepa.rate utility services to each pamel 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 desioqed and constructed to meet the requirements of the/ Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bemardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. S. General Requireroents and Approvals 1. Pdor to approval of the final map, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District CFD 84-1 among the newly created parcels. 2. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covedng the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first six months of operation, pdor to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. 3. Prior to ~nalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed/ __ __ beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE pREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: T. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. 2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,000 gallons per minute, __/__ __ 9 ~rojecl No. TT [5072 a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department / personnel prior to water plan approval.' b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall '~/ be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants sha be installed, flushed / and operable pdor to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. 4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, / if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" 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. 5. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final / inspection. 6. . Ro__adways Within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: / X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22, / 7. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept tdmmed a minimum of 14'6" fTOm ground __/ up So as not to impede fire apparatus. 8. Plan check fees in the amount of $132.00 shall be paid: X Prior to final plan approval. / / Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers. hood systems, alarms. etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 9. Plans shall be submitted and approved pdor to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, / · UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: U. Security Lighting 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. / These areas should be lighted from sunsetto sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. / V. Building Numbering 1, At the entrances of complex, an illuminated map or directory of project shall be erected with / vandal-resistant cover. The directory shall not contain names of tenants, but only address numbers, street names, and their locations in the complex. North shall be at the top and so indicated· Sign shall be in compliance with Sign Ordinance, including an application for a Sign Permitand approval by the Planning Division. sc- 3.':_=9s 10 2. All developments shall submit a 8 1/2" x 11" sheet with the numbering pattern of all multi-ten~ant developments to the Police Department. 11 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAUFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15072, THE CONSTRUCTION OF 531 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITH A FUTURE SERVICE STATION SITE AND AN ALTERNATE SCHEME WITH 545 HOMES AND NO SERVICE STATION SITE IN THE LOW-MEDIUM AND MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND 8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, RESPECTIVELY) OF THE TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ROCHESTER AVENUE AND BASE LINE ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-151-35, 36, AND 37. A. Recitals. 1. LeWis Homes Development Co. has filed an applicatioh for the Design Review of Tentative Tract 15072 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 24th day of June 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, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on June 24, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. That the proposed project is in accord with the objectives of the Terra Vista Community Plan and the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed project is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Tetra Vista Community Plan Development Code; and d. That the proposed project, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. _ TT 15072 DR - LEWIS HOMES DEV. CO. June 24. 1998 Page 2 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. planrf~nDivision 1) All conditions contained in the Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract 15072 shall apply. 2) The 5-acre public park site improvements shall be installed prior to occupancy of the 150th home or prior to issuance 3uilding permits for 50 percent of the homes, whichever occurs first ,~nd barring any City imposed delays. The park design, including grading, shall be subject to approval by the Parks and Recreation Commission, prior to final map approval. 3) Provide enhanced paving throughout entire gated entry areas for all three entry points. The intent is to provide high quality appearance relative to surrounding public streets. 4) Revise gate design for gated entry areas to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 5) Continue specialized wall treatment in gated areas out onto public street frontage to further enhance entries. 6) All homes shall either have enhanced front porches per plans or front yard courtyard areas surrounded by low wall and/or low picket type fence. 7) Retaining wall footings Shall be designed to accommodate minimum 6-foot high block walls on top of retaining walls where necessary. 8) Provide 11-inch x 17-inch reductions of the entire set of development plans for Planning Division records, prior to issuance of building permits." 9) Provide revised Terra Vista Illustrative Master Plan to include the subject pr6ject for Plannir~g Division records, prior to plan check to the satisfaction of the City Planner. En ineedn Division 1) All conditions contained in the Resolution of Approv~ for Tentative Tract 15072 shall apply. 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TF 15072 DR - LEWIS HOMES DEV. CO. June 24, 1998 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JUNE 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: - - Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller. Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of June 1998. by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: Tentative Tract 15072 SUBJECT: Village of Independence APPLICANT: Lewis Homes LOCATION: Southwest Corner of B=~- Line Road and Rochester Avenue ALL OF THE FOLLOWING COND!TI.ONS T~AT APP-L Y--TO YOUR PROJECT_~ APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE pLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City. its __1 __ __ agents. officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval. or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City. its agents. officers, or employees. for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the Cit,j~ts ~agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion. partic pate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits. whichever comes first, / the applicant shall consent to, or participate in. the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities Distnct for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the alternative. consent to the annexation Of the project site into the territory of such existing District prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twe{ve months from the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project. this condition shall be deemed null and void. This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school districts have entered into an agreement to privateiy accommodate any and art school impacts as a result of this project. "' ' ' ' 3, Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to the issuance of building permits when no map is__/__I 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 1 within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential prdjects, B. Time Limits 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not / / issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include ~/.__/ site plans, architectural elevations, extedor materials and co ors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, DeveEopment Code regulations, and the Terra Vista Community Plan. 2. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and __/__/. State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 3. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be / submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for / consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 5. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, aft other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls. berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 7. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy pdor to approval of the final map. 8. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) and Articles of Incorporation of the ... Homeowners' Association are subject to the approva~ of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with;the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 9. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property ____/ owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. The developer shall submit a co~ ~*ruction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for City Planner and City .neer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street post.: phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measuFes, and security fencing. 11. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's perimeter. 12. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each support post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two V=--inch lag bolts, to withstand high winds. Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall extend at least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade. 13. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. _ 14. Slope fencing along side propert'/lines may be wrought iron or black plastic coated chain link to mainfain an open feeling and enhance views. 15. On comer side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. 16. For residential development, return walls and comer side walls shall be decorative masonry. __ 17. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured __ __ products. D. Building Design 1. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. - . 2. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or __/__ __ projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. A~II units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk. 2. On flag lots, use a 12-foot driveway within flag to maximize lands~;ape area. 3. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restdct the storage of recreational vehicles on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit parking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas. 4. Plans for any secuhty gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct review and approval pdor to issuance of building permits, For residential development, private gated entrances shall provide adequate turn-around space an 3 front of the gate and a separate visitor lane with call box to avoid cam stacking into the public right-of-way. - - F. Trip Reduction 1. Talecommuting center shall be provided for single-family development of 500 or more units or / contribute toward the development of one in an amount satisfactory to the City Council. G. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping __/__ in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. All private slopes of 5-feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 / slope, shall be. at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 3. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater__/__ __ slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15<Jailon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 ~allon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 4. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously / maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 5. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development / / Code and/or Terra Vista Community Plan. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 6. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included / / in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency.with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 7. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering __ __/__ sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along spine street, main spine street trail, perimeter streets. 8. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the / design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 9. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and approval __ __ / prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 10. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapte? ~g.t6 of the Rancho Cucamonga [vlunicipal Code for model homes oniy. H. Environmental 1. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsibte for the Cost or impiementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Appiicant shah be required to post cash, leRer of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Ranher in the amount of $71g.00. prior to the issuance of building permits. guaranteeing satisfactory performanoe and oomp[etion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to re~in oonsuRants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to compiete all actions required by the approved environmentaN doouments shall be oonsidered grounds for forfeit. in +,hose ins~nces requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final c~rtificate of occupanoy), the applicant shah provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Ranner prior to issuance of buiiding permits. Baid program shall identify the reporter as an individqal quafffled to know whether the pafficular mitigation measure has been implemented. I. Other Agencies 1, The applicant shah contact the U .S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: J. Site Development 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanicai Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulatjons in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for' copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, arid Scho_o!Fees. 3.Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tractJparcet map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday. with no construction on Sunday. K. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering use, area. and fire-resistiveness. 5 l~oject No. rE 15072 Comnle~ion Date 2. Roofing material shall be installed as for wind-resistant roof covering at wind velocibj not less than /__ 90 mph. - - L. Existing Structures 1. Underground on*site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for building __/__ __ permit application. M. 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: N. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, / community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Note: The interior streets for the proposed project are to be private. 2. Dedication shall be made of the following perimeter streets for rights-of-way, sidewalk, and trail, per the tentative tract map: Base Line Road / Rochester Avenue Church Street Terra Vista Parkway Mountain View Drive 3. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. 4. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for approved openings: Base Line Road. Rochester Avenue. Church Street, Terra Vista parkway, and Mountain View Drive. 5. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage (if required) shall be provided and shal~ be / / delineated or noted on the final map. 6. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the __/ final map. 7. Easements for public sidewalks, trails, and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way __ __/__ shall be dedicated to the City. 8. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes (if required). to provide a / minimum of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided. See also the Special Conditions for requirements for a right turn lane. O. Street Improvements 1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, ~;ndscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC .pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: . Street Name Base Line Road Rochester Avenue Church Street Term Vista Parkway Vlountain View Drive Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and ovedays will be determined dudng 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. (el Parkway landscapino (privately maintained)- (f) Special desiqn matchinq easte~y side. 3. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights _ / on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a / /__ construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping. marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and __/ / interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 7 d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction / / project along major or secondan/streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Er)gineer. Notes: (1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City __/ Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with / adequate detours dudng construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon Completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards. except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. 4. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all private streets shall be provided for review and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being performed on the pdvate streets, fees shall be paid and construction permits shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. 5.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. 6. 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. P. 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 pdor 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 i~o the _Landscape Maintenance District: Church Street and Terra Vista Parkway median islands . 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. 3. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. 4. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective I__1__ Beautification Master Plan: Base Line Road, Rochester Avenue, Church Street, Terra Vista Parkway, and Mountain View Drive . -- Q. Drainage and Flood Control 1. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and appmved by the City Engineer prior to final map//__ approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. See Special Conditions for drainage requirements. 2. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured __/__ from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. 3. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in __/__ __ a sump catch basin on the public streets and or/private streets. R. Utilities 1. Provide sepa. rate 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 relocetion of existing utilities as necessary. ~/ 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the __ __/ Cucamonga County Water Distdct (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bemardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. S. General Requirements and Approvals 1. Prior to approval of the final map, a deposit shall be posted with the City coveting the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District CFD 84-1 among the newly created parcels. 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, pdor to final map approval or pdor to building permit issuance if no map is involved. 3. Pdor to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE pREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: T. General Fire protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements Shall apply to this project. I.~1__ 2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,000 gallons per minute~ __ / / 9 a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department / personnel prior to water plan approval. b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on*site fire hydrants sha be installed, flushed and operahie prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. 4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" 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. 5. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 6. .Ro__adways within project shall comply with the Fire Distr ct's fire lane standards, as noted: / X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. / 7. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed a minimum of 14'6" from ground __ __ / up so as not to impede fire apparatus. 8. Plan check fees in the amount of $132.00 shall be paid: X Prior to final plan approval. / Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 9. Plans shall be submitted and approved pdor to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC. / UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH · THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: U. Security Lighting 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. / These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. / V. Building Numbering 1. At the entrances of complex, an illuminated map or directory of project shall be erected with / vandal-resistant cover. The directory shall not contain names of tenants, but only address numbers, street names, and their locations in the complex. North shall be at the top and so indicated. Sign shall be in compliance with Sign Ordinance, including an application for a Sign Permit and approval by the Planning Division. 2. All developments shall submit a 8 1/2" x 11" sheet with the numbering pattern of all multi-tenant/__ __ developments to the Police Department- 11 ,..._ CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: June 24, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15814 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES o The proposed subdivision and design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 191 single family homes on 40 acres of land in the Low-Medium District.(4-8 dwelling units per acre) within the Victoria Vineyards of the Victoria Community Plan, located at the southwest corner of Highland and Rochester Avenues - APN: 227-011-09 & 13. Related File: Tree Removal Permit 98-05 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Project Density: 4.8 dwelling units per acre B. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North Vacant (future Route 30 Freeway); South - Rancho Cucamonga High Sc139ot; School District East .. Elood control retention basin; Flood Control Distdct West Single family residential; Low-Medium Residential District C. General Plan Desianations: Project Site - Low-Medium Residential 4-8 dwelling units per acre North Foothill Freeway .~. South- School East Flood Control West - Low-Medium 4-8 dwelling units per acre D. Site Characteristics: The. project site presently has a vacant single family residence, horse corral, and storage shed at the northeast quadrant of the site. These improvements will be demolished and removed shortly. The site has been regularly disturbed over the years as a result of residential and equestrian uses. The site slopes approximately 6 percent from north to south. The site is bounded by the'future Route 30 Freeway to the north and Rancho Cucamonga High School to the south. The site is impacted by various biological, archeological, noise, and traffic issues described in the environmental assessment. ITErl E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 'IF 15814 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES .' June 24, 1998 Page 2 _ . ANALYSIS: A. Backaround: This project was presented to the Planning Commission as a Pre-Application Review on September 10, and October 22, 1997. Since the initial presentation. Fieldstone Communities has redesigned the project to replace long street segments with curvilinear streets and cul-de-sacs, reduced the number of lots from 204 to 191, provided more variation in lot sizes and front setbacks, and enhanced elevations. B. Genera!: Fieldstone Communities is proposing 191 single family detached lots on 40 acres. The project is located in the Low-Medium Residential District, which has a density range of 4-8 dwelling units..per acre. The proposed density, 4.8 dwelling units per acre. is at the lower end of the allowable range, which allows for greater variation of lot sizes. Lot sizes range from 4,123 to 12,511 square feet. with an average lot size of 6,062 square feet. There are six floor plans with three elevations each, ranging in'size from 1,923 to 3,014 square feet. Architectural styles are contemporary in nature, using masonry, rock, and bdck. All plans have either a useable front porch or front courtyard feature. C. Innovative Standards: The developer is requesting consideration under the "innovative" development standards to take advantage of more flexible side yard setbacks and to allow 15 percent of the lots to dip below the 5,000 square foot minimum required under the conventional development standards. The Victoria Community Plan defines innovation as: Innovation in single family development means providing creative design solutions, which address the cdtical concerns of neighborhood compatibility, density transition, and design quality. Innovative projects--~tfe characterized by an attractive street scape, which is not monotonous, npr is the street scene dominated by asphalt/concrete, garages, and cars. Innovative design means finding creative ways to create well-designed space, particularly usable yard space. Fieldstone is using the following strategy to accomplish an innovative design: * All house plans have only 2-car garages which are tucked well into the front elevation (garages do not stick out as in the common L-shaped house). Plans have either a front courtyard feature (100 square fqot minimum) or a covered front porch (8 foot minimum depth). Roll-up sectional garage doors with a variety of window patterns are included on all plans. There are 23 different exterior color and material schemes. * Average rear yard setback is over 30 feet; front yard~ range from 20 to 30 feet in depth. The yard areas, in combination with the porches and courtyard concepts, add to the overall character of the street scene and encoU[age..m~re neighborhood interaction. Decorative driveway treatment and front yard landscaping are included on all lots. The request for innovative standards does not maximize lot yield, as the development falls within the low density range (4.8 dwelling units per acre) in a residential district, which allows up to 8 dwelling units per acre. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 15814 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES June 24, 1998 Page 3 D. Desiqn Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on three occasions, March 31, April 28, and June 2, 1998 (see exhibit "G"). At the first two meetings, the Committee (Bethel, Maclos, Fong) was supportive of the street and lot layout, but had concerns with the architectural style. The Committee requested revisions to the architectural style to address the "boxy" appearance of the units and to de-emphasize the "' garage. The developer worked diligently with staff to address issues. Elevations were enhanced, front entries were brought forward and integrated into the courtyard element, and a trellis element was added to the front elevation of two of the six plans. At the final meeting, the Committee (Bethel, Macias, Buller) acknowledged the architectural revisions since the first meeting and recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission with minor adjustments on the landscape and hard scape plans. . E. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee reviewed the project on March 31 ~ 1998. The Committee noted the construction of the Route 30 Freeway will impact the project in several ways. Special conditions will be necessary to address the relocation · of Highland Avenue to a frontage road, the existing overhead utilities on Highland Avenue, the Iowedng of the intersection of Highland and Rochester Avenues~ and the freeway sound wall issue. Staff and Fieldstone Communities agreed to pursue the sound wall location with Caltrans in an effort to locate sound walls at the freeway shoulder, to avoid excessively high walls at tract boundaries. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The site is impacted by various biological, archeological, noise, and traffic issues. In order to complete the Initial Study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the developer prepared detailed reports and made plan revisions to address issues, including: A. Archaeolooical Resources: Historical resources that are at least 5(5"years old are potentially eligible 'for listing on the Califomia Register and are required to be evaluated pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. The subject site has two archaeological features, which were believed to be constructed in the 1920's. The first feature consists of two low cobblestone walls, 28 feet long (north), 18 feet long (west), and 2 to 4 feet in height with the remnants of door and window openings. The second feature is a small (9- by 7-foot) cobblestone structure with a flat concrete roof. A certified archeologist prepared a series of reports which included a description and evaluation of the natural setting, cultural setting, historic overview, liter~iGre review, ownership records, and aedal photographs related.~o the site. The archeologist also performed field surveys and documentation, excavation, and laboratory analysis of artifacts (primarily alcohol-related containers) found at and near~e features. The evidence indicates the structures were likely associated with agricultural activities which were not successful on this particular site. The final report concludes that the site does not meet any of the criteria for listing on the California Register, and is therefore, not an important cultural resource as defined in CEQA. B. Biolooical Resources: The subject site contains indicator species of sage scrub habitat on approximately 15 of the 40 acres. As a result, habitat assessment and biological protocol surveys were required to determine potential impacts, particularly to the federally-listed threatened coastal California gnatcatcher and the endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT15814- FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES ' June 24,1998 -Page 4 -. The habitat assessment and protocol surveys were conductea :'-. GLA biologists permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Amy L. Leverett and Tony Bomkamp. The results of the surveys indicate no suitable habitat was found to be present on-site for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat. In addition, no coastal California gnatcatchers were observed dudng the course of the surveys. The findings of the report indicate the site is not occupied by threatened or endangered species. However, the report identified the approximate 15- acre coastal sage scrub community on the southwestern portion of the site as high quality habitat. As a condition of approval, the developer shall be required to obtain an incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act, if deemed necessary by the Service, to mitigate the potential loss of sensiti, ,-: habitat. C. Tr e Removal Re uest: There are 70 trees on the property, including Pine, scrub Oaks, Eucalyptus, and Walnut, of which 56 are protected by the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. All are pr6posed by the developer for removal. An arborist's report determined the trees were poor candidates for preservation due to poor health, stature, or soil conditions. The - developer agreed to mitigate tree removal by providing a specimen tree (36-inch box) in the fron( yard of each comer lot and entry-facing lot in addition to typical front yard landscaping scheme. D. Traffic/Circulation: The site is bounded to the south by Rancho Cucamonga High School on Lark Avenue. At the Traffic Division's request, Fieldstone Communities revised the improvement status of Lark Avenue to a collector street with on-street parking to address neighborhood conflicts caused by overflow parking from the high school. E. Noise: An acoustical analysis was prepared to deterrnine the noise exposure and necessary mitigation measures for development of the project site. The report indicates the future Route 30 Freeway will have a significant noise impact on the site unless mitigated. A sound barrier at the freeway shoulder would provide the most effective noise protection and minimize wall height; however, Caltrans has been reluctant to allow construction of walls on the shoulder for new projects. If Caltrans does not allow a wall at this location, the study indicatesa 16 - 20-foot high noise barrier at the tract boundary along High - nd Avenue will be necessary. The height and appearance of such a wall would resembi; :he existing 16-foot high sound wall located at the southwest comer of Highland and Mdliken Avenues in the Victoda Community Plan. At this time, City staff and developers are pursuing the matter with ' Caltrans as a community concern which impacts not only-this site, but the overall south side of the freeway corridor along Highland Avenue. The acoustical analysis further identified mitigation measures to address local traffic noise, including construction techniques for noise attenuation an8 a 7-foot high noise barrier along Highland and Rochester Avenues. The noise barrier would be a combination of berming with the Victoria theme wall. Staff completed the Initial Study Part II and determined there would not be a significant adverse impact upon the environment as a result of this projeCt. Staff recommends issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (see Exhibit "H"). PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 15814 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES June 24, 1998 Page 5 FACTS FOR FINDING: Before approving the application, the Planning Commission shall make certain findings that the following circumstances do apply: A The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. B. The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the Victoria Community Plan in which the site is located. C. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and Victoria Community Plan. D. The proposed u~, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. COR~'ESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Tentative Tract 15814 through adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with Conditions and the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. City Planner BB:RVB:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Vicinity Map Exhibit '"B" Tentative Tract Map Exhibit "C" Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "D" Grading Plan Exhibit "E" Landscape Plan Exhibit "F" Floor Plans and Elevations Exhibit "G" DRC Comments - March 31, Apiil 28, and June 2, 1998 Exhibit "H" Initial Study Pad II Tentative Tract Resolution of Approval witb Genditjons Design Review Resolution of Approval with Cor~ciitions < LARK DR -- PROJECT SITE ~:..-.r, · FOOTHILL BOULEVARD "" /, VICINITY MAP 'NOT TO SCALE TENTATIVE TRACT 15814 FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES ' ExH-IBIT "/~" ~'~' SEE SHEET 2 S'EE SHEET 2 .,~.~..:._ .; ...... , °~,,~I \L~i/~. .. SEE SHEET 5 SEE SHEET SEE SHEET 2 SEE SIIEET 2 I ['~ TgNTATIVE TRACT N0. 15B14 CONCEIYFUALGRADINGPLAN I ........ ..-,-.-, :.?,_: h 'I::':L ,\ .... ·: 'i , SEE SHEET 3 SEE SHEET 3 ]~i~!~ i~ SEE SHEET 2 Sj:E SHEET 2 I~,~i , /-~"~";' , ,:- -.'!.:' :.,] '~,~,~c,~.~p,.../~,';",,,!,,;.,.,,.~.'//: :...:.":' PLANT PALETTE "% ::~ ......~_, ~ .................................~.. ....... "~ T HIGHMND ~VENUE ........ ENVIRONS ' ""':' H FieldStone ~,,,, Fi.~Lr~ONi. COM~iT~[&I~N~C;i e PRELIMINARY ~NDSCAP[ PLAN PLANT p~.LETTE dc~ ~ ............. ,.,, ~t ~ "' ~ -- I~ndsc~, p~n~ . -,:,... TYPICAL COURTYARD ENLARGEMENTS ~---- 79 ..........~vmo~s ~ .........FieldSt ~,,~ ....... .,. one .............. ,,,,,.~J~'~'.~J~1':l~k~ ....... FRONTYARD [NLARGEUENI I~ ' Front Elevation ...................... j [ ] []3 SeCond I:l~r l:IB~ Fl~r Plan 2262 Plan 2262 'l Second Fh~or F}rsl Floor Plan 2565 ~1, Plan 2565 Plan 2565 Left Side : Fronl Elevation / C Plan 2565 L~I I '] ""' I Plan 2764 ..... -:~-. " Plan 2872 · auI sa!l!unmmo3 auolspla!,4 / g!.~ola!A oqaueH eY-HtBm~' "F-'zl ~--7c~ Right Side Rear Plan 3014 J Pl~u~ 3014 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:20 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren March 31, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15814 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES: The proposed subdivision and design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 191 single family homes on 40 acres of land in the Village of Victoria Vineyards of the Victoria Community Plan located at southwest corner of Highland and Rochester Avenues - APN: 227-011-09 & 13. The subject site is a 40-acre site bounded to the north by the future Route 30 Freeway and to the south - by Rancho Cucamonga high school. A single family tract backs up to 'he site on the west and a flood control retention basin is due east (across Rochester). The main entra,",ce to the subdivision will be from Rochester Avenue, with a secondary access along Highland Avenue. The site slopes from north to _ south. There are 70 trees on the property, including scrub Oaks, Eucalyptus, Walnut, of which 56 are ~ heritage trees protected by the City's Tree preservation Ordinance. All are proposed by the developer for removal. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of-Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Site Plan: a. Project entry streets are shown with curb adjacent sidewalk which is uncharacteristic for the area. More attractive landscaped parkways should be considered. b. The Highland Avenue sound wall height to mitigate freeway noise is under review at this time. SANBAG assumed that the freeway sound walls would.be located at the shoulder (closest to the travel lanes); however, Caltrans has recently indicated they will not allow the sound wall at the shoulder, which would result in a 37-foot high sound wall at the tract boundary. Staff will be pursuing this issue further with Caltrans. Sound walls will also "wrap around" the comer for most of Rochester Avenue. 2. Architecture: a. The proposed elevations should be enhanced as follows: - - * large areas of blank walls should be eliminated. - * roof lines should be varied to a greater degree_ plan variety should be incorporated to minimize the "boxy" appearance of models. * 360 degree architecture accent treatment, such as shutters or secondary materials, should be used on side and rear elevations. b. Fro~t courtyard areas were presented to the Planning Commission in a Pre-Application Review as a basis for using "innovative" development standards. Staff is concerned that courtyards are not on all (or nearly all) lots and the diversity of materials and creativity of design has diminished. DRC COMMENTS 'I'1' 15814 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES March 31, 1998 Page 2 Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. The associated Tree Removal Permit requests removal of all 70 trees. One healthy tree, in particular, is worthy of preservation: a 40-foot tall Italian Stone Pine shown in the rear yard of Lot 37. This tree is a rare specimen of this size in the area. The preferred scheme is to preserve the tree in-place by redesigning the Tract. Redesign would eliminate cut or fill, or construction, within drip line of tree. The arborist report states that this tree cannot be relocated; therefore, any removal would require replacement with the largest nursery grown specimen available. 2. An additional 4 feet of right-of-way will be required along Lark Avenue to allow on-street parking to alleviate overflow high school parking in the neighborhood. This change will shift the proposed slope adjoining Lark Avenue and will reduce rear yards somewhat. Rolicv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape area should be provided between the back of sidewalk and any walls in corner side yard situations to breakup the massing of the walls and minimize graffiti potential. 2. All retaining walls exposed to public view should be treated with a decorative extedor finish or be composed of a decorative block material. 3. Bands of special paving should be incorporated into tong driveways throughout the subdivision. 4. Perimeter walls should match Victoria theme walls. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Design Review Committee ~ontinue the matter to allow the applicant to address issue areas. Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren ' '~ At the meeting, the applicant presented potenti~ revisions to the ele~,ations (Plans I and 3) in response to the architectural issues identified by staff. The Committee ('Bethel, Macias, Fong) indicated the architectural revisions were acceptable and that further enhancements of this nature for the remaining house plans as well as side and rear elevations should be explored. The Committee recommended that the project be brought back to the Committee as follows: 1. Incorporate revisions to elevations as presented at the meeting and carry out similar enhancements (details, ornamentation) on remaining house plans. 2. Enhance side and rear elevations, particularly on corner lots. 3. Replace wood fencing in court yards with more durable yet decorative material. DRC COMMENTS 'IF 15814 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES March 31, 1998 Page 3 4. Provide details of sound wall - identify noise impacted and design solutions. The applicant ageeed to modify the Site Plan to provide landscape parkways on entry streets, curb- adjacent sidewalk along Lark Avenue, and incorporate policy issues in Design Review Committee comments. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren April 28, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15814 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES- The proposed subdivision and design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 191 single family homes on 40 acres of land in the Village of Victoria Vineyards of the Victoria Community Plan located at the southwest corner of Highland and Rochester Avenues - APN: 227-011-09 & 13. Desi n Parameters: The subject site is a 40-acre site bounded to the north by the future Route 30 Freeway and to the south by Rancho Cucamonga High School. A single family tract backs up to the site on the west and a flood control retention basin is due east (across Rochester). The main entrance to the subdivision will be from Rochester Avenue, with a secondary access along Highland Avenue. The site slopes from north to south. There are 70 trees on the property, including scrub Oaks, Eucalyptus, Walnut, of which 56 are hedtage trees protected by the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. All are proposed by the developer for removal. This project was reviewed as Pre-Application Review 97-12 by the Planning Commission on October 22, 1997, see attached minutes. The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on March 31, 1998 and focused on major architectural issues. Design Review Committee requested the applicant incorporate architectural revisions and enhance side and rear elevations, see attached minutes. There were other issues that time did not permit discussion, which should be addressed tonight. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Connnlttee discussion regarding this project: 1. Elevations have been enhanced to address issues identified at the last meeting. 2. Project entry streets were revised to replace curb adjacent sidewalk with landscaped, parkways. Landscape opportunities at Rochester Avenue entry where sidewalks abut perimeter walls should be explored. 3. The freeway sound wall is an issue for this tract as well as other tracts along the corridor. Staff and developers are pursuing the matter with SANBAG and Caltrans in an effort to locate sound Walls at the freeway shoulder where they will be most effective and minimize their height. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. The associated Tree Removal Permit requests removal of all 70 trees. One healthy tree, in particular, is worthy of preservation: a 40-foot tall Italian Stone Pine shown in the rear yard of Lot 37. This tree is a rare specimen of this size in the area.' Tfiepreferred scheme is to preserve the tree in-place by redesigning the Tract. Redesign would eliminate cut or fill, or construction, within drip line of tree. The arborist report states that this tree cannot be relocated; therefore, any removal would require replacement with the largest nursery grown specimen available. 2. Lark Avenue has been modified to allow on-street parking. DRC COMMENTS DRC COMMENTS '1'C 15814 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES April 28, 1998 Page 2 ~ ~: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: A minimum 5-foot wide landscape area should be provided between the back of sidewalk and any walls in corner side yard situations to breakup the massing of the walls and minimize graffiti potential. Corner side yard walls should be shifted to provide a 5-foot wide landscape area between the back of sidewalk and the walls per Planning Commission policy. 2. All retaining walls exposed to public view should be treated with a decorative exterior finish or be composed of a decorative block material. 3. Bands of special paving should be incorporated into long driveways throughout the subdivision. 4. Perimeter walls should match Victoria theme wallS,. Staff R~ccommendatiorq: Staff recommends the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications as recommended above. Attachment: Planning Commission Minutes dated October 22, 1997 Design Review Committee Minutes dated March 31, 1998 Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren The Committee (Bethel, Macias, Fong) recommended the project be brought back to the Committee with the following revisions: 1. Elevations should be revised to "de-emphasize" the garage. This should be a comprehensive approach to include various techniques. For example, front porches should be expanded beyond the 6-foot depth shown. House plans without porches should be revised such that entry statements and courtyard features become more dominant. Garage doors should be upgraded architecturally (sectional steel doors with a variety of window patterns). Front yard landscaping exceeding minimum recLuirements and decorative driveway treatment will further this goal. 2. Side and rear elevations facing streets should have additional enhancements. 3. Additional detaits are needed to indicate the location of prdject boundary wails and landscape treatment along public streets, particularly where side yard retaining wails abut the sidewalk. Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) areas should be clearly indicated. 4. The Committee agreed that freeway sound wall issues would be deferred to a later date. 5. The Committee agreed that the significant tree in the rear yard of Lot 37 may be removed with mitigation that specimen size trees be used along entry streets. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 9:00 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren June 2, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15814 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES: The proposed subdivision and design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 191 single family homes on 40 acres of land in the Low Medium District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) within the Victoria Vineyards of the Victoria Community Plan, located at the southwest corner of Highland and Rochester Avenues - APN: 227-011-09 & 13. ~arameters: The subject site is a 40-acre site bounded to the north by the future Route 30 Freeway and to the south by Rancho Cucamonga High School. A single family tract backs up to the site on the west and a flood control retention basin is due east (across Rochester Avenue). The main entrance to the subdivision will be from Rochester Avenue, with a secondary access along Highland Avenue. The site slopes from north to south. There are 70 trees on the property, including scrub Oaks, Eucalyptus. Walnut, of which 56 are heritage trees protected by the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. All are proposed by the develOp~'rfor removal.. Backqround: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on April :)8, 1998 and directed the applicant to address the design concems of "de-emphasizing" the garage and providing additional enhancements on side and rear elevations facing streets. The Committee requested that revised plans be submitted for their review. The Committee also agreed that freeway sound wall issues would be deferred and that the tree in the rear yard of Lot 37 may be removed with mitigation. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee d scussion regarding this project: · The applicant has worked diligently with staff in revising his plans to address the Committee's concems. In reviewing the revised plans, staff found that the revisions are acceptabJe and there are no major design issues. The following summarizes the changes: 1. Elevations. a) Front entries have been brought forward and integrated into the courtyard element. Front porches are ~xpanded in dep:[h c) A trellis element has been added to the front elevation Of two of the six plans. d) Roll-up sectionaJ garage doors with a vadety of Window patterns are included on all plans. e) Decorative driveway treatment is included on all lots. f) Horizontal trim feature and chimney paneling have beer~ added to enhance side elevations. 2. Site Plan has been revised at Staffs request to pair more driveways on north/south streets. Additional landscape treatment is proposed in street corner knuckles where driveways are concentrated. DRC COMMENTS '1'I' 15814 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES June 2, 1998 Page 2 , . Se onda Is ues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1 ..- Tree mitigation measures: Staff recommends that in addition to the typical front yard landscape scheme, a specimen tree (36-inch box) be installed in the front yard of each corner lot and entry- facing lot (Lots 101, 102, 11 O, and 111 ) to mitigate the removal of existing trees on site. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape area should be provided between the back of the sidewalk and any walls in comer side yard situations to breakup the massing of the walls and minimize graftill potential. Comer side yard walls should be shifted to provide a landscape area between the back ~ of sidewalk.and the walls per Planning Commission policy. 2. All retaining walls exposed to public view should be treated with a decorative exterior finish or be composed of a decorative block material. 3. Perimeter walls should match Victoria theme walls. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications as recommended above. Attachment: Design Review Committee Action Comments dated April 28, 1998 Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Brad Buller Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buron -: The Design Review Committee acknowledged the significant architectural revisions the applicant incorporated into the project since the first review on March 31, 1998. The Committee recommended approval of the project with the following conditions: 1. The Landscape Plan shall be revised to continue the landscape palette in the slope area in the southwestern portion of the project adjacent to Lark AveQ~ue, and, to enhance landscaping on lots at street corner knuckles where driveways are concentrated. 2 Garden and retaining walls extending into front setbacks shall have a decorative cap and an end pilaster or "square Diock" to provide definition. 3. Wood fence on southern side yards of Lots' 143 and 159 shall be replaced with decorative block wall. The applicant agreed to the proposed tree removal permit mitigation and policy issues in the Design Review Comments. City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Tentative Tract 15814 2. Related Files: Not applicable. 3. Description of Project: The proposed subdivision and design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 191 single family homes on 40 acres of land in the Low Medium District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) within the Victoria Vineyards of the Victoria Community Plan located at the southwest corner of Highland and Rochester Avenues. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Fieldstone Communities 14 Corporate Place, Newport Beach, California 92660 Attn. Steve Cameron 949-640-9090 5. General Plan Designation: Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) 6. Zoning: Low Medium District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) in the Victoria Community Plan 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: To the north is the future Route 30 freeway, to the south is a public high school campus, to the west are existing low-medium residential tract homes, and to the east is a flood control basin. 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, Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15814 . Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. (x) Land Use and Planning ( ) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing (X) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (X) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (X) Aesthetics ( ) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality (X) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis '0f this initial evaluation: ( ) ' '1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared (X) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a sign ficant 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 haye a Significant effect(s) on the environment, but at I~ast one effect 1) has been adequately'analyzed inan 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 theproposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, . there W~LL N~T be a significant effect in this case because a~l p~tentia~Iy significant e~ects 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. R~l~ecca Van Buren Associate Planner JGne 1, 1998 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15814 · Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of4he Califomia 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. ~ND USE AND P~NNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflic~ with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdi~ion over the project? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the . vicinity? ( ( ) ( ) (X) d) Disrupt or divide the physical a~angement of an established community? ( ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: b) The City of Rancho Cu~monga is a pa~icipating agency in a Multi-Species Habitat Consedation Plan being prepared by the County of San Bemardino based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Pursuant to the MOU, a proje~ review meeting was held on March 26, 1998, to discuss biological issues on the site. The subject site contains indictor s~cies 0f sage scrub habitat on approximately 15 of the 40 acres. As a result, habitat assessment and biologi~l protocol su~eys were required to dete~ine potential impa~s, padiculady to the federally-listed threatened coastal California gnatcatcher and the endangered San Bemardino kangaroo rat. The habitat assessment and protocol su~eys were conducted by G~ biologists permitted by the U.S. Fish and ~ldlife Se~ice, Amy L. Levere~ and Tony Bom~mp. The results of the su~eys indi~te no suitable habitat was found to be present onsite for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat. In addition, no coastal California gnatcatchers were obse~ed during the course of the su~eys. The findings of the' repoR indi~te the site is not occupied by threatened or endangered species. However, the repo~ identified the approximate 15 acre coastal sage scrub community on the southwestern podion of the site as high quality habitat. As a condition of approval, the developer shall be ~quired to obtain an inciden~l ~ke petit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Se~ice pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act, if deemed necessa~ by the Se~ice, to mitigate the potential loss of sensitive habi~t. The project is su~ounded by development, including intensive urbanized uses of the future freeway to the noah (construction pending) and the existing public high school campus to the south. The site has a low potential for supposing the California gnatcatcher now and in the future, it is not within a strategic location with Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15814 Page 4 ' respect to it's potential incorporation into a regional wildlife reserve or corridor system. Based upon these findings, the proposed project does not conflict with the contemplated Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. 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) ( ) Comments: c) The proposed project involves demolishing and removing one existing residence in order to facilitate construction of 191 residences. The existing residence is not an affordable housing unit. This impact is not considered to be significant. 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) '.(X) c) Seismic ground failure, inc~ding liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Seiche hazards? ' '( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) ~ 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) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15814 P. age 5 Comments: The design of- the project site and construction of the proposed grading and structures shall follow the recommendations of the soils engineer and shall comply with the current building standards and codes at the time of construction. The recommendations of the Final Soils Engineering Investigation Report s~all be incorporated into the project design with pertinent information noted on the final Grading Plan which shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official prior to issuance of grading permits. 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, ' or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Changes in the amount of surface water_in any water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) , Change in the quantity of grour~d waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ( ) ( (X) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ( ) ( (X) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ( ) ( (X) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ( ) ( (X) Comments: a) Adoption of the proposed project will increase the amount of paved surface area which could result in a decrease in absorption rates and an increase in the amount of surface water runoff. All runoff. will be conveyed to existing and proposed drainage facilities which were designed to handle the subject water flows. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15814 Page 6 Potentially Signfficant Impact Less 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 0f traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ) (X) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) ) (X) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ) (X) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ) (X) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) (X) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The project will not generate substantial additional vehicular movement. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan for which the street widths were evaluated at a build-out condition. The project will be required to install street frontage improvements in their ultimate c. op~g.u.ra. ti0n, per City Ordinance, and to pay associated Transportation Development Fees. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15814 .Page 7 ?. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) (X) ( ). ( ) d) ~etland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) ~ldlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) 0 ( ) (X) Commen~: a & c) The subje~ site contains-indicator species of sage scrub habitat on approximately 15 of the 40 acres. ~ a result, habitat assessment and biologi~l protocol su~eys were required to determine potential impa~s, pa~icularly to the federally-listed threatened coastal California gnatcatcher and the endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat. The habitat assessment and protocol su~eys were conducted by G~ biologists pe~ed by the U.S. Fish and ~ldlife Se~ice, Amy L Levere~ and '- Tony Bomkamp. The results of the su~eys indicate ~table habitat was found to ~ present ons~e for the San-Bernardino Kangaroo Rat. In addition, no coastal California gnat~tchers were obse~ed during the course of the su~eys. The findings of the repo~ indicate the s~e is not occupied by threatened or endangered s~cies. However, the repo~ identified the approximate 15 acre coastal sage scrub community on the southwestern podion of the site as high quality habitat. As a condition of approval, the developer shall be required to chain an incidental ~ke petit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Se~ice pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act, if deemed necessa~ by the Se~ice, to mitigate the potential loss of sensitive habi~t. b) The proje~ proposed the removal of 56 trees ~bje~ to the Cffy's Tree Prese~ation Ordinance, including Pines, scrub Oaks, Eucalyptus, and Walnut. An arborist's repo~ determined the trees were poor candidates for prese~ation due to poor health, stature, or soil conditions. The proposea tree removal shall be mitigated by providing a specimen tree (36-inch box) in the front yard of each corner lot and ent~-facing lot in addition to ~pica! [ro~y.ard landscaping. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15814 · ~oage 8 ' 8. ENERGY AND MINE~L RESOURCES. Would the proposal a) Conflict with adopted energy consedation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) IX) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) IX) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known ' mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) IX) 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)? ) ( ) ( ) IX) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ) ( ) ( ) IX) c) The creation of any health hazard or poten":l health hazard? -' ) ( ) ( ) IX) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( IX) e) Increased fire haza~ in areas with ~ammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( .(~) t0. NOISE. ~lltheproposalmsu~in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) IX) b) E~posure of peopie to severn noise 16vels? ( ) IX) ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15814 Page 9 Comments: b) The subject site is bounded to the north by the future Route 30 freeway. A preliminary acoustical study was prepared by J.J. Van Houten & Associates; Inc. to determine the noise exposure and necessary mitigation measures for development of the site. The study indicated that a 16- to 20-foot high noise barrier at the tract boundary, or a lesser height noise barrier at the freeway shoulder, will be necessary to mitigate future freeway noise. The study further indicated 7-foot high noise barriers at the tops of slopes along Highland and Rochester Avenues, and 5-foot high noise barriers at the top of slopes along Lark Avenue, will be necessary to mitigate traffic noise at lots adjacent to arterials. A final acoustical analysis shall be prepared to determine the noise source and level. The design of the project shall follow the recommendations and mitigation measures of the acoustical engineer, and shall comply with the current building standards and codes at the time of construction. The final noise study shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to issuance of grading permits. 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: c) The Etiwanda School District submitted correspondence dated March 24, 199~, ~hat indicates the existing schools, that would serve this project are already at or above capacity and the District will not be able to_accommodate all of the students expected to be generated from this project. The District states that mitigation beyond the state statutory fees will be needed. As a condition of approval; the developer shall execute an agreement with the District to provide the additional mitigation or to provide full mitigation. Full mitigation may be accomplished by means of a requirement to form, or to participate in an existing, Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for school facilities. The Chaffey Joint Union High SchOol District submitted correspondence dated January 27, 1998, indicating a mitigation agreement was reached with the owners of the property at the time the school district acquired the Rancho Cucarnonga High School site and the district will honor those agreements. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15814 P. age 10 ' 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal resuff in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ( ) ( ) (X) b) Communication systems? ( ( ) ( ) (X) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 0 Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) .. Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 13, AESTHETICS. Would the proposah a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) . (X) Comments: a & b) The project is adjacent to the future State Route 30. A sound wall located at the freeway shoulder would provide effective sound a~enuation while minimizing the wall height and visual imp~t. If it is-not feasible to locate the wall at this location, prelimina~ studies indicate a 1~ to 20-foot high noise barrier would be required at the no~herly tract perimeter, which will obstrud the view of the San Gabriel Mountains for existing residences west of the Site. As a condition of approval, the developer shall be required to pursue a sound wall at the freeway shoulder to minimize obstruction of views. If this is not feasible, the developer shall prepare a wall plan for Ci~ Planner approval which incorporates necessaff sound a~enuation, a decorative material pale~e to break up massing, and extensive landscaping to minimize negative aesthetic effect. The developer shall be required to construct the noise barrier and install landscaping prior to final occupancy. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15814 Page 11 14. CULTU~L 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) Restri~ ~xisting religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ( ) ( (X) . ~ Comments: b). The subject site has ~o archaeological features which were believed to be constm~ed in the 1920's. The first feature consists of ~o low cobblestone walls, 28 feet long (noah), 18 feet long (west), and 2 to 4 feet in height with the remnants of door and window openings. The second feature is a small (9 by 7 foot) cobblestone structure with a fiat concrete roof. A ce~ified archeologist prepared a sedes of repods which included a description and evaluation of the natural se~ing, cultural se~ing, historic ove~iew, literature review, ownership records, and aerial photographs related to the s~e. The archeologist also performed field su~eys and documentation, excavation, and laborato~ analysis of adifacts (primarily alcohol- related containera) found at and near the ~o feature. T~ evidence indi~tes the structures were likely associated with agricultural a~ivities which were not successful on this pa~icular site. The final repo~ concludes that the site does not meet any of the cdteda for listing on the California Register, and is therefore not an impo~ant cultural resource as defined in CEQA. I I I 15, RECREATION. Would the proposak a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( (X) b) Affect existin9 recreational oppo~unities? ( ) ( ) ( (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15814 P, age 12 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildfire 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 io achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of ' ' long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term · . impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( (X) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable'" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have . environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ( (X) EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiedng, program EIR, or other CEQA process. one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative DeclaratiOn per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices. 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (X) General Plan EiR (Certified April 6. 1981) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15814 Page 13 (X) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (X) Victoria Planned Community EIR (Certified May 20, 1981) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I cer~ify 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.: Tentative Tract 15814 Public Review Period Closes: June 24, 1998 Project Name: Project Applicant: Fieldstone Communities Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the southwest corner of Highland and Rochester Avenues-APN: 227-011-09 & 13. Project Description: The proposed subdivision and design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 191 single family homes on 40 acres of land in the Low Medium Distdct (4-8 dwelling units per acre) _ within the Victor!a Vineyards of the Victoria Community Plan. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: [] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this ..proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the e~lects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding am included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents am available for mviaw at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10S00 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Deciaration during the review period. June 24, 1998 Date of Determination AdoptedBy RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15814, AND RELATED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 98-05, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 191 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 40 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW-MEDIUM DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) WITHIN THE VICTORIA VINEYARDS OF THE VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHLAND AND ROCHESTER AVENUES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-011-09 & 13 A. Recitals. 1. Fieldstone Communities has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 15814, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative TraCt Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 24th day of June 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said headng on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites 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 th,, f=~s set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidenci~ presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public headng on June 24, 1998, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the southwest comer of Highland and Rochester Avenues with a street frontage of 1,300 feet on Highland Avenue and 1,300 feet on Rochester Avenue and is presently vacant; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is the future Route 30 Freeway, the property to the south is Rancho Cucamonga High School, the property to the east is a flood control retention basin,- and the property to the west is single family-residential homes; and c. The application contemplates a residential subdivision and design review of 191 single family residential lots on 40 acres of land within the Low-Medium Residential Distdct of the Victoria Community Plan; and d. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan; and e. The design of the proposed project, together with the conditions of approval, meet all applicable provisions of the Development Code;' and pLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 15814 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES - .. June 24, 1998 Page 2 f. The development of the proposed project would not have a significant.impaCt'on the environment. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set fodh in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The Tentative Tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and b. The design or improvements of the Tentative Tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and c. 'The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; 'and d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife Or their habitat; and e. The Tentative Tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and f. The design of the Tentative Tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 4. Basea upon the facts and infon'nation contained in the proposed Negative Declaration. together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application. the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative DecJaratio~ has b~en prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder, that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5c of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there i~'no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff repods and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, th s Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto add incorporated herein by this reference. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. '1'F15814- FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES .June 24, 1998 Page 3 Plannina Division 1) A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval, pdor to the issuance of any building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. Building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report. The final report shall also evaluate exterior noise impacts from local streets and the future Route 30 Freeway. The report shall discuss noise barrier options along the tract boundary and the shoulder of the freeway. 2) The developer shall work with the City, SANBAG, and Caltrans to determine the location and construction of noise barriers. A noise barrier at the freeway shoulder shall be pursued to the greatest extent "~" possible. If a noise barrier at the freeway shoulder is not feasible, a noise barrier at the tract boundary shall be required. 3) The developer shall submit a project Wall plan for City Planner review and approval, prior to issuance of building permits for lots abutting Highland and Rochester Avenues. The Wall Plan shall incorporate noise attenuation pursuant to the final acoustical report and shall identify the location, height, colors, materials. and responsible pady for construction of all noise attenuation walls for the project. The Wall Plan shall demonstrate that noise impacts will be mitigated in conformance with the General Plan and Development Code. Pdor to the release for occupancy of any lot along Highland Avenue or Rochester Avenue, the sound walls shall be constructed. 4) Tract boundary walls shall be the Victoria Theme Wall with decorative columns and cap. Walls in excess of 10 feet in height may have a slump stone base with the Victoda Theme Wall above to break up massing and minimize negative effects. The developer shall be required to construct tract boundary walls and install landscaping, prior to occupancy of any lot adjacent to the wall. Enoineerinq DivisiOn 1) The existifig overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical) on the opposite (north) side of Highland Avenue shall be undergrounded from the first pole west of Rochester Avenue to the first pole west of the northerly projection of the westerly tract boundary, prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. Reimbursement of one-half the City adopted cost for undergrounding from future development as it occurs is not feasible. because the property is owned by Caltrans. An option for the above condition would be to pay to the City an in-lieu fee of one-half the adopted amount as ., contribution to the future undergrounding of said lines. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 15814 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES June 24, 1998 Page 4 2) All missing public improvement shall be installed on the following: .... a) Highland Avenue frontage and Caltrans collector street standards (44 feet curb to curb) including: i) Required Highland Avenue typical lanes are: thru = 12 feet and shoulder = 8 feet. ii) Required Highland Avenue intersection lanes are: left turn = 12 feet, eastbound thru = 12 feet and right turn = 15 feet, westbound thru = 15 feet. The left turn and right turn pocket lengths on Highland Avenue at Rochester Avenue and on Highland Avenue at' "J" Street shall be 100 feet including 90-foot transitions. b) Lark Drive frontage to modified local street standards (40 feet curb to curb with 6 feet wide curb adjacent sidewalk) including: i) Required Lark Drive typical lanes are: eastbound and westbound thru = 12 feet, eastbound and westbound parking = 8 feet. ii) Required Lark Drive at Rochester Avenue lanes are: eastbound left turn thru = 10 feet, eastbound right turn = 15 feet and westbound thru = 15 feet. The left turn and right turn pocket lengths on Lark Drive at Rochester ·Avenue shall be 100 feet including 90-foot transitions. c) Rochester Avenue to n~'ajor arterial highway standards including: i) Required Rochester Avenue typical lanes are: southbound and northbound thru = 11 feet, southbound and northbound curb = 20 feet and 10-foot two-way left turn lane. ii) Required Rochester Avenue lanes at Highland Avenue are: southbound and northbound thru = 11 feet. southbound and northbound curb = 20 feet and lO-foot left turn lane (100 feet). _ 3) Additional rights-of-way shall be dedicated to accommodate turning lanes at intersections as follows: a) On the south side of Highland Avenue: 51-59 feet, measured from centerline, for a distance of 350 ·feet. west of the BCR at Rochester Avenue. The rest of Highland Avenue to be dedicated consistent with the section to the west. b) Additional right-of-way or e~sement as necessary for perimeter landscaping. PLANNING COMMISSION r~L. ..... ';'ION NO. TT 15814 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES June 24, 1998 Page 5 4) Relocate and/or modify the traffic signal at the southwest corner of Highland and Rochester Avenues as needed, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5) With the construction of Route 30 Freeway, Caltrans is proposing to lower the intersection of Highland and Rochester Avenues approximately 5 feet. The transitions are approximately 676 feet on Highland Avenue and approximately 357 feet on Rochester Avenue, west and south, respectively. of said inlersection. If the development goes before Caltrans Route 30 improvements, a cash deposit in-lieu of construction~..d'_'d!~; ',:'r~d_~r ...... '~;^" ^f "';"4~ ....... ~'^"'~ "t!!!t!~c will be required and necessary temporary improvements constructed, as determined by the City Engineer and Caltrans. If the development goes after Caltrans Route 30 improvements, install all missing improvements' on Highland and Rochester Avenues along the property frontage. 6) ' Prepare and submit a study indicating routes to school for grades K thru 12. Developer shall install appropriate signage and/or striping as determined necessary by the City Engineer. 7) Driveways on corner lots shall be located at least 50 feet from the intersection BCR, or the maximum distance allowed by the lot size, to minimize conflicts between vehicles turning right and those backing out of driveways. Mitioation Measures 1) The developer shall obtain an incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to Section 10(a) ~Lthe Endangered Species Act, if deemed necessary by the Service, to mitigate the potential loss of sensitive habitat. 2) 'The developer shall work With Caltrans and mitigate noise impacts from the freeway. This may be accomplished with the use of earthen berming and the approved Victoda theme wall or, if located on lhe freeway right-of-way, herruing and the approved Route 30 Freeway wall. Extensive landscaping shall be used to minimize the negative aesthetic effects of these walls and provide for potential graf~ti mitigation. The Wall Plans and Landscape Plans shall be approved by the City Planner pdor to the issuance of any building permits for Lots 9 through 12, 30 through 33, and 50 through 60. The berming and sound walls shall be constructed prior to the release of occupancy of Lots 9 through 12, 30 through 33, and 50 through 60. 3) The developer shall mitigate the noise impacts from Rochester Avenue. This may be accomplished with the use of earthen berming and the approved Victoria theme wall. The Wail PLans.and Landscape Plans shall be approved by the CFty Planner prior to the issuance of any building permits for Lots 1 through 9 and 168 through 177. The berming and wall shall be constructed pdor to the release of occupancy of Lots 1 through 9 and 168 through 177. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TI' 15814 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES June 24, 1998 4) Relocate and/or modify the traffic signal at the southwest corne,~,~ Highland and Rochester Avenues as needed, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. . /~/~ 5) With the construction of Route 30 Freeway, Caltrans is prgl~/osing to lower the intersection of Highland and Rochester)/Avenues re r'e ' " ' west and south, respectively, of said intersection. If. Fie developmen~ goes before Caltrans Route 30 improvements, a ca,s~2.~eposit in-lieu of construction including undergrounding of existing ~¢~erhead utilities will be required and necessary temporary improve ents constructed as determined by the City Engineer and Caltrans. f'~he development g~es a.er.~.l/~.s Ro.te 30 imp~oveme.ts. insta.,~'F~issing improveme.ts- thru 12. Deve,oper .ha. insta,, "ppro;2;e s,gnage and,or strip,n%sa determined necessary by the City Er~g~ineer. D.veways on oo.ne. ,o,s sha. b; oca,ed a, ,ea , .eet .rom ,he intersection BCR, or the maximL~/n distance allowed by the lot size, to minimize conflicts between vehi' es turning dght and those backing out °fddvewaYs- ,i/d Mitt ation Measures 1) The developer shall obt~)n/an incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Se~ice,~ursuant to Section 10(a)-oLthe Endangered Species Act if deei~ed necessary by the Service, to mitigate the potential loss of se sitire ha.bitat. 2) The dew~,~e~h~lw%rk with Caltrans and mitigate noise impacts from freeway rig ~(-of-way, berming and the approved Route 30 Freeway wall. Extge2~ive landscaping shall be used to minimize the negative aestheti/Y/effects of these walls and provide for potential gmffiti mitigatic~. The Wall Plans and Landscape Plans shall be approved by the Ci Planner pdor to the issuance of any building permits for Lots 9 throu 12, 30 through 33, and 50 through 60. The berming and sound wa shall be constructed pnor to the releast of occupancy of Lots 9 ~i21,3p through 33, a~d 50 through 60. 3) he developer shall mitigate the noise impacts from Rochester Avenue. his may be accomplished with the use of earthen berming and the approved Victoria theme wall. The Wall P~-ans.and Landscape Plans shall be approved by the Ci:ty Planner prior to the issuance of any building permits for Lots 1 through 9 and 168 through 177. The ~rming and wall shall be constructed prior to the release of occupancy of Lots 1 through 9 and 168 through 177. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 15814 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES June 24, 1998 Page 6 Tree Removal Permit 1) Tree Removal Permit 98-05 is approved subject to the following mitigation: In addition to the typical front yard landscape scheme, a spedmen tree (36-inch box) shall be installed in the front yards of each corner lot and entry-facing lots in addition to the required front yard landscaping. The type and location of these trees shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVE'D AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JUNE 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman A'I'rEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of June 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: Tentative Tract 15814 and Design Review SUBJECT: APPLICANT: Fieldstone LOCATION: Southwest comer of Hi.cihland and Rochester Avenues ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THAT APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: General Requirements completion Date 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its / agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval. or in the alternative. to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attomey's fees which the Ci~9,__agents, officers. or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, / participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities Distdct (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed. and built to all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the District's property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. 3, Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, / the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if any school distdct has previously established such a Commu. oity .F~acilities District, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such existing District prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void. This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected scho~?l districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommbdate any and all school impacts as a result of this project. 4. Pdor to recerdation of the final map o[ prior to the issuance of building permits when no map is involved, wdtten 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 distdct within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. - B. Time Limits 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval C. Site De~,elopmen~ 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, extedor materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained tierein, Development Code regulations, and the Victoria Community Plan. 2. Pdor to any use of the project site or business .-:tivity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3. All site, grading, landscape. irrigation. and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced. whichever comes first. 4. Approval Of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 5. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, penning, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 6. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review anc~approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. 7.All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner including proper illumination. 8. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 2 E-72- .- The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. 10. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each / support post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two Y~inch lag bolts, to withstand high winds. Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall extend at least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade. 11. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. / 12. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. __/ = 13. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real dver rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. D. ,- Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. On flag Iots,'use a 12-foot driveway within flag to maximize landscape area. E. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. All private slopes of 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum. irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 3. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height"~nd of 2:1 or greater / slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slobe area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5--gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. ... 4. Front yard and comer side yard landscapingand irrigation shall bezequired per the Development / Code and/or Innovative Standards - Victoria Community Plan_. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 5. 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. 6. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. F-73 Pvojtct No. TT & DR 15~1~. F. Environmental 1. The developer shall provide Each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothifi Freeway project / in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 2. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $ 719 , prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond finat certificate of occupancy), the applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner pdor to issuance of building permits. Said program shall identify the reporter as.~n individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. G. Other AgenCies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (9_09) 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, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, 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 residentjal dwelling unit(s) or major addition to e~dsting unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. 3.Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tra~t/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Construction activity shail not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday. Project No. IT& DR 15814 Completion Date New Structures 1. Roofing material shall be inst_alled for wind-resistant roof covering at wind velocity not less than __/__ __ 90 mph. J. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City / Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to / perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the / time of application forgrading plan check. 4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. / APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: K. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, / / community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance. and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage. local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be made o~ the following rights-of-way on the perimeterTo,sets (measured from street centerline): 50 total feet on Rochester Avenue / 30 .total feet on. Lark Drive / 41 ,total feet on Hiqhland Avenue / * see Soecial Conditions for intersection riqht of way 3. Cbrner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. 4. Vehicular access dghts shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for approved openings: Lark Drive, Rochester and Hic~hland Avenues 5. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the final map. L. Street Improvements 1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. '/ 2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Cufo & A.C. Side- Ddve Street Street Comm Median Bike Other St~,et Name Gutter pvmt walk Appr. Ligl~ts Trees Trail Island Trail Lark Drive X X (e) X X Rochester Ave. X X (f) X X Highland Ave. X X (g) X X Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and ovedays will be determined during plan~ check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvii/near per STD. 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. (e) 6-foot wide curb adiacent. (~ 5-foot wide meander/nO sidewalk, (o'~ sidewalk to ' match existinc~ to the west. 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. Secudty shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. . c. Pavement sthping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and / interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction' / project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect widng. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: ( 1 ) Pull boxes sh~l] be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing. City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with / adequate detours during construction. Street o~: lane closure permits are required. A cash 6 deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. - · g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. 4. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger. shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. 5. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. 6. A permit shall be obtained from Caitrans for any work within the following right-of-way: Hiohland / and Rochester Avenues M. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall / be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval pdor 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: Hiohland Avenue. Rochester Avenue. and Lark Drive . 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 pdor 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. 4. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective __/__ Beautification Master Plan: The Rochester Parkway shall match the parkway to the east . No Drainage and Flood Control 1. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map __/__ __ approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 2. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in __/__ __ a sump catch basin on the public street. O. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, __/__ __ electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The develope~ 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 pdor to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. p. General Requirements and Approvals 1. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way: Cultruns 2. A non-rafundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covedn9 the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first six months of operation, pdor to final map approval or pdor to building permit issuance if no map is involved. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE pREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Q. -General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. __ __ I 2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1.000 gallons per minute. / a.A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operahie pdor to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. 4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire Disthct 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. 5. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final / __ ~ inspection. 6. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire Distdct's ~t~ lane standards, as noted: X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. __/~ 7. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept tdmmed a minimum of 14'6" from ground __/__ __ up so as not to impede fire apparatus. 8. Plan check fees in the amount of $. 0 have been paid. An additional $ 132 shall be paid: X Prior to final plan approval. / 8 Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 9. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: R, Security Hardware 1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. 2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. S. Windows 1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted from frame or track in any manner. T. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. RESOLUTION NO, A RESOLUTION'OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15814, IN THE LOW-MEDIUM DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) WITHIN THE VICTORIA VINEYARDS OF THE VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHLAND AND ROCHESTER AVENUES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 227-011-09 & 13 A. Recitals. 1. Fieldstone Communities has filed an application for the Design Review of Tract No. 15814, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 24th day of June 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cu~:a__.monga held a meeting to consider the application. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cgcamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on June 24. 1998, includ. ing written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. That the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planninq Division 1) ' All conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 15814 shall apply, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 'iF 15814-DR - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES = June 24, 1998 .Page 2 2) The developer shali install decorative block walls along all corner side .. yards and the southerly side yards of Lots 143 and 159. The developer .... shall install decorative block wall returns on interior divisions between residences. · . 3) All retaining walls exposed to public view should be treated with a decorative exterior finish or be composed of a decorative block material. 4) Garden and retaining walls extending into front setbacks shall have a decorative cap and an end pilaster or "square block" to provide _- definition. 5) The Landscape Plan shall be revised to continue the landscape palette in the slope area in the southwestern portion of the project adjacent to Lark Avenue, and, to enhance landscaping on Iot~s at street corner knuckles where driveways are concentrated. 6) A landscape area shall be provided between the back of the sidewalk and any walls in comer side yard situations to break Up the massing of the walls and minimize graffiti potential. Corner side yard walls shall be shifted to provide a landscape area between the back of sidewalk and the walls per Planning' Commission policy. 7) Decorative driveway treatment shall be included on all lots. Details of driveway materials, textures, and scoring patterns shall be shown on plans submitted for plan check. 8) The developer shall submit criteria for implernent"tEon of the "Pick-a- Lot" program for the review and approval of the City Planner, prior to issuance of building permits. The criteria shall 'provide for the · proposed means of allowing flexibility in plotting house plans on approved lots while maintaining site plan diversity and consistency with the intent of the Design Review Approval. Enqineednq Division 1) All conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 15814 shaft apply. 4. The Secretary to this Commiss)on shall cedify the ~doption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24th DAY OF JUNE 1998. pLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT15814-DR- FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES June 24, 1998 Page 3 ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of June 1998 by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT!' DEPARTMENI{I STANDARD CONDITIONS PROLIECT#: Tentative Tract 15814 and Desi,qn Review SUBJECT: APPLICANT: Fieldstone LOCATION: Southwest comer of Hi.qhland and Rochester Avenues ALL' OFTHE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS_THAT. APPLY TO .~'OUR PROJECT._ APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense- any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative. to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers. or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obhgations under this condition. 2. The developer shall commence. participate in. and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the : Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protectic'- D,rtdct to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. 'l'he ststicn shall be located, designed. and built to all; specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the District's property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with its needs. In any building of a station. the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed Dy the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. 3. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits. whichever comes first the applicant shall consent to, or participate in. the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However i ~ny school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant s;~all, in the alternative. consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such existing District prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits. whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void. This condition shall be waived if the Cit,/receives notice that the applicant and all affected school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impact~ as a result of this project. 4. 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 disthct within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. B. Time Limits 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are'not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. C. Site Developmen~ 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the appr. oved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, extedor materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Victoda Community Plan. 2. Pdor 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. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom Iot~-l]'odivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 4. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 5. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 6. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and~pproval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. 7.All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 8. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be perr:nan~ntly' maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the Cit~. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approvecl prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concems, hours af construction activity, dust control measuFes, and security fencing. 10. For single family residential development, a 2oinch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each support post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two Ya-inch lag bolts, to withstand high winds. Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall extend at least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade. 11. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. 12. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. 13.Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. '" D.. Parkin9 and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. On flag lots, 'use a 12-foot driveway within flag to maximize landscape area. ' E. Landscaping 1. A detailec landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development. shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. All private slopes of 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope. shall be. at minimum, irdgafed and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 3. All F.',vate slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height ~nd of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as fellows: one l5-gallon or larger size tree pereach l50sq-ft-ofslope area. l--gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropdate ground cover. In addition. slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. tt. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developor prior to occupancy. 4. ~ront yard and comer side yard landscapingand irrig~-.,on shall be required per the Development Code and/or Innovative Standards - Victoria Community-Plan. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 5. The final design of ~.~ Deftmeter parkways, walls, landscaping, arid sidewalks shall be included in the required lanc::ape 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. 6. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Div Environmental 1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway project __ in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any properW. 2. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of impiementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $ 719 , prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final certificate of occupancy), the applicant shall provide a wdtten monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior to issuance of I~uilding permits. Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. G. Other'Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location __/__ __ of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: H. Site Development 1, The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code. Uniform Mechanical __/__ Code, Uniform Plumbing Code. National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements. and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of retative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to __/__ existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tractJpamel map recordation and /__ prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday. I. New Structures 1, Roofing matedal shall be installed for wind-resistant roof covering at wind velocity not less than 90 mph. J. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shaft be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3.A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: K. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all intedor public streets, community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be made of the following fights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): 50 total feet on - Rochester Avenue / 30 total feet on Lark Drive __/__ __ 41 total feet on Hiqhland Avenue __/ · see Special Conditions for intersection rioht of way __/ ~//__ 3. Corner prope"V line c.to.s shal, be ded=ted per c,v s...dards. __, ]l,__ 4. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for__/ approved openings: Lark Drive, Rochester and Hiqhland Avenues 5. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the/ final map. L. Street Improvements 1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities. community trails, paseos, landscaped __/ areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards, 5 /:- :7 Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including. but not limited to: / Lark Drive X X (e) X X Rochester Ave. X X (f) X X Highland Ave. X X (g) X 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 cuntilinear per STD. 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. (e) 6-foot wide curb adjacent. (fi 5-foot wide meanderinq sidewalk. {q) sidewalk to match existino to the west. 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. Secudty 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 fight-of-way, fees shall be paid and a __/__ construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and __/__ interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction / project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect widng. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: (1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at inte~rsections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City __/__ Standards or as directed by the City Engineer, f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with / adequate detours dudrig construction, Street or lane closure permits are required, A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. 4, Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger. shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. 5. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required 6. A permit shall be obtained from Caltrans for any work within the following right-of-way! Hiohland an~ Rochester Avenues M. Public Maintenar~ce 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: Hiqhland Avenue, Roche~l;er Avenue, 6nd Lark Ddve . 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. 4. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall canform to the results of the respective Beautification Master Plan: The Rochester Parkway shall match the parkway to the east . N. Drainage and Flood Control 1. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineel' prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 2. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of ~a blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street. O. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each pamel 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. P~ojectNo. TT&DRISgN Completion Date 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the / Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bemardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required pdor to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. P. General Requirements and Approvals 1. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way: __/__ Caltrans 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, pdor to final map approval or pdor to building permit issuance if no map is involved. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Q. -General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. ~/ 2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1.000 gallons per minute. / a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department __/__ __ personnel prior to water plan approval. b. For the purpose of final acceptance. an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall __/ / be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed / / and operabte prior to aleliven/of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. 4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, __/ / if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" 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. 5. Hydrant reflective markere (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final __/ / inspection. 6, Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's tim_ lane standards, as noted: X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. / / 7. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept tdmmed a minimum of 14'6" from ground __/ / up so as not to impede fire apparatus. 8. Plan check fees in the amount of $. 0 have been paid. An additional $ 132 shall be paid: X Prior to ~nar plan approval. / / Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. "" 9. Plans shall be submitted an&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: R. Security Hardware 1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. __/__ __ 2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windo¥.s are within __/__ __ 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. __/__ __ S. Windows 1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted __/__ __ from frame or track in any manner. T. Building Numbering 1, Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime __/__ visibility. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 24, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO AMEND TERRA VISTA PARK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 1 - LEWIS HOMES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A request to amend Terra Vista Park Agreement No. 1 pertaining to private recreational facilities in the Terra Vista Planned Community for which park credit has not previously been requested. BACKGROUND: The Terra Vista Park Development Agreement No.1 became effective on June 7, 1984, and was supplemented by the First Supplemental Agreement on November 5, 1996. ANALYSIS: The applicant, Lewis Homes Development Company, has requested an amendment to Terra Vista Park Development Agreement to address private recreational facilities in Terra Vista neighborhoods for which park credit has not been requested. Currently, Lewis Homes has built approximately 58 percent of the total public parks, trails, and green ways as contemplated in the Terra Vista Community Plan. At the same time they have completed approximately 48 percent of the total dwelling units allowed in the plan. Therefore, the ratio of development of park area to the construction of dwelling units is slightly ahead, without considering the issue of private recreation facilities. Provisions of the Amendment will allow Lewis Homes to request park credit for previously' developed private recreation areas for which park credit has not been calculated, and for which park credit has not been approved. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission approve the proposed amendment to Terra Vista Park Agreement No. 1, as previously supplemented. Brad Bullet City Planner BB:DC:mlg ITEH F RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF FIRST AMENDMENT TO TERRA VISTA PARK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 1, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals 1. The California Government Code Section 65868 et. seg., provides, in pedinent part, as follows: A development agreement may be amended, or cancelled in whole or in pad, by mutual consent of the parties to the agreement or their successors in interest. 2. The applicant, Lewis Homes Construction Company, Inc., Lewis Development Company, Western Land- Properties, and Lewis Homes of California, has requested the First Amendment to Tetra Vista Park Development Agreement No. 1, as supplemented, as described in the title of this resolution. Hereina~er in the Resolution, the subject amendment is referred to as the "request." 3. On June 24, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing based on the request. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: I. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Therefore, pursuant to Section 65868 et. seg. Of the California Government Code, the Planning Commission recommends approval of The First Amendment to Tetra 'Vista Park Development Agreement No. 1, as attached hereto as Exhibit "1 ." The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY'OF JUNE 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman RESOLUTION NO. TERRAVISTA DEV AGREEMENT " June 24, 1998 Page 2 _ ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretan/ I, Brad Buller, Secretan/of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of June 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO TERRA VISTA PARK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 1, AS SUPPLEMENTED. A. Recitals. (I) The California Government Code Section 65868 et. seg., provides, in pertinent part. as follows: A devElOpment agreement may be amended, or cancelled in whole or in part, by mutual consent of the parties to the agreement or their successors in interest. (ii) On June 7, 1984, the parties hereto entered into a Development Agreement concerning the development of parks. trails, and green ways in accordance with the Tetra Vista Community Plan, which was subsequently Supplemented on November 5, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the agreement"). (iii) The applicant, Lewis Homes Construction Company, Inc., Lewis Development Company, Western Land Properties, and Lewis Homes of California, has requested the First Amendment to Tetra Vista Park Development Agreement No. 1, as supplemented, as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in the Ordinance, the subject amendment is referred to as the "request." (iv) On June 24, 1998, the Planni0g Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a fully noticed public hearing and recommended approval of this request. (v) On ,1998, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the request. (vi) All legal prerequisites prior to the recordation of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE. THE CITY Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and ordain as follows: 1. This Council specifically finds that all facts set forth in the Recitals. Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Therefore, pursuant to Section 65868, et, seg. Of the California Government Code, the City Council approves First Amendment to Terra Vista Park Development Agreement No. 1, as supplemented, as attached hereto as Exhibit "1 ." ,CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. TERRA VISTA PARK DEV. AGREEMENT Page 2 3. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after passage at least once in The inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. FIRST AMENDMENT TO TERRA VISTA PARK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 1 This First Amendment ("Amendment") to Terra Vista Park Development Agreement No. I is entered into as of the 2nd day of June, 1998, by and between Rosebud Construction, Inc., a California corporation, formerly known as Lewis Construction Co., Inc.; Western Land Properties, a California Limited Partnership formerly known as Western Properties, a general partnership; Lewis Homes of California, a general partnership; and Lewis Development Co., a general partnership (hereinafter, collectively, "Lewis"), and the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a Municipal Corporation (hereinafter, "City"). This Amendment amends that certain Terra Vista Park Development Agreement No. 1, which was effective as of the 7th day of June, 1984, and supplemented by that First Supplemental Agreement to Terra Vista Park Development Agreement No. 1, which was entered into as of the 5th day of November, 1986 (hereinaffer, collectively, the "Agreement"). Lewis and City are sometimes hereinafter referred to individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties." RECITALS A. Section IV of the Park Implementation Plan attached to the Agreement as Exhibit "A," indicates that public and private recreation areas for which park credit will be requested will be identified in the development submittal and that the Tentative Map will identify those public and private areas within the project for which park credits need to be granted. B. Since the execution of the Agreement, Lewis has developed various private recreation areas for which the Parties have not calculated park credit. C. The Parties now desire to authorize expressly the calculation by the Parties and the approval by City of private area park credit for those previously developed private recreation areas, subsequent to Tentative Map approval. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants set forth herein, Lewis and City agree as follows: 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section IV of the Park Implementation Plan attached to the Agreement, as to those previously developed private recreation areas for which the Parties have not yet calculated park credit and for which park credit has not yet been approved by the City, the Parties agree that such calculation and approval may occur subsequent to Tentative Map approval. 2. Except as specifically set forth herein, the Agreement is hereby confirmed by the Parties to be in full force and effect and this Amendment shall be subject to the unamended portion thereof. / / / / First Amendment to Terra Vista Park Development Agreement No. 1 Page 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written. "Lewis" LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO., ROSEBUD CONSTRUCTION, INC. a general partnership a California corporation 1156 N. Mountain Avenue Post Office Box 670 By: Its: Secretary LEWIS HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN LAND PROPERTIES, a general partnership a California limited partnership 1156 N. Mountain Avenue By: LEWIS HOMES MANAGEMENT CORP., Post Office Box 670 a California corporation Upland, CA 91785 General Partner ~ri~ze,g~ent 1156 N. Mountain Avenue - By: Post Office Box 0 h Uplan , A ~57 , ' Its: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a Municipal Corporation 9320 Base Line Road, Unit "C" Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 By: Mayor City Clerk 06/01/98~JMM:jbk\949\G158.58 STATE Of CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDIN0 .) On June 2, 1998 before me, Edna A. Johnson a Notan/Public in and for said county and state, personally R1 chard A. Lewis and Dennis A. alekel ........................................................ appeared personally known to me (er -e~id~l~ue) to be the person(s) whose name(s),~Vare subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that ~s,/,3-1~e/they executed the same in h!c/hor/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by t~fn~r/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. N°Ct~ ~e~91~O COUNI~ Edna A. ~hnson (Seal) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDeN0 ) On June 2, 1998 before me, Edna A. Johnson a Notan/Public in and for said county and state, personally Richard A. Lewis-- appeared personally known to me (eF proved to n-,a ,~,. ,,.~ ..... ,~. sstbfactory cvjdcnoo) to be the person~ whose name(N is/aro subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/shc/thcy execmed the same in his/hcr/thair amhorized capaci~(~ and that by his/~cr,'their signature(~ on the instrument the person(N, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(~ acted, executed the instrument. Edna A. John~n (Seal) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDZN0 ) On June 2, 1998 before me, Edna A. ~]ohnson a Notary Public in and for said county and state, personally R1 qhard A. Lewi s--- appeared personally known to me (~-F-e~ed tc~ ,,mc c,n thc bcs!s of c3tisfactcn/ to be the person whose to the w,th,n instrument and acknowledged to me,'thethe same in his/I-~-dtt'~ authorized capacityflesh, and that by his/hcr/the!r signature(sJ on the instrument the personCsJ, or the entity upon behalf of which the person¢~) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature2Y"Y~ A~.~]~~ (Seal) Edna STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDIN0 ) On June 2, 1998 before me, Edna A. Johnson a Notary Public in and for said county and state, personally R1 chard A. Levd s--- appeared personally known to me (or pruv~d !.u na~ u. [he bas;s y c;'[dcnce) to be the person(~) whose name~ is/c. rc subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledge to me that he/sho~.hc~' exec~ed the same ~n his/~ a~horized capaciW(~cs~, and that by his/~ signature(~ on the instrument the person(~, or the enti~ upon behalf of which the person~ acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Edna A. J0hn.~/n .... ._- (Seal) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF ) On before me, a Notary Public in and for said county and state, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature . -- (Seal) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF .) ' ' On before me, a Notary Public in and for said county and state, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature _ .. (Seal) ,Spirit of theCouncil Protectin9 and Conservin9 Biological Diversit)l, Native Plants, Native Animals and Native Lands RECEIVED June 12, 1998 Vera Rocha, Co-Fou.aer City of Rancho Cucamonga JUN g ~- 1998 Shoshone-Gabrielino NJation Cultural Affairs Director Mayor and City Council Members Planning Commissioners and City ot Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division Director planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Leeona Klippstein, Co-Founder Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91729 conservation Programs Director Attn.: B. Le Count, Project Planner RE: Proposed Ling Yen Mountain Temple Project, San Bernardino Douglas Ooepke, Treasurer County, California. Policy Programs Coordinator Dear City Representatives, 5teven Fisher, Ecologist Spidt of the Sage Council is very concemed about the referenced project Salerice Programs Coordinator proposal that is within the City's Sphere of Influence and being processed through the County. It is our understanding that the City's Planning Commission and City Council Daniel Patterson, Ecologist are reviewing the project proposal and will be discussing it as an agenda Desert Programs Coordinator item on June 24t" and July 1~t respectively. Although the City has not scheduled a public headrig, the Sage Council encourages the City to do so and/or arrange for the County Planning Commission to conduct a public Pah-ick Mitchell, Naturalist headng at the City so that the public may more readily participate in the Peninsular Ranges Coordinator government decision making process. The Sage Council, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the California Kathy Knight, Public Affairs Department of Fish & Game have all requested that the County require the coastal Wet[ands Coordinator project proponent to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to comply with CEQA and other regularcry requirements. Enclosed is copy of the Sage Council's comments, prepared by our legal Elizabeth Frands, Public Affairscounsel, Craig Sherman, for your review. Please include this letter and the Arroyo Seco Coordinator enclosed comment letter in the City's administrative record for the referenced project and include our non-profr~ organization on the City's distribution list for carbon copies (cc:) of the City's comments. Thank you. AI Kelly, Wildlife Biologist San Bernardino Valley Coordinator For the wild Earth, Udo Wald, Public Education Leeona Klippstein, Go-founder Interfaith Outreach Coordinator Conservation Programs Director Spidt of the Sage Council cc: Craig Sherman, Esq. CRAIG A. SHERMAN ATTC)F~NEy AT LAW 1901 FIRST AVENUe_. SUITE 335 SAN DIEGO. CA 92101-2322 June 9, 1998 Nancy Sansonetti, Senior Associate Planner County of San Bernardino Land Use Services Department, Planning Division 385 N. Arrowhead Avenue, 3rd Floor San Bernardino, California. 92415-0182 RE: Comment on the Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration "Ling Yen Mountain Temple" Land Development Project. This office represents Spirit of the Sage Counsel (Sage Council) and submits this comment letter on the Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration "Ling Yen Mountain Temple" Land Development Project (Project) being considered for approval by the San Bernadino County Board of Supervisors, as an essential part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review process and to ensure that local and State land use laws and ordinances are strictly followed. Introduction The Sage Council is a grassroots conservation coalition and non-profit project of Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (SEE, Inc.), Malibu, CA. Based in Southern California, the Sage Council was co4ounded by the tribal leaders of the indigenous Shoshone-Gabrielino Nation and currently supports the conservation perspectives and public trust interests for over 30 conservation organizations throughout the United States, Mexico and British Columbia. The Sage Council works cooperatively with conservation groups, scientists and legal experts throughout the U.S. in protecting endangered species by applying sound methods of conservation biology (best scientific data), public education and through the enforcement of land use and conservation laws, rules, ordinances and regulations. Experience Our directors, coordinators and members have been involved with, and have participated in numerous regional conservation planning efforts underway in the counties of San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Los Angeles, and Yolo, California since 1990. In addition, we work cooperatively with the National Endangered Species Network (NESN) in assisting grassroots conservation organizations throughout the U.S. by providing review and comment on HCP/ITPs. The Sage Council is more than familiar with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Section 10(a) "Habitat Conservation Plans and Incidental Take Page 2 June 9, 1998 County of San Bernadino Permits" (HCP/ITP). We are also proficient in understanding and ensuring compliance with the legal requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and other environmental laws. The Sage Council and our members have continued, since 1991 to notify the County of San Bernardino (County) of the ecological importance of conserving "public trust" natural resources and lands, especially in the North Etiwanda area. More specifically we have requested that the County activety conserve Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) and Alluvial Sage Scrub natural communities within their jurisdiction and sphere of influence that are designated S1.1 "very threatened," which is habitat for rare, threatened and endangered species. In addition, we have repeatedly requested that the County and regional cities ensure the conservation of Cultural Resources of the indigenous Shoshone "Gabrielino" Tribe, of "California Mission indians," within their ancestral territory and village of Cucamong(n)a, including lands of ethnobotanical significance, and registered or eligible archeological sites. it is the intent of the Sage Council to provide thorough comments and recommendations to the "responsible" government agency and County for the Administrative Record, and to ensure that a decision approving the Project complies with all applicable local, State and Federal laws and regulations which protect biological and cultural resources. Project Description The Project, as proposed, will directly impact 42-acres, of State designated S1.1 "very threatened" Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) habitat and significant occurrences of three other rare natural communities, California Walnut Woodland, Sycamore Atluvial Woodland and Coast Live Oak Woodland are known from the area in addition to ruderal grasslands, riparian woodlands and wetlands, natural springs, chaparral, and eucalyptus trees that support a diversity of biotic species. The Project's components are generally known to consist of a 96-foot high two story Chinese Buddhist Temple with a total of 10 new buildings, including a dining room with kitchen, 2 single story office/conference buildings, 6 two-story dormitory structures that are designed for 16 rooms in each (Maximum capacity of 96 persons, including full-time resident monks), a lecture hall, and a assembly hall. The Project will also involve road building activities (Declift Road and Dawnridge Drive) and trenching for the placement of water pipelines. It is also anticipated that the project will require a sewage system and other infrastructure such as street rights, electric power lines and gas lines, that will cause additional significant environmental impacts. The proposed Project site is located in the County of San Bernardino (USGS Quad: Devore & Cucamonga Peak at TR Section: T01N R06WS 15, and in Thomas Bros. 1998 on pp. 544 and 574) within the 7,360-acre West Valley Foothills Area and County Open Space District 1 (Improvement Zone 0S-1 to County Service Area 70) and also recognized in the General Description as "North Etiwanda." Additionally, the Project site falls within the City of Rancho Cucamonga' Sphere of influence and the North Etiwanda Specific Plan's Resource Management Plan Area for conservation. The County has also mapped the Project site in the North Etiwanda Open Space and Page 3 June 9, 1998 County of San Bernadino Habitat Preservation (NEOSHP Map A-5) as an Open Space Preservation Area. Recognizing the ecological significance of such lands, the San Bernadino County Board of Supervisors passed a Resolution to approve the implementation of the pro'gram. The NEOSHP also mapped the vegetation on the project site generally as RAFSS, Chaparral, Riparian Woodlands and Annual Grasslands. The Project site is immediately adjacent and south of the San Bernardino National Forest. The southern portion of the site lays within the utility corridor of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). To the north, east and west of the Project site is natural vegetation and mostly undisturbed habitat. The State established Alquist-Priolo, Special Studies Zone for the Cucamonga Fault and Rialto-Colton Fault lies within the Project site that is situated on the 'alluvial fan and flood plain between Morse Canyon and San Sevaine Canyon and is subject to compliance with Chapter 7.5, Division 2 of the Public Resources Code, "Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act," and Public Law 101-614, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Act of 1990, and Public Law 95-124, as amended. (See also, Geologic Map of the San Bernardino Quad, California, compiled by E.J. Bortugno and T.E. Spittier, 1986, with report by the County Environmental Public Works Agency, and Joseph I. Ziony and Lucile M Jones 1989). According to James F. Dolan, Department of Earth Sciences, USC, in his 1996 letter of proposal to the County's field representative, Vivian Null, and other agencies; "FF]he Cucamonga fault, which runs along the southem edge of the eastem San Gabdel Mountains, together with the Sierra Madre fault to the west, forms pad of one of the largest faults within metropolitan southem Califomia. If the Sierra Madre- Cucamonga fault system were to rupture in its entirety, it would produce a magnatude 7.5 earlhquake... As members of the Southern Califomia Earthquake Center, my colleagues and I have been excavating such trenches across faults in southem Califomia forthe past several years. One of our major targets has been to understand the earthquake history of the Cucamonga-Sierra Madre fault system. Because it is so large aOd so close to so many people, it poses one of the worst seismic hazards of any fault in southem California, second only to the San Andreas fault and the Elysian Park thrust fault,,.' The County has approved Hazard Overlay Maps that identify the project site as laying within a High Risk Fire (3), Seismic (1) and Flooding Area. County Mapped Landslide areas occur to the immediate north of the project site (USGS Section 9, 10 and 11 ) and identifies USGS Section 15 within an area of "Moderate to High" susceptibility for landslides. (see San Bernardino County General Plan, Health and Safety Considerations, West Valley Foothills Map adopted by the Board of Supervisors on June 26, 1979, as amended and Hazard Overlay Maps FH20 C and D, and FH21 C and D). The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture - U.S. Forest Service, San Bemardino National Forest, has also mapped the Project site in the Land Resource Management Plan as being "Restricted by County Ordinance." According to the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB) the Project site is within a State Significant Natural Area Page 4 June 9, 1998 County of San Bernadino (SNA) SBD-110, subject to Chapter 12 of the Fish and Game Code. (See also, CDFG letter to the County dated 9-30-92) 'The Legislature ... finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to encourage the cooperation of federal, state, local and pdvate sectors, including pdvate organizations and individuals, in efforts to maintain the state's most significant natural areas.' In addition, CDFG has included the Project site within the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) Program Area which is identified and mapped as Subregion 13.0. CEQA Section 15125(a) directs that knowledge of the regional setting is critical to an assessment of environmental impacts and that special e.[nphasi_s should be placed on resources that are rare or unique to the region. The Project site is located on vacant land, with two self sufficient residences, at canyon mouths abutting the base of the coastal side of the San Gabriel Mountains on an alluvial fan in the Etiwanda/Morse/San Sevaine drainage system. Several stream and springs occur onsite and lie within the 100 year flood plain, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Fish and Game Code Chapter 1600 and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Water Code Division 7. Sage Council's Position On behaff of our members who reside in the County of San Bernardino (County), adjacent foothiU and regional cities, and throughout the State, the Sage Council opposes this location for proposed Project. in light of the inadequate Proiect description (reference to Sage Council's May 21, 1998 letter to County); surveys, studies, mitigation measures and monitoring for biological and cultural resources; lack of a full range of project alternatives and design; lack of cumulative impacts analysis; leap-frog land development; visual impacts; hydrological impacts; health, safety and general welfare (e.g. hazards - fire, flood, and earthquake); inconsistencies with the County General Plan and Development Code, the Sage Council requests that the County prepare an Environmental Impact Repor~ (EIR) for the proposed Proiect to ensui'e compliance with CEQA and other applicable laws. Sage Council members and public citizens are personally and collectively injured by the loss of biological diversity, natural open spaces, public trust natural resources - lands, waters and viewsheds -- within the County, adjacent foothill cities and State. Our members and other public citizens currently enjoy natural opens spaces for their visual beauty, sustaining flora and fauna, water resources, outdoor education, scientific pursuits, indigenous Native American ceremonies, spiritual renewal, passive recreation and nature photography that the proposed project, if approved, will diminish and deprive the public of nature's ecological, spiritual and aesthetic benefits. For these reasons, and the below elaborated reasons, the Sage Council requests that the County and Project proponent prepare an EIR in order to disclose the extensive and controversial impacts which are likely to be caused by. locating this development Project in a recognized sensitive environmental area. Page 5 June 9,1998 County ofSan Bernadino General Comments The County and Project proponent have not provided for adequate avoidance and/or mitigation of the State - S1.1 "very threatened"- RAFSS natural community on site. In addition the Initial Study failed to recognize RAFSS habitat on the Project site. The County has continued to allow the incremental loss and destruction of RAFSS despite objections raised by the Sage Council, California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), to the detriment of the environment. The Sage Council generally supports those comment letters submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by the CDFG (dated 4-2-98 and 4-12-98) and FWS (dated 12-23- 97) with specific reference to the significance of various habitats, RAFSS and other Sensitive Habitats, including Ruderal Grasslands. We remind the County and Project proponents that the Courts recognize CDFG and FWS as experts, deferring to the agencies recommendations and comments as "Responsible Agencies" who have direct responsibility for natural resource protection, unless overwhelming scientific evidence and best known methodologies prove otherwise. In this instant, the County must follow the recommendations made by these Responsible Agencies, rather than relying upon unsubstantiated and conclusory opinions and/or speculations made by the County Planning staff and paid consultants. Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub/Alluvial Scrub The Project's Initial Study/Environmental Checklist and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) documents fail to identify RAFSS as being a vegetation type on the site, but identifies only Coastal Sage Scrub. The CDFG and USFWS Responsible Agencies have identified RAFSS and Alluvial Sage Scrub as high priority habitats for conservation and acquisition. RAFSS, a xeric Mediterranean-climate scrub, is the most threatened sub-association of Coastal Sage Scrub and with its location mapped by Westman's 1983 analysis. (See also, CDFG report and Conservation Plan for the Etiwanda - Day Canyon Drainage System Supporting the Rare Naturat Community of Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, March 1, 1998, Prepared by Joan Safford and Ronald Quinn et. seq.) An estimated 90 percent of the historic acreage coastal sage scrub vegetation has been bst as a result of development and land conversion (see Westman 1981a, 1981b, Barbour and Major 1977), leaving coastal sage scrub as one of the most depleted habitat types in the United States (Kirkpatrick and Hutchinson 1977, Axelrod 1978, KIopatek et al. 1979, Westman 1987, O'Leary 1990). The County, informed since 1991 of the importance of conserving the remaining RAFSS habitat within their jurisdiction, was again notified on March 13, 1992 by letter from the FWS to Supervisor Jon MikeIs that: "[A]lluvial scrub is a type of coastal sage scrub. Alluvial scrub habitat is found only along the coastal draining slopes of the San Gabriel and San Bemardino Mountains. It is estimated that only 5% of this habitat remains. As you may know. this loss is the result of residential and commercial development, water diversions, and flood control structures.,.. Considerable interest has developed regarding the protection of biologically functioning alluvial scrub habitat .... addition. the area's many residential developments either proposed, planned, or Page 6 June 9,1998 County of San Bernadino under construction in San Bemardino County will eliminate significant acreage .... The Service suggests that the County of San Bemardino Planning Department consider the remaining alluvial scrub habitat within their jurisdiction of high : priority for protection and possibly develop a special planning district. The environmental constraints should be identified first and any development that would not impact these constraints." The County, as part of the CEQA process, must also consider significant environmental changes in RAFSS since 1 gg2 due to continued loss of habitat acres and increased threats. RAFSS and other Coastal Sage Scrub vegetation associations are much more threatened now than in 1992. CDFG recommended a 5:1 ratio replacement for RAFSS in their comments on the North Etiwanda Specific Plan, City of Rancho Cucamonga. Unfortunately, the CDFG and FWS only received a 3:1 ratio habitat replacement for the Rt. 30 expansion, rather than the much needed 5:1 mitigation. Knowing that RAFSS remaining habitat acres has been substantially decreased and is more. threatened than ever before, the County and Project proponent have failed to address this issue or mitigate at a 5:1 or even a 3:1 ratio for habitat replacement in the initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration documents. The FWS and CDFG concur with the Sage Council that the County and Project proponent have not adequately addressed or mitigated for proposed impacts to disturbed, yet significant, RAFSS habitat and other sensitive habitats and species on site. The Sage Council requests that the Coun)ty require the Project proponent to avoid additional impacts to the natural community and to acquire, for conservation purposes, habitat acres of higher quality RAFSS habitat adjacent to or contiguous with the North Etiwanda Preserve (County Open Space District (OSD ~ 1 ) as mitigation for Project impacts. The Sage Council is aware that there are "willing sellers" within the area that the City of Rancho Cucamonga has mapped as a Resource Conservation area in regards to the North Etiwanda Specific Plan/Resource Management Plan for which San Bernadino County has identified as constrained hazardous and restricted use areas through its local codes and ordinances. However, because the County and Director of Planning have not yet required the Project proponent to prepare an EIR, an adequate analysis of project alternatives and design, including alternative sites for the Project, has not been provided. The interchangeable descriptions of vegetative components of RAFFS habitat, as described in the related Project documents are erroneous and misleading to the public. Specifically, the Initial Study identifies the vegetation types coastal sage scrub and buckwheat scrub to avoid having to address and mitigate for RAFSS habitat. The State designation of RAFSS as S1.1 "very threatened" (Natural Diversity Data Base) dictates that an EIR be prepared to pursuant to CEQA, the NCCP Act, and the California Native Plant Protection Act. Depending upon the maturity stage of RAFSS habitat, there will be varying mosaics of dominate plant species throughout the ecosystem's patchwork quilt resemblance, Buckwheat is a RAFSS indicator, but is only one of the numerous species that contributes to the biological diversity of the natural community. Buckwheat is regarded as evidence, along with the topographic placement of the subject lands, that the project Page 7 June 9,1998 County of San Bernadino site is RAFSS habitat and that such impacts must be mitigated for. Unpermitted Habitat Loss, Species Take and Baseline Value The County and Project proponent fail to identify in the Project documents that the disturbed RAFSS on site contains ruderal grasslands. And that adjacent and/or off-site areas have been subject to recent deliberate and malicious "disturbance" of quality RAFSS habitat on at or near the Proiect area. Such habitat destruction and land moving disturbance is the primary responsibility of the County and Project proponent to disclose, monitor and prevent as communicated so notified to the County and Project proponent as witnessed by Sage Council members within the past four months. The Sage Council has also previously repoded the unpermitted bulldozing, habitat loss and species take to the CDFG and USFWS. Therefore, the County and Project proponent must include mitigation measures for such habitat loss and consider the baseline habitat value as high rather than 'disturbed." However, the Sage Council does concur that a portion of the project site is ruderal grasslands which have been "type converted' due to fire disturbance and sheep grazing. Regardless, disturbed RAFSS habitat areas must be considered significant habitat because these lands are not only occupied by Forest Sensitive Species, State Species of Concern, and Federally listed and unfisted species, but also provide important foraging and nesting habitat for raptors, including Golden Eagles. The Sage Council recommends that the County require redesign of the Project and consider appropriate and reasonable project Alternatives to development, rather than resting upon "presumptions," or the yet unapproved and incomplete MultiSpecies Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program. Such plans are not existing conservation provisions and do not provide mitigation, but rather, are only future concepts. The entire HCP process that is currently underway would be thrown into further turmoil in regards to the misappropriation and fraudulent use of State and Federal funds, if the County again refused to follow the permitting agencies recommendations and approved another development project in Subregion 13.0. Is the County in compliance with the State and Federal contracts regarding conservation planning? Has the County returned the State, Federal and public funding for the development of an HCP and NCCP? Therefore, the Sage Council contends that the USFWS, CDFG, County and Project proponent may be in violation of the "Terms and Conditions" of the Special Rule, and Section 4(d), 7, 9, and 10(a)(1 )(B) of the federal Endangered Species Act. (See "Terms and Conditions" 1-5 per BO (1--6-93-FW-37)), November 10, 1993, if the proposed Project is approved. More specifically, the Lead and Responsible Agencies should review page 4 of the BO: "The Service is presuming that the goals and strategy of the program will be followed fully by the participating parties, If the presumption is correct, preserve compromising developments will not be proposed or approved by participants in the NCCP program during the interim period."; Page 8 June 9,1998 County of San Bernadino and then #1 on page 9; .. "The Service shall ensure that both the NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines are implemented to accomplish the goals of the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the State's Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 1991 ." (emphasis addeO). The County, as lead agency for the proposed MSHCP and NCCP, has received substantial State and Federal funding as one of "[t]he Southern California Counties participating in the NCCP" Program" (see HR Budget Report of September 1997). It appears that the County and Project proponent have failed to comply with the NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines and NCCP Act as demonstrated in the Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration documents. The NCCP Scientific Review Panel (SRP) identified the project area as "high quality habitat" and their opinions are considered the "best available scientific data" according to the Special Rule/Conservation and Process Guidelines. Therefore, this habitat should not be removed or degraded during the MSHCP and NCCP interim development process or for any other reason. Biological Assessments and Scientific Data The most certain environmental impact of any development project is the reduction and increased insularization of available habitat. otherwise known as habitat fragmentation (Wilcox 1984, Wilcox and Murphy 1985). Habitat fragmentation has become the principal anthropogenic impact with which the scientific discipline of conservation biology is concerned. It is obvious and well accepted among ecologists that "habitat fragmentation is the most serious threat to biological diversity and is the primary cause of the present extinction crisis" (Wilcox and Murphy 1985). No application of mitigation is likely to eliminate the impact of any development project on habitat fragmentation, whether the strategy includes minimization of species take, translocation, habitat "enhancement" in a reserve, acreage replacement in the form of easement or fee title purchase, nor the establishment of "preserves" interconnected by habitat "corridors." Development projects almost always reduce the spatial areas within which legally protected rare and threatened species can survive, and such mitigation techniques reduce the capacity of the landscape to provide for the dispersal and interchange of individuals from metapopulations. Fragmentation also increases the amount of habitat edges and their associated edge effects (Yahner 1988). Reduced spatial extent and increased edge-to-interior ratio correlates with more frequent intrusion and establishment of exotic species populations and other effects (Smallwood 1994). Land conversion extending right up to the reserve boundary will reduce the effectiveness of the boundary and of the reserve function well beyond the physical/political boundary of the reserve (Schonewald-Cox and Bayless 1988). Therefore, the County must take adequate administrative steps to protect remaining habitat areas, including patches, corridors or buffers, and enhance any disturbed habitat RAFSS areas to benefit the recovery of listed or "target" species as identified in the MSHCP Memorandum of Understanding. Furthermore, recent research results indicate a consistent pattern of dynamic spatial distributions among species populations. That is,[fire disturbance and habitat type Page 9 June 9, 1998 County of San Bernadino conversion effect the Coastal California Gnatcatcher and other species] populations usually are clustered spatially (Greg-Smith 1983, Smallwood 1995, Smallwood and Schonewald 1996), and these clusters shift locations through time (Taylor and Taylor 197-7; den Boer 1981; Hanski 1994). Once the population density has been.defined, its life span is limited, because nature is always achieving some balance between dispersive and congregatory behaviors (Taylor and Taylor 1977). By constraining populations to "preserves" that are some fraction of the spatial area of existing habitat, and by not guaranteeing contiguity of the mitigation preserves, the Project planners and the Project applicant are denying the listed species and other species the ability to naturally shift to new locations. Contiguity has been shown to be very important for population sizes among habitat patches for amphibians (Laan and Verboom 1990) and small mammals [such as the San Bemardino Kangaroo Rat] (La Polla and Barratt 1993), and its role in ecosystem functionality is a well accepted principle among ecologists and conservation biologists (Foreman 1981, Wilcox and Murphy 1985. Turner 1989). Typical HCP/ITP preserves will be mere fragments of previously contiguous habitat, which may very well fail to protect the species, and they certainly will not provide for recovery. (Smallwood, S. et. al. 1997)[added]. The NCCP Scientific Review Panel, in drafting the Conservation and Process Guidelines, found that revegetation is an unacceptable form of mitiqation and cannot be used to substitute in situ protection of habitat and habitat values (see also Read, E.A., M. Blaine, and P. Bowler, 1996; Fahselt 1988; Griffith et. al 1989; Holiings 1992; Howaid 1993; Morrison,M et. a11992; Wilcox 1984 ). The FWS and CDFG must give the County as the lead and responsible agency for the proposed HCP and NCCP, a written notice that the Project is expected to impact habitats that are expected to effect potential core reserves for species survival and/or recovery. The County should also be contacted in writing by the Department and Service regarding their NCCP MOU and proposed MSHCP Planning Agreement. As the lead local agency, that has received State and Federal appropriations for their "participation" in the NCCP, the County must comply with the State CDFG NCCP MOU and prevent the destruction and fragmentation of a potential core reserve and existing wildlife corridor. Although FWS has provided numerous comments to the County for this proposed Project and others projects within its jurisdiction, the Sage Council hereby communicates that it is aware that such comments include the following: "[L]ess than 5% of the original acreage of alluvial fan sage scrub habitat in southem California remains. The Lylte Creek and Cajon Wash area represents approx. 30% of that habitat remaining. The continued removal of alluvial fan scrub habitat is likely to result the listing of several candidate species that are known only from this habitat." (FWS letter to the County dated 2-21-92). In addition, the FWS letter of January 7, 1994 to San Bernardino County Flood Control, Re: CalMat Company operations and lease agreements in Lytle Creek and Cajon Wash (1-6~94-TA-42), as previously mentioned, stated: "[A]ny impacts that could not be avoided would need to be minimized as much as possible. Impacts remaining would then need to be rectified or compensated for through a combination of restoration, enhancement, acquisition, or preservation of alluvial fan scrub habitat, Due to the difficulty in revegetating (i.e. creating) this Page 10 June 9,1998 County ofSan Bernadino plant community, acquisition and preservation has been pursued as a form of mitigation in similar cases. Because this by itself still results in a net loss of habitat, other forms of mitigation would need to take place concurrently. However, without conservation of a significant portion of alluvial fan scrub habitat in it natural state for future plant and animal recruitment, no amount of revegetation will be successful..." The Sage Council believes that the above FWS comments are applicable to the proposed Project and its associated General Plan and Development Code amendments and other related land use approval/processing. Although the Project proponents consultants may have not acknowledged any listed endangered species occurring on the project site during the Initial Study, it does not negate the ecological importance of the effected area in regards to potential recovery habitat for species that have not yet received recovery plans or designated critical habitat required by the ESA. In addition, the ESA requires the conservation of "ecosystems." The U.S. Supreme Court has found that the intent of the Endangered Species Act is "to halt and reverse the trend towards species extinction, whatever the cost. This is effectuated not only in the stated policies of the Act, but in literally every section of the statute." Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter (1995) 132 LEd 2d 597. In consideration of the recovery needs of a species, such as the San Bernardino ' Kangaroo Rat and Coastal California Gnatcatcher, government agencies must identify the range and distribution of the species populations within the historic, current, and presently remaining spacial habitat area, including an analysis of known and impending threats. Presence/absence surveys on a project site do not adequately assess the species needs or threats, but result in inconclusive and erroneous assumptions that the incremental habitat loss, whether occupied or unoccupied, on site is insignificant or minimal utilized (Grinnell, J. 1928). The species surveyor must not only utilize FWS and/or CDFG survey protocol, but also "best scientific methods" when reaching conclusions regarding mitigation and monitoring. The species and/or habitat surveyor or biological consultant must consider the species population dynamics and genetic interchange when forming a conclusion and recommending mitigation and monitoring methods. While the County and/or agencies may require only species presence/absence surveys by protocol, the Sage Council recommends that the County ensure that "best scientific methods" are utilized (Grinnell, J. 1928; Karr, J.R. 199,4; Kotlier, NB., and J.A. Wiens, 1990; Meffe, G.F. and C.R. Carroll, 1994 ) that can withstand a legal challenge. It is our opinion, and that of qualified scientific experts, that the FWS species survey protocol is often less than adequate and sometimes "negotiated" rather than "the best" method (e.g. Coastal California Gnatcatcher survey protocol is less than adequate according to species' experts). Additionally, the fitness of the species in relation to habitat components and utilization must be considered in meeting conservation requirements (Braden G. et. al. 1997). As stated, the species natural distribution, population dynamics, population viability analysis/risk assessments, and current status must be considered in relation to effects and adequate mitigation measures (Smallwood, S. et. al. 1997). These referenced scientific reports are available upon request from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Cadsbad, CA., and should have been considered and utilized by the biological consultant. Page 11 June 9, 1998 County of San Bernadino Wildlife Corridors & Refugia Habitat The County and Project consultants fail to identify and address the problems with roads in regards to habitat fragmentation or obstacles to species natural movement corridors. In addition, the Initial Study and Biological Assessment Report fails to recognize the importance of wildlife movement in Morse Canyon and San Sevaine Canyon creeks and foothill area on and adjacent to the Project site. Sage Council members have on several observed mule deer in the early morning and early evening hours. We have also observed mountain lion and bobcat, including tracks within and adjacent to the Project site. Unfortunately, it appears that politics have weighed on the biological needs for- conservation in the West Valley Foothills and North Etiwanda area. It is critical that the County and Project proponent adequately mitigate impacts to the existing wildlife movement corridor, preferably through in situ conservation and avoidance. The cumulative impacts to wildlife movement corridors and landscape linkages have failed to be adequately identified, addressed or mitigated for in the Project documents. Any remnant wildlife corridor that is still utilized is of significant biological importance in the West Valley Foothills region of San Bernardino, and other similar foothill cities. Wildfires are known and expected to occur in the Project area and adjacent jurisdictions, including the San Bemardino National Forest. Many wildlife species must run and fly for their life when such wildfires occur and may find refuge in the remaining wildlife corridors and habitat patches on the lower reaches of the alluvial fan ecosystem. Although the County and project proponent have failed to recognize the project site as an actively utilized wildlife corridor, there is no excuse to additionally fail to recognize this site as important refugia habitat or a species safe harbor, to sustain numerous species while natural reestablishment of their populations take place. The County should not approve any projects that result in the further decline of rare species numbers or that would increase the "net losses" of the remaining habitat spatial area. We refer the County and to the published literature of the renowned conservation biologist, Dr. Reed Noss (Noss, Reed F., 1991a., Noss, R. 1991b., Noss, R.F. 1992), and Marble Mountain Audubon v. Rice. Traffic Impacts The Sage Council finds the projected population at build-out and in the population of the region is significantly higher than has been disclosed in the Project Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 10 year population differed significantly for Southern California in 1997. This significant change in population estimates has a tremendous effect over the rest of the County's presumptions. In light of the new and significant information regarding population explosion and demographics currently and at build-out, the previous erroneous estimates of Average Daily Trips (ADT), at build-out and ADT from the Project, and other projects in the region need to be reconsidered and corrected individually, collectively and/or cumulatively. Page 12 June 9, 1998 County of San Bernadino The Blockbuster Pavilion, Ontario Mills Mall, and residential development in San Ber'nardino, Rialto, Highland, Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario has caused increased congestion on both the 1-15 and 1-10, and more recently the El Nino effects on roads in San Diego have furthered congestion and circulation problems throughout the region for those commuters that travel between and within San Diego and Riverside counties. The Highway RT. 30 Expansion project has not been completed and cannot mitigate for increased traffic from new development projects because, although it has been approved, it does not currently exist or provide for traffic circulation. Within the Riverside County area. residential and industrial developments in Yucaipa, Beaumont, Cherry Valley, and Calimesa, along with new developments proposed and approved in the San Timoteo Canyon area (e.g. "Oak Valley" Specific Plan and Phase 1 ) and to the west of Redlands and Loma Linda, will increase traffic congestion of the 1- 10 Freeway and its arteries. It appears that the San Timeteo Canyon Road will be significantly impacted and consequently will require upgrades of traffic infrastructure along its entire length toward Barton Road and I-10 at its northwest juncture. Commuter ADTs on Rt.30, I-10, and Iol 5 are much greater than revealed in the Project Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration documents when the Foothill Cities approved and proposed projects, from Cucamonga to Beaumont, are at furl build out. These effects were not previously addressed or mitigated for in the Project documents. New legislative and statutory requirements under the Katz Congestion Management Act (CMA) requires the lead agency (County) to adequately address regional transportation issues and for projects to be evaluated with respect to the SCAG Regional Transportation Program. incorporating the most recent SCAG data. It is necessary for the County and Project proponents to comply with the requirements of the CMA and CEQA to ensure that the Project assesses and discloses accurate traffic impacts which are likely to result from the Project. These changes in the baseline demographics of the region and in baseline estimates demand a reevaluation of the Project and its total ramifications (cumulative impacts). Cumulative Impacts The County, in considering cumulative impacts to air quality, water quality/hydrology, traffic, biological and cultural resources, must identify those tentative tracts and proposed projects within the County and region/bioregion. The Sage Council has begun to compile a list of locally approved or proposed projects that are known to, or may, impact environmental resources, including remaining RAFSS and other Sensitive Habitats or Biota within the County and adjacent foothill cities. The referenced Project documents fail to provide an adequate cumulative impacts analysis for the above expected impacts, including biological resources, and specifically RAFSS. The Sage Council believes that the following data supports our claims that County has not been properly evaluating this Project under CEQA and has failed to implement adequate conservation measures to protect Califomia's natural and cultural heritage. A Page 13 June 9,1998 County ofSan Bernadino proper cumulative impact analysis must include the area referenced in the following 9- 30-92 CDFG letter: 'A cumulative effects analysis should be developed as described by CEQA Section 15130. The area to be analyzed should include all lands south of the National Forest Boundary and north of the Rt. 30 expansion and Highway, ranging from Day Creek in the Rancho Cucamonga Area through the Lytle/Cajon Wash near the City of San Bemardino. General Plans, Specific Plans, as well as past. present and anticipated future impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub, Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, Alluvial Scrub. Ripadan Forests. wetlands and non-native grasslands including those under low intensity agricultural use." Cultural Resources Chief Ya'anna, Vera Rocha, of the Shoshone Gabrielino Nation, and Spirit of the Sage Council requests to meet with the appropriate agency representatives and Project proponents. The County and Project Proponent have failed to adequately notify the Shoshone Gabrielino Nation of the proposed Project within their ancestral territory of Kukamongna (Cucamonga) that is of cultural significance. The Project proponent and County archeologist must take "oral" history from Chief Ya'anna, Vera Rocha, in the cultural resources assessment that is required by CEQA, State Historic Preservation Act, Native American Heritage Act, and other regulations intended to protect Native Americans and their culture, including religion. The County has previously been notified and is aware of the need to consult with Chief Ya'anna of the "Gabrielinos'. Chief Ya'anna is the State recognized Most Likely Descendant of the Shoshone "Gabrielinos and is of highest blood decree and standing, having been elected "Chief" by tribal members and of heritage. Consultation with the State recognized Tribes and Most Likely Descendant (MLD) in regards to cultural resources (registered or eligibte archeological sites, ethnobotanical resources, prehistoric village site; burial grounds and sacred sites) is needed. The County should require an independent consultant experienced with local tribal matters, archeology, anthropology and ethnobotany to prepare an extensive survey and study, including ora/history of the MLD, to ensure that important cultural resources are not disturbed, destroyed or removed from the project site inappropriately. The State Historic Preservation Officer must also be consulted and given an opportunity to comment on the Project. The Sage Council recommends that the County, at an appropriate time and manner, request that all elected tribal representatives, eiders, and MLDs identify themselves by showing their individual papers of recognition with verified roll numbers and blood decrees from the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. The tribal representative and MLD should be more than 1/4 "Luiseno" and/or 1/4 "Gabrielino." Native American Organizations, such as the Inland Empire Native American Commission, do not have the legal authority to select a tribal representative or speak and make decisions on behalf of an effected California Tribe or Band. Non-profit organizations and commissions may only provide advice and comment. However, Spirit of the Sage Council is a non-profit conservation project that was co- founded by Chief Ya'Anna, Vera Rocha, is a State-recognized MLD for the Shoshone "Gabrielinos." Therefore, the County may rely upon the Sage Council's comments and Page 14 June 9,1998 County ofSan Bernadino objections as those voiced in agreement by the "Gabrielino" MLD. The County and Project proponent must comply with the State Native American Heritage Act (NAHA), Historic Preservation Act, Antiquities Act, American indian Religious Freedom Act, Graves and Repatriation Act, and other applicable Codes, Regulations and Executive Orders that protect cultural resources and the rights of indigenous people or minorities. The County has failed to consult with the appropriate Gabrielino MLD, Chief Ya'Anna, Vera Rocha, did not take an "oral history" of the subject lands, did not adequately circulate the Project proposal for review and comment, and did not provide an adequate cultural resources assessment or mitigation and monitoring of impacts. The effected Gabrielino Tribe should be included on the County's distribution list of documents for projects within their ancestral territory of western San Bernardino County, as is other government agencies. Therefore, the County as a responsible agency must take appropriate corrective actions and by preparing an EIR to provide an accurate Cultural Resources assessment (surveys and studies), along with disclosing proposed mitigation measures. Significant Data Not Previously Considered or Changed Circumstances The Sage Council believes that there is significant existing data that was not previously considered and/or substantial "changed circumstances" requiring a second look at the Project proposal and an EIR, pursuant Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Such data and substantial changes in the environment, demographics, traffic, cultural resources, water etc. were not adequately addressed in Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The County, CDFG and FWS are "responsible" permitting agencies that have the authority to deny the Project as proposed, including any proposed General Plan and Development Code amendments. It is our understanding that if the County refuses to require the project applicant to prepare and circulate an EIR, then the County and/or CDFG must prepare and submit the CEQA document according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15096(e)... "If a Responsible Agency believes that the final EIR or Negative Declaration prepared by the Lead Agency is not adequate for use by the Responsible Agency, the Responsible Agency must either: ... (3) Prepare a subsequent EIR if permissible under Section 15162." Since Section 15162 (substantial changes in circumstances) requires a new CEQA document, then Section 15096(e)(3) provides authority for CDFG, as the Responsible Agency to prepare this document. It is not clear whether CDFG can pass along the costs of document preparation and circulation on to the County and/or Developer. However, Section 15162(c) provides: "If the project was approved prior to the occurrence of the conditions described in subsection (a), the subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration shall be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project." (emphasis added). Page 15 June 9, 1998 County of San Bernadino Therefore, if County, CDFG, or FWS is the public agency granting the next discretionary approval for the project, then CDFG may be required to prepare the appropriate CEQA document if in i(s opinion. the existing CEQA document is inadequate. However, the County and its legal counsel should note that the Project was not approved prior to the occurrence of the new conditions or data. The Sage Council contends that the County has the responsibility and opportunity to require the project proponent to prepare an EIR to fulfill its agency duties to conserve natural resources held in public trust, or to protect the rural environment and open space for the Citizens. County consultation with CDFG for CESA take authorizations (Fish and Game Code Section 2081 ) and Streambed Alteration Agreements (Fish and Game Code Section 1603) is procedurally improper if it takes place after local Project approval and General Plan amendments. Such consultation must occur prior to local Project approval and adoption of legally required environmental review documents and findings in order to fully disclose the potential impacts and necessary mitigation for this Project. It is only in this manner that Mitigation and Monitoring Plans, pursuant AB 3180, could be considered adequate by a// responsible public agencies. A similar process must take place between the County, CDFG and FWS to comply with the section 4(d) Special Rule/NCCP, Section 10(a)/HCP, and Section 7 of the ESA respectively. The Sage Council contends that CEQA does not let the local responsible agency "off the hook" for their failure to require an EIR. While the Sage Council may bring legal action against all responsible agencies for their failure to ensure the conservation of listed and unlisted species of concern that are rare, threatened, or endangered, including their essential habitat (see also, Smith v. County of Santa Barbara, 7 Cal. App. 4th 770), it is the primary responsibility of the lead agency to assess all foreseeable Project impacts at the earliest possible time. The impacts and assessments of the above required permits must be disclosed to ensure a legally sufficient CEQA document. Range of Alternatives & Environmentally Superior Alternative The proposed Proiect and Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to provide a full and reasonable range of Alternatives, Environmentally Superior Alternative, or an analysis of such alternatives which support the conclusions made. The cumulative and collateral effects on the environment should have been addressed in the Project documents in order to adequately mitigate adverse impacts. The County may not rely upon an adoption of "Overriding Considerations" without an adequate analysis or range of feasible alternatives to the Project. The County has not required the Project applicant to lessen significant and cumulative impacts on the environment through a project redesign or other appropriate measures that may have been included with a reasonable range of project Alternatives, with consideration of an acceptable "Environmentally Superior" alternative in an EIR. While the Sage Council could support a No Project alternative, the consideration of an "Environmentally Superior Alternative" to the proposed Project must be considered. Page 16 June 9, 1998 County of San Bernadino One alternative should reflect a "Resource Conservation Management Plan" (e.g. City of Rancho Cucamonga (RMP) for North Etiwanda to explore acquisition of the Project site as specifically referenced and delineated in County open space resolutions and districts. (See also, CDFG 9-30-92) Thus, the proposed Project would be required to comply with the City's adopted RMP, CDFG and USFWS NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines, and other applicable State and federal regulations. It is our understanding that the President's Budget for the Dept of Interior includes funding for endangered species habitat acquisition. The acquisition of RAFSS habitat is a high priority within the FWS and CDFG. Therefore, in situ conservation of the remaining habitat area on the Project site should be considered in an option exploring coordinated agency involvement. We strongly encourage the County to take such positive leadership steps to uphold the conservation of public trust resources and protect California's natural and cultural heritage. (See also, Conservation of Open Space requirements as defined and set forth by Govt. Code section 65560 et seq.) Mitigation of Impacts & Mitigation Monitodng Plan (AB 3180) We remind the County that the creation of environmental documents and surveys do not provide for mitigation of adverse environmental impacts, but are to be used to substantiate conclusions that the proposed mitigation measures are adequate. The County should require a EIR. including acceptable mitigation measures, to reduce the Project's effects on the sensitive and legally rare species and "threatened" habitat impacts, which are scientifically and biologically proven, and/or approved by the CDFG and the FWS. Of course, the costs for creation and distribution of the EIR should be borne by the Project proponent. New Listing & Relevant Scientific Data Not Previously Considered The emergency listing of the San Bemardino kangaroo-rat (SBKR) was not addressed in the Project NOP or the Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. Thus, significant new scientific information and data was not considered or addressed in the Project documents in violation of CEQA and the ESA. In addition, it appears that small mammal trappings were not adequately per-formed utilizing the best scientific methods available, and such information was not made available for public review and comment. Therefore, an EIR is required. General Plan and Development Code The County's approval and adoption of the proposed Project and documents, including any General Plan or Development Code amendments is not in compliance with the requirements of Government Code Section 65452 generally, but more specifically Section 65452(c). In addition, such adoption and approvals, through Resolution and Ordinances or otherwise, are not consistent with Government Code SectiOn 65457 because there are "substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken, and new avai/ab/e information." (emphasis added) The Sage Council also believes that there may be procedural violations of'Government Page 17 June 9,1998 County of San Bernadino Code Section 65450 where the City is amending the General Plan and Development Code to be consistent with the Project, rather than requiring amendments to the Project to ensure consistency with the County's current General Plan. Even withstanding a the'consideration of a General Ran amendment, the Project must be consistent with the surrounding land uses and must be a growth inducer in a contemplated open space, resource conservation area. The project as proposed is controversial and has been publicly opposed, requiring an EIR and Planning Commission review (San Bernardino County Development Code (SBCDC), Section 83.040110). Furthermore, the project is inconsistent with many of the provisions and Articles of the SBCDC and General Plan. The Sage Council requests that the Director of Planning require the preparation of an EIR for environmental review determinations and to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are included along with acceptable mitigation monitoring to remove threats and reduce impacts to levels less than ~significant.' The Project as proposed is not exempt from CEQA and has not been adequately described, including related environmental effects as described in related documents. The Project is not consistent with the SBCDC, General Ran, County Fire and Hazard Ordinances, County OS-1 District and Resolutions, Forest Service LRMP and City of Rancho Cucamonga North Etiwanda Specific Plan, Resource Management Plan which states: '[M]aintenance and preservation of the sensitive alluvial scrub habitat within Day Creek, Etiwanda Creek, and San Sevaine Creek wash areas, as welt as the hydrelogy associated with the maintaining adequate flows in those channels, as part of the Resource Management Plan (RMP)." The Project and its proposed use are contrary to provisions of the SBCDC, thus is considered unlawful and is a public nuisance (see 81.0225 and 81.0115). The SBCDC imposes a greater restriction upon the land uses proposed for the project, the building height and open space. The Project and its buildings are excessive in height and in a hazardous area as identified in the San Bernardino County Official Land Use Plan - General Plan - Geologic Overlay Maps. The Project site has also been identified as laying within an area of "excessive and unstable slopes" in the Constraints Map of the North Etiwanda Specific Plan EIR (exhibit Map 4.3-1). See also the San Sevaine Drainage Area, Draft Storm Drain Master Plan (Exhibit Map 4.4-2) within Open Space designation (City of Rancho Cucamonga, General Plan Land Use (Draft ESPN EIR Exhibit Map 4.1-1). The Project site is also mapped as being within a "Major Viewshed" (see Draft ESPN View Potential Map 4.7-1 .). According to the SBCDC 81.0135, Permits and Licenses should not be issued for the proposed Project and Project site due to such conflicts with the Code, General Plan, and Forest Service LRMP, including any arguable "vested right to develop." The Project as proposed fails to "protect and secure the public health, safety and general welfare" of the residents of San Bernardino County and adjacent communities, but instead would place people in harms way (see SBCDC 81.0145). Additionally, the Project does not provide any apparent economic or social advantages to the public because it is a tax-exempt sectarian religious institution (Church). The Sage Council reminds the County that under constitutional law, there must be maintained a Page 18 June 9, 1998 County of San Bernadino separation between Church and State. Therefore, the County must take prudent measures not to give away any special privileges to the Church or its representatives that may be viewed as favoritism of one religious faith over another faith or public interest. And such a liturgical development cannot legally be deemed to be beneficial to the publids general health, safety and welfare as expressly prohibited by such Constitutional principles. The County must also ensure that the Official Land Use Plan is in conformity with the State Planning and Zoning Law and the provisions of SBCDC 81.0145. It appears to the Sage Council that the County and Project proponent have failed to conduct necessary studies, surveys and prepare maps to develop "detailed land use plans' for the Project and Project site. According to the Transition Provisions of the 1989 General Plan (SBCDC 81.0195); 'No building or other development permit shall be granted under this subsection after June 8, 1991, and no permit issued under this subsection may be extended for more than one 180-day period which begins after June 8, 1991 ." Apparently, the SBCDC provides for a Penalty for Violations (81.0205) of the Title through fines and infractions or misdemeanor, including jail and costs associated with taking corrective action and prosecution. Title 8 provisions are to be enforced by the responsible designated officers, including but not limited to the Assistant Administrative Officer for Environmental Management Group, the County Director of Planning, Chief of the County Fire Department and Flood Plain Management Administrator. The County is also responsible for ensuring that the Project and Project site uses are in conformity with the Local Ordinances and Regulations, California Constitution, Article XI Section 7; Planning and Zoning Law, Cal. Gov't. Code, Title 7; CEQA, Cal. Public Resources Code, Division 13; Forest Practice Act of 1973, Ca]. Pub. Res. Code, Division 4, Pad 2, Chapt. 8; California Desert Native Plabt Act, Cal. Food & Agriculture Code, Division 23 (Sect. 80001 et seq.), and other applicable laws. The Director of Planning is the lead within the Planning Agency and "shall promote public interest in and comment on the General Plan and other regulations relating to it." However, charging fees to a non-profit public interest conservation organization (e.g. Sage Council) for copies of public documents associated with the Project and proposal is not consistent with 'promoting public interest." The County and Project proponent have failed to adequately identify "as to the exact location of the boundaries of the areas of special flood hazards (SBCDC 82.0601 (e)) and to fulfill such responsibilities that have been entrusted to government representative by the interested and effected public. Therefore, the Sage Council "contests and appeals" the location of the boundary in accordance with the provisions of the SBCDC. If necessary the Sage Council may prosecute responsible parties and persons for violations of the Flood Safety provisions of the SBCDC Title as specified at 85.020315, and other State and Federal laws. The Sage Council finds the Project Application Forms and Information Packets ~'~complete, especially in regards to biological, cultural, hydrological, hazards and view shed impacts and proposed mitigation. For example the Initial Study barely addressed Page 19 June 9,1998 County of San Bernadino the hazards and consequences of the Project being effected by seismic activity - it d d not contain a discussion and evaluation of the potential and level of possible surface disruption from fault movement and its effect on the infrastructure, i.e. streets and utility lines within the Project currently and as proposed. Development north of the LADWP utility corridors wilt most likely be cut off in the event of a major surface disruption where the fault line transverses roads. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the potential situation of having residences and meeting places cut off from vehicular and utility access points and the dangers to life and property therefrom. (see SBCDC 83.010320) The Sage Council expects the County and Project proponent to follow administrative procedures. If the County is going to make any amendments to the SBCDC and/or General Plan in favor of the proposed land development project, our organization requests a separate public notice and hearing, including a Board of Supervisors review and public hearing (see SBCDC 83.020205). The Project and proposed land use is not consistent with the conditions set forth in the SBCDC regarding the issuance of Conditional Use Permits and more specifically 83.030120(d)(1 )-(6). The Project site: is not adequate in size, shape, geologic and ecological placement · does not have adequate or existing access in regards to street circulation and roads · and proposed use is a leap frog development · and proposed use is not consistent with the County General Plan and Forest Land Resource Management Plan or the Management of the North Etiwanda Preserve · and proposed project does not protect the health, safety and general welfare · and proposed project is a public nuisance The Project proposes an intermix of residential and sectarian commercial activities that is not consistent with the current zoning and land use ordinances for the area. In addition, the Project and proposed land use does not meet the criteria of the SBCDC 83.030405 et seq. And is not a Group B occupancy of '30 persons or less" as defined by the Uniform Building Code. Therefore, the Project is not exempt from full CEQA review and more specifically the proposed land use does not meet the standards "New Construction (structure) or New Uses." Furthermore, the Project does not qualify as 'Non-residential Quarters," as set forth in SBCDC 83.030415, because the Temple (Church) buildings are not an "appropriate structure constructed in accordance with the applicable code in effect..." and it does not have existing 'adequate access, circulation, landscaping and appropriate buffering from abutting uses..." (i.e. utility corridors, National Forest, North Etiwanda Reserve and others). The Project Architectural design and construction materials are not compatible with the visual setting in the Mountain Region of the West Valley Foothills, thus the project is not in compliance with the Development Code variance review procedures of Article 9, 83.030905, pp. 3-55, and more specifically no. 15. An exemption must not be granted for this Project as it is currently proposed. Page 20 June 9, 1998 County of San Bernadino The Project and proposed land uses cry out for a Flood Hazard Development Review and public review of the comments and recommendations made by the Building Officials, including the County Transportation/Flood Control Department. Additionally, the Project and proposed land uses should be reviewed and commented upon by the Army Corps of Engineers because it is within a 100-year flood plain and major watershed that is subject to the requirements of the Clean Water Act, Section 404. Furthermore, the local Water Quality Board must review and comment on the Project, pursuant section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Considering the points and authorities that have been brought to the County's ' attention, jncluding other concerns not mentioned at such length, it should be obvious to the County that the Project is subject to full procedural review under CEQA and must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The Project requires more than just a Department Review (see SBCDC 83.0301315) because; · there are natural slopes of 30% or greater on the site that have not been adequately identified in the Project documents · the Project proposes more than 200 parking spaces · the Project includes a Church · the Project land use development effects significant natural resources and vegetation · there are known and potential hazards on and adjacent to the Project site, and for other reasons. The Environmental Checklist and the proposed Conditions of Approval for the Project do not mitigate environmental impacts but rather indicate the need for future studies and plans to fully assess the Project's impacts. In closing, the Sage Council once again requests that the County reconsider the referenced Project proposal and the associated documents to ensure mandatory procedural and substantive compliance. Nature's ecology when conserved is best for the local economy (Costanza, R., and C. Folke, 1994). Please enter this letter into the County's administrative record for this Project and proposed General Plan or SBCDC amendments. Please include the Sage Council on the County's mailing and distribution list for this Project and/or immediate project area, and others projects in the County's jurisdiction which may effect RAFSS and other sensitive species as discussed herein. We would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on projects that effect public trust natural resources and lands, in a timely manner. Because the Sage Council provides a public service benefit and receives a Page 21 June 9,1998 County of San Bernadino non-profit organization (project) tax exemption, we request that the City and County provide such environmental documents without charge. The Sage Council looks forward to resolve the above issues of public concern. If you have any questions, please call me directly at (619) 702-7982 or contact Leeona Klippstein at (626) 744-9932. Sin e ~ Craig A Attorne at Law Prepared and submitted on behalf of Leeona Klippstein, Co-founder Conservation Programs Director Spirit of the Sage Council "For the Wild Earth' Attachment - Literature and Document Reference List REFERENCES Ahlborn, William O., 1982 - Santa Aria River Basin Flood ]-~f172rd. Sail BeFfl~Tdil]O COLLD,~' Association Quarterly. Vol. XX]X, NO. 2, Winter 1982. Axe~rod, D. 1978 - The Origin of Coasr2d Sage Vegetation, Alia and Baja California. American Journal of Botany 65 (10): 1117-1131. Bailey and Rice 1969- Soil slippage: an indicator of slope instability on ctmparral watersheds of southern California. Barbour, M. and J. Major 1977 - Terrestrial Vegetation of California. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Baskin, J..~L and C.C. Baskin. 1973 - Plant population differences in dormancy and germination cttaracteristics of seeds: heredit}, or environment? American Midland Naturalist 90:493-498. Bent, A.C. 1949 - Life Histories of North American thrashes, kinglets, and their allies. United States Natural Museum Bulletin. I96: 1-411. Bently, J.R. and R.L Feaner, 1958- Soil temperatures during burning related to postfire seedbeds on woodland range. Journal of Forestry 56:737-740. Blake and Karr 1987 - Breeding birds of isolated wooc[Iots: urea and habihat relationships. Ecology 68:1724-1734. Booker, el. at. 1995 - The Oakland Hills Fire of 20 October 1991: An Evaluation of Post-Fire Response. In J.E. Keeley and T Scott (eds), Brush_fires in California: Ecolog:,, and Resource Management. International Association of Wilaland Fire, 1995. Botcherr and Odion 1995- Fire Intensity and Vegetation Recovery in Chapanal: A Review. In J.E. Kceley and T. Scott (eds), Brushfires in California: Ecology and Resource Management. International Association of Wilaland Fire, 1995. Braden, G. and s. Love, 1995- Habitat Use Versus Availability for CoasmI California Gnatcatcher in Western Riverside County During the 1992-1994 Breeding Seasons. Paler Delivered at the S.~posium on the Biology of the California Gnatcatcher held 15-16 September, 1995, Ualversi~' of Ca/fforrda, Riverside. Braden, Gerald, eL at., October 1997. - Association Of Within-Territory Vegetation Characteristics And Fitness Components Of California Gnatcatchers. TheAuk 114(4):601 - 609, 1997. Burke, R.I 1991. - Re ocadons, repatriadoas, and translocadons of amphibia.ns and reptiles: taking a broader view. Herpetologia 47(3):350-357. Campbell, IC eL at. 1995. - Saving the habitat and losing the birds: adjacent habitats, management, and namm] histon, of the California gnatcatcher. Paper Delivered at the Svrnposium on the Biology.' of the California GnatSarcher held 15-16 September, 1995, Urdversi~, of Calffo~nia, Riverside. CDFG, April 1, 1992 -Letter to City Council, City of Rancho Cucamonga, RE: Etiwanda North Specific Plan E[R, SCH 8912314 CDFG, April 22, 1994 - Letler to Vaterie Pilmer Director of Plarming County of San Bernardino RE: North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preser','adon Program Refernces - Page 2 June 9, 1998 County of San Bernadino REFERENCES " CDFG, August 18, 1995 - Letter to George Rodriquez, Cucamonga Cotmr), Water District, RE: Streambed Alteration Agreement 5-383-95 CDFG 1998 - letter to City of Rancho Cucamonga regarding Project Planning for Sensitive Habitats. Concerns expressed are relative to those before the City of Rialto. Catling, P.C., et al. 1982.- Sma/l mammals, habitat components, and fire in southeastern Australia, pp. 199- 206. In C.E. Conrad and W.C. 0echel (eds), Proceettings of the .s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.symposium on d)manncs and management of the Mediterranean-type ecosystem.s. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report PSW-58. Chapin, F.S., rrl and M.C. Chapin. 1981 - Ecotypic differentiation of growth processes in Carex aquatilis along latitudina/and local gradients. Ecolog3. 62:1000-1009. City ofRancho Cucamonga "Quarterly Tentative Tract Status - October 1997- December 1997" Chew, R.M_., eL al. 1959 - The effects of the fire on the small mammal population of chapan'al. Journ~d of Mammalog3, 40:253. Christensen, N.L 1985 - Shrubland fire regimes and their evolutionao, consequences, pp. 85-100. In S.T.A. Pickett and P.S. White (eds), The Ecology of natural disturbance. Academic Press, New York. Christensen, N.L 1993- Fire regimes and ecos3'stem dynamics, pp. 233-244. In P..I. Crut. zen and .I.G. Gold2uammer (eds), Fire in the environment: the ecological, atmospheric, and elLmarie importance of vegetation fires. John Wiley 84 Sons, New York. Canard et. al., 1995 - lmpact~ of Postfire Grass Se~[ing on Chaparral Systems - What Do We Know and Where Do We Go From Here? Bpash.fires in California: Ecology, and Resource NLanagement. internal. ional Association of Wfldiand Fire, 1995. Costanza, R., and C. Folk- Ecological economics znd sustmnable development. Prepared for the International Experts Meeting for the Operation of the Economics of Sustainability Manila, Philippines. ' Craddock, G.W. 1929 - The successional influences of fire on the chaparral type. M.A. thesis, University of California, Berkeley. ' D'Antionio, C.M., and Vitousek, P.M., 1992 - Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23:63-87. D'Antonio, C.M., et. al. 1993.- Invasion of maritime chaparTa] by the intxeduced succulent Carpobrotas edalis: the roles of. fire and herbivory. Oecologia 95: 14-21. den Boer, P.J., 1981- On the survi:'al of populations in a hetrogeneous a~d varible enx~romnem. Oecologia 50:39-53. Fahselt, D., 1988 - The dangers of transplantation a5 a conservation tecknique. Natural Areas Journal 8:238- 244. Refernces - Page 3 June 9, 1998 County of San Bernadino REFERENCES Fielder, P.L, 1991 - Final Report, Mitigation-Related Transplantation, Relocation And Reintroduction Projects Invglving Endangered And Threatened, And Rare Plant Species In California. Contract No. FG-8611, Submitted to Ann Howaid, California Department of Fish & Game. Foreman, ILT. T. 1981 - Interaction among landscape elements: a core of landscape ecology. Pages 3548 in Proceedings of the International Congress, Netherlands Society for Landscape Ecology, VelcLhoven. Pudoc, Wagemngen. Gilpin, M.E. 1987. - Spatial strug and population vulnerability. In: Viable Populations for Conser,,ation. M.E. Soul~ (F.d.). Cambridge Press, New York, New York. pp. 125-140. Gibbons, Boyd, 1995. - Remarks on Postfire Seeding. In J.E. Keele:,, and T. Scott (eds), Brushfires in Calfforma: Ecology and Resource Management International Association of Wildland Fire, 1995. Gottlieb, LD. 1977 - Genotypic similarit)' of large and small individuals in a natural population of the annual plant Stephanome~a exigua ssp. coronaria. Jn. Ecol. 65:127-134. Greig-Smith 1983 - Quantitative plant ecology. Uaiversit2,', of California Press, Berkeley. Griffith, B. et. at., 1989. - Transincation as a Species Consen'ation Tool: Status and Strategy,. Science, Vol. 245, Articles, pp. 477 - 480. Galanell, J. 1928 - Presence and absence of animals. University of Califorma Chronicle 30:429450. Grumbine, E.tL - Ghost Bears - Exploring the Biodiversity Crisis. Island Press. llanski, L, 1994 - Spatial scale, patchiness and population ~'narmcs on land. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 343:19-25. Harshman, Virginia R., 1992 - The Story of Lyt/e Creek Canyon. Guthrie Publications, Lyric Creek CA. Holland, Dan., April 28, 1997 - Re: Comment letter to USFWS on 62 FR 60, p. 14938, Doc. 97-7908, in connection with the Notice of Availability on the Final EIR/EIS for Issuance of Take Authorization for listed species within the MSCP planning area in San Diego, CA.. ltoltings, C.S. 1992 - Cross-scale morphology, geometry and dynanucs of ecos3.,stems. Ecological Monographs. Howard, A.M.L, 1993 - Finding effective approaches to endangered plant mitigation. In J.E. Keeley (ed.), Interface between ecology and land development in California, Southern Calffomia Academy of Sciences, Los Angeles. Jensen, Deborah, et al., 1993- In Our Ch'n Hands: A Strategy for Conserving Calffornia's Biologica/ Diversity. University of California Press. Janzen, D.It., 1986- The eternal ex'temad threat, pp. 286-303. In M. Sould (ed), Conser~'ation biology: the science of scarcity and diversit),. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. Karr, J.1L, 1994 - Landscapes and management for ecological integrity. Pages 229-251 in KC Kim and R_D. Weaver (eds), Biodiversity and landscape: a paradox for humamty. Cambridge University Press, New York. Refernces - Page 4 June 9, 1998 County of San Bernadino REFERENCES Keeler-Wolf, T., 1993- Department of Fish & Game draft document, lis~ outlining responsibilities and actions taken on the southern California fires of October- November 1993. Natural Heritage Division, "' Sacramento, California. 10p. Keeler-Wolf, T., 1995 - Post-Fire Emergency Seeding and Conse/~'ation in Southern California Shrublands. Brushfires in Calfforrda: Ecolo~, and Resource Management Intentional Association of Wildland Fire, 1995. Keeley, J.E., 1977.- Seed production, seed populations in soft, and seeding production after fire for two congeneric pairs of sprouting and non-sprouting chaparral shrubs. Ecology 58:820-829. Keeley, J.E., eL at. 1981.- Postfire succession of the herbaceous flora in southern California chaparral. Ecology 62:1608-1621. Keeley, J.E., and S.C. Kceley. 1984. - Postfire recover,' of Calfforrda coastal sage scrub. American Midland Naturalist lll:105-ll7. ' Keeley, J.E., et. al. 1985.- Role ofa/lelopathy, heat and charred wood in the germinatjon ofchaparral herbs and suffrutescents. Journal of Ecology 73:445-458. Keeley, J.E. 1991.- Seed germination and life histoO, syndromes in the California chaparral. Botanical Review 57:81-116. ' Keeley et. al. 1995.- Overview of Management Issues Raised by the 1993 Wildfires in Southern California. Brusldi res in California: Ecolo~' and Resource Mamq~ement. International Association of Wild/and Fire, 1995. Keeley and Scott, 1995. - Preface. Brushfires in California: Ecology and Resource Management. International Association of Wildland Fire, 1995. Kelly, P.A., and J.T., Rotenberm.., 1993. - Buffer zones for ecological reserves In California: replacing guesswork with science. pp. 85-93. In J.E. KeelS' (ed), Interface between ecology and land developraent in Ca/ifornia. Southern California Academy of Sciences, Los Angeles. Kjrkpatrick, J. and C. Hutchinson. 1977- The CommuniD, Composition of California Coastal Sage Scrub. Vegetation 35: 21-33. Kirkpatrick, J. and C. Hutchinson. 1980 - The Environmental Relationships of Ca/ffornian coastal sage scrub and some of its component communities and species. Journal of Bingeog~aphy 7: 23-28. Klopatek, J., R. OIson, C. Emerson, and J. Jones. 1979 - Land Use Conflicts with Natural Vegetation in the United States. Environmental Consex-,,ation: 6: 191-199. Komarek, E.V., 1969- Fire and animal behavior. Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference 9:161-207. Kotlier, N.B., and J.A. Wiens, 1990 - Maldple scales of patchiness and patch structure: a hierurchial framework for the study of hetrogeneity. Oikos 59:253-60. Refernces Page 5 June 9, 1998 County of San Bernadino REFERENCES Lama and Verboom 1990 - Effects of pooI size and isolation on amptdbian communities, Biologica/ Conservation 54:251-262. La Polla and Barratt 1993 - Effects of corridor width and presence on the population d)mamics of the meadow vole. Landscape Ecology 8:25-37. Lawrence, G.E., 1966- Ecology of vertebrate animals in relation to chaparrul fire in the Sierra Nevada foothills. Ecology 47:278-291. Leopold, A. 1933 - Game management Sc~ber, New York. Mann, Charles C. e~ al., June 25, 1993 -The High Cost of Biodiversity. Science vol. 260 p. t868-1871. Maynard, Glyde, 1935 - A History. of the Development of San Antonio Canyon CaLifornia. Historica/Society of Pomona Valley. Januaxy 1965. Vol. I - Number 1. McGraw, J.B. 1985a. - Ex'pe~menta/ecology ofDrvas octoperala eco~es: relative response to competitors. New Phytologist 100:233-241. McGraw, J.B. 1985b.- Experimental ecology ofDrv~_s octopetala ecoB. l~es Hi. Environmental factors and plant growth. Arctic and Alpine Research 17:229-239. McGraw, J.B. and J. Antonovics. 1983 - Ex'perimenml ecology ofDr,'as octopetala ecoD~es. I. EcoD'pic differentiation and life-cycle stages of solection..L Ecology, 71:879-897. Meffe, Gary., 1994, 1997- Principles of Conservation Biology, Sinauer A~sociates. Miller and Jastrow 1992 - The application of VA mycon'kizae to ecosystem restoral. ion and reclaxnation pp. 438467. In M.F. Allen (ed), Mycorrhizal functioning, an integrative plant ftmgal process, Chapman & Hill, New York. Mills and Kummerow 1989 - Herbivores, seed predators, and chaparral succession, pp. 49-55. In S.C.Keeley (ed), The California chapparal:paradigms revisited. Natural History' Museum of Los Angeles County., Los Angeles, Science Series No. 34. Morrison, M., eL al., 1992 - Wild/fie-habitat relationships: concepts and applications. The University. of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Morton, D.iML, 1989 - Distribution and frequency. of storm generated soil slips on burned and unburned slopes, San Timoteo Bad/ands, Southern California, pp.279-284. In D.M. Morton and P.M. Sadler (eds), Landslides in a semi-add enviroment. Publications of the In/and Geological Society 2. Natural Resources Defense Counsel eL al.. v. Babbitt. Bruce, U.S. District (gth Cir.) California (1997). Pertaining to the need to provide a recovery' plan for the coastal California gnatcatcher. Noss, Reed F., 1991a. - From Endangered Species To Biodiversi~'. From Balancing on the Brink of Extinction, The Endangered Species Act & Lessons for the Funxre. Edited by Kath~'n Kotun. Island Press. Refernces - Page 6 June 9, 1998 County of San Bernadino REFERENCES Noss, R. 1991b. - Landscape Cormectivi~,: Different Functions at Different Scales, Chapt. 2 p.27-39, Landscape Linkages and Biodiversity, Island Press. Noss, R.F. 1992 - Edge Effects, roads, and connectivity. Unpubl. draft sections, in Scientific Review Panel Conservation Guidelines and Documentation, Au~st 1993. On file with FWS Carlsbad Field OEfce, CA. O'Leary, J. 1990 - Californian Coastal Sage Scrub: Genera/Characteristics and Considerations for Biological Conservation. Pages 2441 in 'Endangered Plant Commumties of Southern California", A. Schoenherr (ed.). Southern Culffornja Botamsts Special Publication Number 3. Potts, Rick 1996 - HumamBa"s Descent, The Consequences of Ecological InstabiliDs', Chapt. IV pp. 224 - 254, A New View of Nature, Chapt. V pp. 255 -279, The Litmus Test. Pyne, S.J. 1984 - Introduction to wildland fire. John Wile), & Sons, New York. Read, E.A., 1'4. Blaine, and P. Bowler, 1996 - Restoration of coastal sage scrub. Society for Ecological Restoration, California Chapter, "Ecesis" voL 6, issue 2. Rey, E. 1994 - Status and Conservation of the Endangered Slender-horned Spineflower and A/tuvial Scrub Habitat in Southern California COnpublished Report), Onfile with FWS CarlsbadField OJ~ce Ryan and Noste 1985 - Evaluating prescribed fires, pp. 230-238. In J.E. Lotan, B.M. Kilgore, W.C. Fischer, and R.W. Mutch (eds), Proceeding Sympesium and workshop on wilderness fire. USDA Forest Sen'ice, M.issoula, MT., Nov. 15-18, 1983. San Bernardino Valley Water Conservatiou District's (SBVWCD) Master Plan, November 1991 - draft EER and appendices, prepared by Vail Speck Associates. On~le with FWS Carlshad Field Office Saunders, D.A., et. al. 1991- Biological consequences of eeoC'stem fragmentation: a review. Biological Conservation 5:18-32. Sauvajot, R. 1995. - Conservation Science in Fire-Prone Natm'ai Areas. Brnsk~res in California: Ecolog3' and Resource Management. International Association of Wildland Fire, 1995. Savage, J.C, et al. 1975 - Earth movements from geedesic measurements pp. 175-186. In G.B. Oak~hott (ed), San Fernando, California, earthquake of 9 February. 1971. California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 196. Schoener, T.W. 1974- Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science 185:27-39. Schoenherr, A.A., 1990 - (eds), Endangered plant communities of southern California. Southern California Botanists, Fullerton. Special Publication No. 3. Schonewald-Cox and Bayless, 1986 - The beandaD' model: a geograpkic anulysis of design and conservation of nature reserves. Biological Conservation 38:305-322. Scott, T., 1995 - Prefire Management Along C.a/ffornja's Wildland/Urban inte~ace:Intreduction ~nd Session Oven~iew. Brushfires in California: Ecology and Resource Management. International Association of Wildland Fire. 1995. Refernces - Page 7 June 9, 1998 County of San Bernadino REFERENCES Seattle Audubon v. Thoma% Re: de~mitation of "recoven.'" of endangered species Shil!~ing, Frazier, June 13, 1997. - Do Habitat Conservation Plans Protect Endangered SpeciesT, Science, vul. 276, p. 1662-1663, PollS' Forum. Smallwood 1994 - Site invasibility by exotic birds and mammals. Biological Consop,'afion 69:251-259. Smallwood 1995 - Scaling SwainsoWs hawk population densin.., for assessing habitat-use across an agricultural landscape. J. Raptor Resarch 29: 172-178. Smallwood and Schonewald 1996 - Scaling population densit)' and spatial pattern for terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecolog~a 107:588-94. Smallwood, S., et. al., unpublished July' 26, 1997, and July 28, 1997 - "Science Missing In The No Surprises Policy" Report to USFWS and NMFS in response to 62 FR 103 Proposed Rule Federa/Register, Vol. 62, No. 103, Thursday May 29, 1997, Proposed Rtfles, No Surprises PoliQ', and Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 113, Thursday June 12, 1997, Notices, Announcement of Draft Safe Harbor Polic)', and Proposed Rule, Safe Harbor Agreements and Candidate Conservation AgTeements. Attachment - Scientific community group sign.on letter in opposition to the proposed amendments to the federal ESA and other regu/afions. Smith v. County of Santa Barbara, 7 Ca]. App. 4th 770 Southwestern Field Biologists and Clark Engineering, Jal.v 1994 - DraPe Environraental Assessment tEA) for the San Sevaine Water Project, San Bernardino County, CA. Spirit of the Sage Council, eL al, June 13, 1996 - RE: Six%' Day Notice of Intent To Sue on the Gnatcatcher ~-(d) Special Rule and NCCP program for violations of the ESA. On file with DOUPWS and Carlshad Field Office. Spirit of the Sage Council, April 2.8, 1997- Re: Amended Comment letter, with attachments that include the Sage Coancil"s gnatcatcher data base, to USFWS on 62 FR 60, p. ]4938, Doc. 97-7908, in connection v,'ith the Notice of Availability on the Final EIPJ'EIS for Issuance of Take Authorization for listed species within the MSCP planning area in San Diego, CA.. Spirit of the Sage Council, June 12, 1997 - RE: Sage Council Comments on the San Bernardino Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Memorandum of Understanding (MOLD contract and alleged ~4olations of the stipulated "good faith" agreement for inn-agency project review, to Pete Sorenson, Asst. Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Sen,ice, Bill Tippets, Field Super,'isor, CDFG NCCP Program, Valerie PiLmer, Planner, County of San Bernardlno, Senator Tom Hayden, Chair, State Natural Resources Committee. On file with USFRtS, Carlsbad Field Office, CA. Spirit of the Sage Council, June 17, 1997 - RE: Sage Council Comments on the Proposed Approval of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Planning Agreement, to Gall Kobet/ck, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Sereice, Bill Tippets, Field Supervisor, CDFG NCCP Program, RCHCA Board of Directors, Count2,' of Riverside, B~an Lowe, Director, Riverside Count).' Habitat Conservation Agency. On file with USFWS, Carlshad Field Office, CA. Spirit of the Sage Council, September S, 1997 - RE: SixTy-Day Notice of Intent to Sue, Pusuant the ESA, to Gall Kobetich, USFWS, Ron Reinpie, CDFG NCCP, Randy Scott, Plan.rang Department, County of San Bemardino, in connection with Regulator)' Non-Compliance and Breach of Contract of the San Bemardino Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan MOU. On file with USFWS, Carlshad Field Office, CA. Refernces - Page 8 June 9, 1998 County of San Bernadino REFERENCES Spin. it of the Sage Council, September 17, 1997 - RE: FOIA request to 3eff Nev, Tnan, USFWS, in connection with the USFWS "F!re Policy" for HCPs and NCCPs. On file with USFWS, Carlsbad Field Office, CA. Spittier, T.E., 1989a.- Controlled burns on the urban fringe, Mount Tamalpais, Marin County, California., pp. 43-48. Spittier eL at. 1994.- Debris flow potential following the 1993 southern California Fire Storms. Geological Seciety of America, Abstracts with Programs 26(2):95. Spittier 1995.-Fire and Debris Flow Potential of Winter Storms. Brush rims in California: Ecdlog~' and - Resource Management International Association of Wildland Fire, 1995. Start, iN., 1991.- How can edge effects be minimized?, pp. 417-418. In D.A. Saunders and R.J. Hobbs (eds), The role of corridors. Surrey Beany. and Sons, Chipping Norton, New South Wales. State of California, February 5, 1998 - Memorandum, To: lhul Rodriguez, Region 6, Chino Office, From: Department of Fish & Game (Nancee M. Murray, Staff Counsel), Subject: CEQA Question. This Memo addresses a similar CEQA issue in regards to substantial changed circumstances in biological resources. State Resources Agency, CDFG - NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines, including NCCP maps identifying Subregion 13.0 in San Bernm'dino Coan~'/Cities SL John 1995.- A Scientific Basis for Abandonment of Ryes-n-ass Seeding. Brushfires in California: Ecdlog~' and Resource Management International Association of Wildland Fire, 1995. Sweeney, &R. 1956.- Responses of vegetation to fire. Uhiversity of California Publications in Botany 28: 143- 350. Stebbins, G.L., Jr. 1942 - The genetic approach to problems of rare and endemic species. Madrono 6:241- 272. Sunstrom v. Mendicino Taylor and Taylor 1977 - Aggregation, migration and population mechanics. Nature 265:415-421. Taylor and Taylor 1979 - A behavioral model for the evolution of spatial dynanucs. In: Anderson R_M., Turner B.D., Taylor LR. (eds) Population d)marmcs. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Ox~'ord, pp. 1-28. Tear~Tim~thyet.al.~~2N~vember~993-StatusandPr~spe~tsf~r~uccessattheEndang~redSpecies Act:A Look at Recovery Plans. Science vol. 62 p. 976-977. Troxell and Peterson 1937- Floods of La Canada Valley California. U.S. Geelogical Survey Water-Supply Paper 796:53-98. Turner 1989 - Landscape ecology: the effects of pattern on process. Annual Review of Ecolo~' and Syslemailcs 20:171 -197. USFVVS Special Rule for the coastal California gnatcatcher and Biological Opinion Refernces - Page 9 June 9, 1998 County of San Bernadino REFERENCES USFVqS, September 1, 1987 - Letter to Colonel Tadahiko Ono, ACOE, RE: SPLCO-R-87-242-LS, San Sevaine Spr/acling Grounds USFWS, March 13, 1992 - Letter to Supervisor Jon Michaels, County of San Bernardino, RE: ALluvial Scrub Habitat USFWS, November 5, 1993 - Letter to Roger Borg, Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, California Division, Re: Formal Consultation (14-93-F48), State Route 30 Improvement.s; for the Santa Ana River Wolly Star, Lyt,le Creek Wash. USFWS, March 8, 1994 - Letter to Steve Daneke, Norton Air Force Base, CA., Re: Partial Record of Decision (ROD) for the Disposal and Reuse of Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino County, California USFWS, November 7, 1994 - Letter to Patricia Warren, Site Manager, Air Force Base Conversion Agency., Norton Air Force Base, CA. and to the Ann: Steve Daneke, Re: Informal Section 7 Consultation the Disposal and Rense of Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino Count)', California (1-6-95-I-20) USFWS, March 31, 1994 - Letter to Interested Persons Re: Activities in the Ly~e Creek-Cajon Wash area, San Bemardino County, Califorma; impacts to listed species; and the taxonomic status of the population of woolly-star occurring there. USFWS, June 6, 1994 - Memorandum To: Ray Vizgirdas, Fred Robert, From: James Burns, Consultation, Subject: SBKR in L>tle Creek. USFV~S, October 1994 - Draft Fish and WildlLfe Coordination Act Report prepared by the C_.arlsbad Field Office USF~VS, November 15, 1994 - Letter to John Gill, ACOE, Re: Santa Aria River Groins, PN-94-O051-RS, Riverside County, California. US1WVS, December 29, 1994 - Letter to Peter C. Markde, Acting Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, California Division, to the Arm: Jeff Lewis, Re: State Route 30 mitigation; Oak Summat Management Plan, San Bemardino County, California. USFWS, January 3, 1995 - Letter to David B. Kessler, AICP, Federal Aviation Administration, Airport~ Division, Re: Biological Opinion on the San Bernardino Intemationa/Airport (SBIA) Runway Improvements Project, San Bemardino Count)', California. (14-95-F4) USF~VS, Februan.' 1, 1995 - Letter to Gordon Schanck, Director of Real Estate, University of California, Real Estate Services Group, Re: Public Use Sale of 176 acres, Etiwanda, Sun Bernaxdino Count).,, California (a.k.a. University. Crest Development Project, City of Rancho Cucamonga) US Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Sen'ice, Masch 27, 1995 - Lener to Thomas Shrader, Manager, Env. Compliance Group, Bttreau of Reclamalion, Lower Colorado Regional Office, Nevada, and to the Ann: Mike Walker, Re: Biological Opinion on the San Sevalne Creek Water Project, San Bernardino, California. (14-94-F-I0) US Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Sen'ice,, September 8, 1995 - Re: Environmental Assessment for the Issuance of an Incidental Take Permit, under section 10(A)(1)(B) of the Refernces - Page 10 June 9, 1998 County of San Bernadino REFERENCES Endangered Species Act for the Endangered Delhi Sands Hower-Loving Fly, Colton Transn~ssion Line and Substation Project by the City of Colton, Colton, California. July 1995. US Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Serfice,, December 23, 1997 - Letter to City of Rancho Cocamonga Planning Division, RE: Edison Company Draft EIR US Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Sen'ice, Biological Opinion for the Costoo World Corporation, Big Tujtmga Wash (1--6-F-39RZ) US Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Senice, November 19, 1996 -USFWS Memorandum, iRE: Effect of Recent Fires in Southern California on the Coastal California Gnatcatcher and the NCCP Program. , US Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Senice, March 13, 1997 - USFWS Memo and Fax, from Regional Office to Carlshad Field Office, ~Fish & Wildlife Sen'ice, Histom.' of NCCP Funding to Southern California Counties 199 1-1 998,~ provided to the Sage Council in response to FOIA request. US Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretan.' 1997 - Response lener dated 12/9/97 to FOIA Appeals 98-025, and 98-027, from Spirit of the Sage Council. Waiters, C., 1986- Adaptive management of renewable resources. Macmillan Publishing Co., New York. Wells, W.G. 1987- The effects of fire on the generation of debris flows in southern Ca~ornia pp. 105-114. Geological Society of America Reviews in Engineering Geology 7. Westman, W. 1981a. - Diversit), Relations and Succession in California Coastzd Sage Scrub. Ecology 62: 170-184. Westman, W. 1981b. - Factors influencing the disuibution of species of Califordia Coastal Sage Scrub. EcoloKy 62: 439-455. Westman, W. 1987- Implications of EcologicaI Theon., for Pare Plant Conservation in Coastal Sage Scrub. Pages 133-149 in "Proceedings of the Conference on Conservation and Management of Rare and Endangered Plants", T. Elias (ed.); California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. White eL al. 1995- Postbum Monitoring of the Eagle Fire: First Year Recover), on Sites Seeded With Buckwheat and Coastal Sage. Brushfires in California: Ecology and Resource Management. International Association of Wildland Fire, 1995. Wilcox 1984 - In situ conservation of genetic resources: deterrrdnants of minimum area requirements. Pages 18-30 in .LA. McNealey and K.R. Miller, (eds.), National Parks, conservation and development, Smith,souian Institution Press. Wilcox and Murphy 1985 - Conservation strategZ,.,: the effects of fragmenmtion on extjnction. American Naturalist 125:879-887. Wilson, E O, 1988 - BioDiversity, Introduction. Washington: National Academy Press. Wright, E.A., 1931~ The effect of high temperature on seed germination. Journal of Forestry 29:679487. Refernces - Page 11 June 9, 1998 County of San Bernadino REFERENCES Yahher 1988 - Changes in validlife conununities near edges. Conservation Biology 2:333-339. Zedler P. et. al., 1983- Vegetation change in response to extreme events: the effect of a short interval between fires in California chapanal and coastal sage scrub. Ecology 84:809-818. Zedler P., 1995- Fire Frequency in Southern California Shrublands: Biological Effects and Management Options. Brushfires in California: Ecology and Resource Management. International Association of Wildland Fire, t 995. US Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Sen'ice, March 10, 1995 - Letter from Gall Kobetick, USFWS Field Supervisor, to Lan'y Eng, NCCP Program Supervisor, Re: The pauci~' of scientific data for most "covered" species complicates the Service's evaluation of the San Diego MSCP. On file with USFWS, Carlsbad Field Office, CA. US Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Sen'ice, March 27, 1995 - Letter from GaiI Kobeticb., USFWS Field Super,~isor, to Lany Eng, NCCP Program Super~'isor. On file with USFWS, Carlsbad Field Office, CA. On file with USFWS, Carlsbad Field Office, CA. US Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Sen'ice, Februan.' 8, 1996 - Letter from FWS Acting Regional DIrector (I), to FWS Director, Re: "Funding Needs for Habitat Conservation Plans in California in Fiscal Year 1997 and Beyond" - land acquisition in the City of San Diego MSCP subregion is expected to cost between 5.2 and 9.2 million dollan per aimtim. E.J. Bortugn~, E.J- and T.E. Sl~{~ter, 1986, - Gedogic Ma of the San Bemardino Quad, C~tifomia, with ~ by the San Bernardino County Environrner~J ~ublic Works Agency. Joeeph t Ziony and Ludle M. Jone~ 198g - Seismic Map of Southern California Jame~ F. Dolan, J.F., 1996 - Department of Earth Sdenc~s, USC, Letter of proposal to the County's Second Distrial Supervisor f~eJd representati,,~, Vivian Null, and other agencies Count/d San Bemm'ffino June 2~, 1994 - Final Oak Summit Planrind C)tvelopment EIR. Prel:mred by ESA. County orS, ran Be~, April 1994 - Nod~h Et~anda Open Spa<~ and Hmbi~t Preservm~n Progrmm. C)ffbe ol the Secor~l DisJrict Supervireos, Del;mrtment o~ Tr~nmportmntion and Rood Control, Rinning Depm.,trtm~Mum~t~m, Of'/kmm of Si:mctml~. C~unllf of San B~Tmr~no F'~Tx.~d Cord;ol District - Draft and Fmi San Sevmine C~ek Wmtmf Pn:b~:~ E1R, indudinfl biobgtcml m,mem~poct by Southvmstem Fmtd E~logimm. ~ ot R~ncho Ctm<mmong~, Sef~t~'nbef 5, 1~91 - Draft Etiwmndm North Specific Pin Ci~ of Ra,n. cho Cuc:smonga. Apdl 1, le92 - E~s N~ S~ P~n EIR end R~u~ Men~ ~n ~~h~e ~, ~ 7, 19~ - L~er to SB C~ RE: D~ BR ~ t~ ~ *~k Summ~ ~n~ ~e~,' ~1~ ~ ~u~ end ~n~ ~ d ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~. A~I 1.1992 - L~r ~ C~ ~ Ran~o Cu~mo~a RE: FE/R ~ ~ E~ N~ S~ ~n. ~ hH~ ~ Fah ~ ~me, ~r ~, 1992 - L~r to C~ RE: NOP ~ an E{R ~ ~ Cairorata Department d Fnmh end Game. January 21, 1994 - Letter to SB County RE: Dttmt EIR for the ixopo~ed 'Oak Sumnit Plmmned Developmenf C_,aiomia De~ of Fish and Game, July 5, 1994 - Letter to SB Counb/RE: Final EIR for the I:~ 'Oreink Summit Planned Deyebixnenl, indudillg speciik: comments on NEQSHP. Carmfornla Department of F=h and Game, Marr,.h 1, 1998 - ConserYaijon Plan for the Edwar~a-Dly Canyon Drainrage Sy!~t'n Supporting the Rare N~uraJ Community of Allurge( Fen Sage Scrub. Prel:~mred by S~brd, J. and Quinn, R., Cal Slate Po(ytecbnic University. Pomona. Co,,;.,.,c~IF~I R5 Sedan 6 Catonim Ir~mn L~ Sefv.'_.:~.. Jury 18.1~94 - Leitarto San Bemerffino Counly Planning Depertment RE: the ~ Oak Summit dev~k~ent and cuitu~ nm~ourcem. Spirit of the ,.~ Counol, July 7.1994 -Comrnent leamr and referenc~ t~ SB County RE: Final EIR Spirit of the Samg~ Counci, July 9, 191~4 - Comment letter and mference~ to SB County RE: FiTrot EIR forthe pro~ Oak Summit projed. Spirit of the ~ Council. July 13, 1994 - Cornmere l~tter ~mnd references to SB C~urTty RE: Ftn~ EIR for the pmpomed C)=k Summit project and NEOSHP. USDA Forerot Service/San Bemardtr~ Nation~ Foreal, Dec~'nber 23. 1992 - Le~er to Dr. Thomee Kucem. Environmental Salerice ~4odmmtes [ESA) w~th cc: to Count,/~f San eemsrdlno. US Department of the Interior, Fish & Witdiife Service. June 14, 1994 - Comment letter to County Supervisor,'Jon Mikeis RE: Oak Summit Ranned devt~lopfTmnt. US Deperirrmnt of the Interior. Fish & Wildlife SerYice, August 24, 1995 - Letter to Peter Markle, Federal Highway Adminisb~h-~ RE: Sta~.v Rt 30 Mitigation; Oak Summit Management Plan, San Bernardtrio County. cc: Vprlan NuU, SB Cc. urTty. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- ~ STAFF REPORT DATE: June 24, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: COUNTY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP/97-0007/W139-45 - Update on Buddhist Temple project, located approximately 1 mile north of the intersection of Wardman Bullock Road and Wilson Avenue within the City's Sphere of Influence - APN: 226-061-72, 73, and 74. BACKGROUND: The County of San Bernardino Planning Department is currently processing a Conditional Use Permit application and associated environmental assessment for a 120,000 square foot Buddhist Temple (Ling Yen Mountain Temple) on 42 acres of land within the City's Sphere of Influence, approximately 1 mile north of the intersection of Wardman Bullock Road and Wilson Avenue. The Temple will include six dormitories, offices, a kitchen, an assembly hall, and a lecture hall. The assembly hall will be located at the northern end of the temple and will be 96 feet high. The County is also processing a variance to allow such a high structure. The County held a Development Review Committee meeting on June 1, 1998, which was at-tended by City staff. City staff issued wdtten comments on the County's draft Environmental Initial Study, see Exhibit "E." The Conditional Use Permit is scheduled for consideration by the County Planning Commission on July 8, 1998. In reviewing the proposed development, please consider the following issues: · County is proceeding with a Conditional Use Permit with a Negative Declaration in deference to City staffs previous recommendation that the project warrants an Environmental Impact Report. · The Rancho Cucamonga Fire District has a major role in the review and conditioning of the project. Issues such as two points of access, off-site circulation improvements, response time, and adequate wild land fire protection are still being analyzed. · The applicants wilt either have to annex to Cucamonga County Water District or Metropolitan Water District or develop their own water system. One scenario would require the applicant to extend a 12-inch diameter water line over 1 mile in order to connect to an existing water system. ITEH A PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTOR'S REPORT CUP 97-0007NV139-45 - BUDDHIST TEMPLE June 24, 1998 Page 2 · The County will allow the applicant, subject to percolation tests, use of a septic svstern and to not connect to sewer system. · The project has the potential of having adverse aesthetic impacts because of the significant view shed conditions. The County does not agree in this regard. · This proje.o: will in all likelihood be growth inducing if the Hacienda Heights Temple is any indication. This issue will not be given adequate analysis unless an Environmental Impact Report is prepared. · Habitat issues for the site have been studied. However. the USFWS has not commented and since the Wild Land Fire Protection Study has not been prepared, there has not been an analysis of the impacts if off-site fuel modification zones will impact native endangered habitat.. · In deference to our previous indication that this use is not allowed in the City's Etiwanda North Specific Plan, the County staff has interpreted that since a golf cc,~rse is conditionally permitted, this would be similar to that type of use. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:BLC:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" City Comments letter dated June 8, 1998 Exhibit "B" Comments from Fire District dated June 9, 1998 Exhibit "C" City Comments letter dated April 9, 1997 (first comments sent) Exhibit "D" County Draft Conditions of Approval Exhibit "E" County Draft Initial Study f ~ E C I T Y O P DANC~O CUCAHONCA June 8,1998 Mr. Mac Coleman San Bemardino County Planning Department 385 North Arrowhead Avenue, Third Floor -";' San Bemardino, CA 92415-0182 SUBJECT: COUNTY REFERRAL CUPNV97-0007NV139-45 (CR97-01) INITIAL STUDY Dear Mr. Coleman: Thank you for providing the City of Rancho Cucamonga the opportunity to comment on the draft Initial Study for the above project. City departments have reviewed the reference materials and have the following comments: PLANNING DIVISION: 1. Attached is a copy of the City's original comments letter dated Apdl 9, 1997. The comments in the letter still apply along with those outlined herein. 2, Geotechnicel Hazards: The Initial Study indicates that,"no significant impacts regarding liquefaction are expected to occur'; however, the Geotechnical Study (Kaup, 1997) indicates that, "geologic hazards associates with seismically induced liquefaction and lateral spread need to be fully evaluated by the project Geotechnical engineer." Also. project description indicates that existing homes on site will function as caretakers quarters but one of the homes is located within the 75-foot fault setback zone per the Geotechnical Study. 3. Noise: Initial Study should address impact of noise generated by bus traffic on existing residences south of site given that Site Plan indicates several bus parking spaces. 4. Aesthetics: The presence of the project and associated grading (20 foot high cribwalls) will have a definite impact on views of the local foothills for residents of Rancho Cucamonga and travelers on local scenic corridors. The City's General Plan indicates that the County has officially designated State Route 30 as a scenic route. The General Plan also states that the City should coordinate with the County so that views of the mountains from scenic mutes are provided. It is recommended that a viewshed analysis be performed to determine the exte_nt to which the project would be visible from Route 30 and surrounding residential areas. Perhaps dense tree planting with specimen sized trees could be incorporated into the design to mitigate views to the greatest extent possible. : l:'--e'l'.e · :' ~:,S:' i~_.,'c~cC~c~_.mc~-~3 'Sz:"27- .. ann ....... :.2. :l: SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY REFERRAL CUP/W97-0007NV13945 (CR97-01) INITIAL STUDY June 8, 1998 Page 2 5. The project will in all likelihood be growth inducing as it involves improvements in an area not anticipated to have development in the near future. 6. Biological Resources: The Initial Study does not appear te'~'nclude an analysis of fuel modification on site and surrounding the site and it's impacts on habitat/sensitive species. ENGINEERING DIVISION: 1. The Engineering Division accepts the discussion section of the Transportation/Circulation --section of the Initial Study. However, as a condition of approval, Engineering requests the following, "Bus thps shall not use San Sevaine Road locate within Rancho Cucamonga. Wardman Bullock Road to Colonhero Road will be the ~referred route with the exception that buses shall hot be allowed on Colonhero Road bet~veen the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am." This condition is requested because San Sevaine Road and Colonhero Road ' are local collector streets serving residential neighborhoods. Also, condition 39 should be modified to add, "Any improvements within the City of Rancho Cucamonga require City approval." This will allow Engineering to control improvement of Wardman Bullock Road which as currently proposed is not consistent with the Circulation Plan. Colonhero Road should instead be extended northerly to DeClift Drive for access. Ling Yen Mountain Temple Deveiopment needs to coordinate their efforts with the Development of Tract 13564 (see copy of Final Tract Map for reference). Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide input on this project. I~ncipal Planner Larry Henderson is available to answer any questions you may have concerning our response. If you or the applicant would like to meet with City representatives to discuss this project, please contact us at 477-2750. The City respectfully requests to be informed about any applicable meetings or hearings concerning this project. Sincerely, C MM_U EVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R · Clmmunity Development Director Ericlos e: Letter dated April 9, 1997 Ur co: Honorable Jon MikeIs, District Supervisor Jack Lain, City Manager Brad Bullet, City Planner R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A FIDE DDOTECTION DIc TDICT June 9, 1998 In/:E C E I 'V E D JUN 10 ]~3~B Steve Anderson, Sr. Fire Prevention Planner City of Rant'ha Cucamanga San Bernardino County Fire Deparmaent Planning Division 385 North Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardtoo, California 924 15-0179 RE: Conditions of Approval for the Ling Yen Mountain Temple by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. Dear Mr. Anderson: The Draft~'onditions of Approval for the Conditional Use Permit for the Ling Yen Mountagn Temple, CUP/97-0007AV139-45, needs to be mended to correctly identify that the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District is the Authority Having Jurisdiction for this project. Where text in a condition refers to the County Fire Department or a specific county ordinance, the condition needs to reflect the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and RCFPD Ordinance 22, which adopts the Uniform Fire Code in the county area wifi'tin the fire dis~-ict. AdditionaLly, the phone number for the fire district is (909) 477-2770. Several specific conditions also need to be mended to conform with the Uniform Fire Code adopted by the Fire District, as noted below. 39. ha order to satisfy the reqt~rement for two points of prima.W road access to the site, the condition must be amended to reflect, Wardman Bullock Road consreaction to thirty six (36) feet wide paved road section from the existing Northern edge of Wardman Bullock Road to both entry points to the site. 48. Amended: Private road maintenance, including but not limited to grading and snow removal, shall pe provided. Written documentation shall be subrmtted to the Fire District. Private fire access roads shall be required to provide an all weather driving surface, capable of supporting fire apparatus with a gross vehicle weight of 70,000 pounds, with a minimum paving width of twenty six (26) feet. 50. Amended: A three hundred (300) foot fuel modification zone in compliance with Fire Diswict standards is required. A site specific fuel modification zone plan shall be submitted to the Fire District for review and approval. Prior to any consreaction, the entire fuet modification zone shall be completed. Contact the Fire District for specific requirements. P.O. Box 807 Roncho Cucomonga. CA 9172~-0807 (9'09) 477-2770 FAX (909) 477-2849 Fire Opercticns P,O Box 850 Rancho Cucamonga. CA 9170i-0850 FAX (7'09) 987-088i Steve Anderson, Sr. Fir~ Prevem. : !arther PiE: Conditions of ApprovM for t: :g Yen Mountain Temple by the P~ncho Cucamc : Protection District Page 2 June 9, 1998 Add Under "General/On-Going Conditions;': Fuel Modification, in conju_:ction with the approved fuel modification zone plato, shall be maintained throughout the Life of the project. It is the position of the Fire District that this project shotrid not be submiRed for the a' :~val of the Conditional Use Permit until the proponent has provided, at least, an imtial study that..: site can comply with the required access and fuel modification req :.rements. Sincerely, 'L. Dennis Michael, Fi~e Chi.: ' Y ' Cc: File Fh'e Mm-shal Crane Mac Coleman Brent Le Count Larry Henderson Keyin Walton ~' H E C I T y 0 F DANC-HO CUCAHONGA April 9, 1997 1~ "'~ Mr. Mac Coleman San Bemardino County Planning Department 385 N. Arrowhead Ave., Third Floor San Bemardino, CA 92415-0182 RE: County Referral CUPNV97-0007/~/139-45 (CR97-01) Dear Mr. Coleman: In re~'onse to the Count/s project notice, the City of Rancho Cucamonga respectfully submits this letter. City depadments reviewed the referral materials consisting of the project notice, traffic comments by the applicant's consultant, and the conceptual site plan. In general, the information submitted for review is preliminary in nature; therefore, the City's comments are general. The City does retain the right to submit additional comments subject to more specific information and detail plans being submitted. PLANNING DIVISION: · The materials submitted to the City are insufficient to allow detailed specific comments; therefore, only general comments and requests for additional information are provided at this time. The City will be able to provide additional information when detailed plans and studies are submitted and reviewed. ' · The subject site is located within the Etiwanda North Spedtic Plan Area (City Pre*zoning). This SpeCific Plan and the EIR that was prepared for the pre-zoning cleady identified this area as havinb a highly sensitive and rare environmental setting. Given the e~vironmental sensitivity of the area and the large scale of the proposed project, it would__appear that an Environmental Impact Report is warranted. Some of the environmental i~'~'actS which should be explored include: hydrology and flood control, seismology, wild land fire protection study, hillside grading impacts, noise, traffic, and aesthetic impacts. · The project site is adjacent to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and an area which is currently under development with single family residences. In the interest of adequate citizen notification, it is recommended that the County require an extended property owner notification of all profferties south to Summit Avenue. It is further recommended that the County require the applicant to hold a neighbo~qood meeting in the community to involve the area residents before beginning the public headng process. · It should be noted that the project is inconsistent with the City's plan for the area. The City's Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP) has prezoned the site as Hillside Residential Estate (HRE) which permits up to one dwelling unit pernet buildable acre. The HRE designation does not permit churches (see attached excerpts of the ENSP, pages 11-21, lil-6, and 111-8), because ..."Uses other than residential dwellings are deemed too intensive within this area and not consistent with the General Plan." + In terms of clarification. it was the City's understanding that the County was not going to permit any further development in the Etiwanda Nodh/City Sphere Area until a plan similar to the ENSP was developed for this unincorporated area... ~,t !s our understanding that the County's effort to develop a plan similar to the Citys ENSP was discontinued in 1992; therefore, it is our desire to see the County's prior commitment retained. ',:c, :- ;'3 Tern 2,__.r'e Wl!:ms "~"""'-.~ -%" ~ ::',,':::memoer ~ex C-_,*'e"ez -V---y~! IYi,~I" d--- - ':'" ' ' '="='" = ' : ' :^' :"' 73^3'2 %~33~3'~Z 2-' ;"l: · "'~' l"'l'_'2 * z:3 ':'2'3 l'll~Z; Mac Coleman " Page 2 April 7, 1997 _ POLICE DEPARTMENT; e A detailed traffic study should be prepared, including a written detailed explanation of uses of the property including; hours of operation. days of heaviest use, days of worship and special events, what types of activities will take place, and approximately how many participants would be expected dudng these different days. · Since the site is in the unincorporated area of San Bemardino County, the applicant should also be aware that they would be serviced by the Fontana Sheriffs Station at Arrow & Alder in Fontana. and response times may be a concern. FIRE DEPARTMENT: A Wildland Fire Interface Study is required to determine risk of fire danger and appropriate design and building materials requirements and possible evacuation plan. Also, details concerning operating capacity. including any special events, must be identified and issues of adequate fire water flows and two points of access for (all weather) road connections should be addressed. Specific requirements are provided in the attached Fire District comments. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: · Provide for appropriate grading and drainage facilities on and off-site to direct flows to County Regional facilities consistent with approved hydrology studies. · The proposed Wardman Bullock Road access is not consistent with the Circulation Plan of the City's Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Attached for your use is the Circulation Pla~ and street Sections. · Tentative Tract 13564, originally approved in the County then annexed to the City, is being processed consistent with the Circulation Plan. This tract is south of the subject County Referral site. The designated collector street accessing the site bisects Tentative Tract 13564. To better determine the impacts to the future residents of Tentative Tract 13564. the City is requesting a more detailed traffic analysis. The analysis should include a comparison of daily tdps of this application to that v-nich would have been generated under current zoning. Also, the analysis should include major events times and duration on an annual basis. A trip distribution and impacts of these events should be discussed. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject project. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, is available to answer any questions you may have concerning our response. if you or the applicant would like to meet with City representatives to discuss this project, please contact us at your earliest convenience. The City respectfully requests to be informed about any applicable meetings or hearings concerning this project. Sinc, :rely, COrv ~t3 . ELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Ricl. t Con ment Direc or RG: -H:gs Enclosures cc: Honorable Jon MikeIs, District Supervisor Jack Lain, City Manager Ling Yen Temple, C/O Gary Dou Brad Bullet, City Planner /'__ 9. 6.2.1 Residential 6.2,.1.1 Hillside Residential District The Hillside Residential District permits single-family residential dwellings either on separate lots or clustered together in a buildable area along with accessory structures only. Most uses, other than residential dwellings, are deemed to be too intensive and not consistent with--the General Plan. The only exception being on the upper alluvial slopes, where some conditional _- uses may be compatible. The maximum dwelling unit density may not exceed two units per net buildable acre (as defined by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code (Development Code Section 17.18). 6.2.1.2 Hillside Residential Estate (ERE) The Hillside Residential Estate district is intended to permit limited residential development in the more rugged hillside terrain in the northeasterly portion of the Specific Plan area. Uses other than residential dQ~llings are deemed too intensive within this area and not consistent with the General Plan. The maximum density shal~ not exceed one dwelling unit per net buildable acre (as defined by Development Code Section 17.18). 6.2.1.3 Very L~w Residential District {VL) This district is intended as an area for single family residential use with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet and a maximum residential density of up to two units per gross acre. 6.2.1.4 very Low Residential Estate District (VLE) This district is intended as an area for estate lots with a minimum lot size of one acre and a maximum density of up to one unit per gross acre. II-21 LEGEND '~'~'~""=' """"'~ND USE P~N zz:z-s ,ADOPTED 4/1/92 /.,. ~/~ .- TABLE 3 - USE REGULATIONS FOR KESIDEI~7IAL DI~ilaCTS A. Residential Uses B. O~er Uses [' 1. Cht~.b C C C 2. Club, Lodge, Fra~rnity and Sorority 3. College or Universiv/ C C 4. Public Fatlily/ C C C C 5. Day C~re Fa=iliv/ Ac~t~nry - 6 or less P P P P P Non-Accessory - 7 or more C C C 6. Fu'e and Police Station C C C C C C C C 7. Golf Course, Tennis Club, Country. Club (private) g. Public Park and Playground P P P P 9. Residential Care Facilit7 A~cessory - 6 or less P P P P P Non-Accessory - 7 or more I0. ~:hools, Privat~ and Par~:hisl C C C I1. Stable, Commercial C 12. Stable, Private (rain. 20,000 SF lot size) P P 13. U~lity or Service Facility C C ' C C C C. Accessory Uses 1. Accessory Structure P P P P P 2. Ante~,~ ' P P P P P 3. Ca~etsker's Residence C C C C C 4. Guest House P P P P P /-,-// ""'"" i ~..z,,......,~~ ~, L ~.~. - L,a' ~/' ~' .... T-"",.~ .,,-"-' !" I 850' CURVE RADIUS ? · -" { I ~l __1. : LEGEND ~ Major Divided Arterial A1 Typicat Section eee meee Special Divided Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial GIRGULATION PLA EXHIBIT 12 z~:-36 :ADOPTED _4Jl/92 /- COLLECTOR STREETS a BANYAN STREET a EAST AVENUE a SAN SEVAINE DRIVE (North of Wilson Ave.) · VINTAGE DRIVE a SUMMIT AVENUE · ROCHESTER AVENUE a WARDMAN-BULLOCK ROAD (North of Wilson Avenue) a OTHER COLLECTORS CLASS II 4' 4' WALK ITY TRAIL CLASS II ~1 20I wast R.O.W. east (with Community Trail) STREET SECT/ONS · · · - · EXHIBIT (E) NOTE: PLANTING AREA BETWEEN CURB AND SIDEWALK TO BE 6' MINIMUM, TYPICAL " h~ Etiwanda Nod Specific Plat II-45 ~ City of LOCAL STREETS 4' WALK ItO.W. STREET SECTIONS EXHIBI7~I] 3 (F) NOTE: PLANTING AREA BETWEEN CURB AND SIDEWALK TO BE 6' MINIMUM TYPICAL r . ]1 ' '~ nd North · Et~wa a " II-46 ~ Cit~r ~f /_~ _/L/ " FIRE PREVENTION f:l 14yj)p_, ,,Fr · NEW CONSTRUGTION pl _,g L, 4E · · PRELIMINARY PROJECT REVIEW CUP ~ TR ~ PR ~ MDR ~ OTHER. P~N~PE P~;~J~ ~ D~~~. DATE ~' ~ ~? PROJECT NAME ~IN~ '~ ~GU~T~I~ ~&~ LOCATION APN APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477o2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: R. General Fire Protection Conditions ~C 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. ~ 2. Fire flow requirement shall be ~r~ gallons per minute. a, A previous fire flow conducted revealed gpm available at 20 psi. -OR- F b. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. '~' c. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. T 3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to deliver of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials. etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. ~F 4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire Distnct. Fire District standards require a 6" dser with a 4" and 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. '~ 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire p!_otaction is available. pending completion of required fire protection system. 'ff 6, Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. ~ 7. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required .as noted below: '~ Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance15.- Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, flammable liquids storage. high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if sprinter system is adequate for proposed operations. NCU R,~,- 2 9' L'% ~ 8. Spdnkle;~ystem monitoring sh.-J! be installed and operational imm ~y upon completion of sprinkler "'F 9. A fire alan'r: ~ stem(s) shall ~. equired as noted below: - · ~ Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct Ordinance 15. f-,- California Code Regulaf:'~ns Title 24. Other 10. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire Distdct's fire lane standards, as noted: '~ All roadways. Other ~ ~ ~ ,,t'-- 11. Fire department access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apl~ 12. Emergency secondary access shall be provided in accordance with Fire Distdct standards. ~ 13. Emergency access, a minimum of 26 fee wide, shall be provided, and maintained f~e and clear: * obs.' actions at all times. dudng construction in accordance with Fire Dis~ct requirements. 14, All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be ,-apt trimmed a minimum of 14' 6" from ground up s to impede fire apparatus. 15. A building directory shall be required, as noted below: ~ Lighted directory within 20 feet of main entrance(s). ~' Standard Directory in main lobby. Other 16. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed pdor to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordedng information. II 17. Gated/rest~cted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire Safety ~D v sion for specffic details and ordedng int!:-mation. _. 18. A tenant use letter shall be submitted pdor to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for the proper form letter. -- 19. Plan check fees in the amount of $ have been paid. An additional $ shall be prod prior to water plan approval prior to final plan approval Note: Separate plan Check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklere, hood systems. alarms, etc.) ar d/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 20. Plans shall be submitted and plans approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UF C, UPC. UMC, NEC and RCFD Standards 22., 15, NCU Re','. 2/97 V( 21. With the home located above Hillside road, it sha[I comply to Rancho Cucamonga Fire District standards for high fire hazard zone. ~Z", 22. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use, as noted below: .' . · · ' · /~ a. General Use Permit shall be required for any activity or operation r~ot specifically described below. which in the judgement of the Fire Chief is likely to produce conditions hazardous to life or property. b. Storage of readily combustible matedaL c. Places of assembly (except churches, schools, and other non*profit organizations). d. Bowling alley and pin refinishing. -' ~ e. Cellulose Nitrate plastic (Pyroxylin). f. Combustible'fibers storage and handling exceeding 100 cubic feet. g. Garages. Motor vehicle repair (H-4). h. Lumber yards (over 100.000 board feet). i. Tire rebuilding plants. j. Auto wrecking yards. Junk or waste matedal handling plants. k. Flammable finishes. Spraying or dipping operations. spray booths, dip tanks, electrostatic apparatus, automobile undercoabng, powder coating and organic peLoxides and dual component coatings (per spray booth). I. Magnesium (more than 10 pounds per day). rn. Oil burning equipment operations. n. Ovens (industrial baking i~r~d d~ing). o. Mechanical refrigeration (over 200 pounds of ref~gerant). p. Compressed gases (storage. h,,i,dling or use exceeding 100 cubic feet). 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. NOTE: A SEPARATE GRADING PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL IS REQUIRED FOR ALL NE1N CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AND FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS WHERE I'~'PROVEMENTS 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. NCU R¢~ 2 '9T /'-- - / '7 Other Requirements/Comments NCU Rev. 2,"97 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO LAND USE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Pusuc sE.v cEs 0.0uP iNING DIVISION ~ VALERY PILMER North Arrowhead Avenue · San Bernardin0, CA 92415-0181 - (909) 387-4131 Director of Land Use Services First Floor Fax (909) 387-4301 · Third Floor Fax (909) 387-3223 15505 Civic Drive · Victorville, CA 92392 · (760) 243-8245 · Fax (760) 243-8212 ~ ;,_, C ~-' I~ ~ rr, ~ May 15, 1998 ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ca~ong~ Mr. Lar~ Henderson ~ ~a~c~o - CiW of Rancho Cucamonga C~t~ o 'n O~s~ ptBnm g on Planning Depa~ment P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: CUP/97-0007~139~5; Conditional Use Permit to establish a religious retreat with - offices, dormitories, worship center and kitchen facilities with major variance for _ building height on 41 acres; APNs: 0226-061-072, 73 & 74. Dear Lar~: The San Bernardino CounW Development Review Commi~ee will meet with the applicant on June 1, 1998 at 3:20 p.m. to discuss the referenced proposal. The meeting location is the CounW Government Center, Joshua Room, 385 Noah Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardino, CA. This meeting is not a public hearing, but rather a technical session whereby the applicant is provided the oppo~uniW to discuss the proposed conditions of approval with the reviewing depa~ments and other interested pa~ies. Planning Division staff cordially invites the City of Rancho Cucamonga to this meeting. A copy of the project's Initial Study was fo~arded to the CiW's CommuniW Development Director, Mr. Rick Gomez, on Monday, May 11, 1998. Enclosed with this le~er is a set of the project's draft conditions of approval. These documents are offered to assist the CiW with their review of the proposed temple. If you have any question~ regarding this ma~er please call this office at (909) 387~168. Sincerely, Mac Coleman, Senior Associate Planner San Bernardino CounW Land Use Seaices Depa~ment Enclosure · -: /_ LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE, INC. PAGE I OF 12 CUP/97-0007NV139-45 VVEST VALLEY FOOTHILLS DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL/ON-GOING CONDITIONS PLANNING DIVISION - (909~ 387-4168 1. This approval is for the establishment of a Buddhist temple and retreat facility with a major variance for building heigt~'of 96 feet on approximately 40 acres. The complex consists of a sanctuary, lecture hall, kitchen and dining hall, offices and dormitories. Two existin.c residential structures will remain and be used for caretaker purposes and storage. Any modification to the design or any expansion in the developed area as shown on the approved site plan or modification of use shall require the submittal and approval of a revision to tr;e existing approval or the submittal and approval of a new conditional use permit application. 2. The facility is limited to hosting four (4) major retreats in any single calendar year. Maximum attendance at a major retreat is 600 persons. 3. In compliance with San Bernardino County Development Code Section 81.0150, the applicant shall agree to defend at this sole expense any action brought against the County, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of s,,ch approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse +he County, its agents, officers or employees, for any court costs and attorneys fees whic,~ :ie County, its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The County may, at its sole discretion participate at its own expense in the defense of any such acticn but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 4. Additional fees may be required prior to issuance of development permits. Fees shall be paid as specified in adopted fee ordinances. 5. This approval shall become null and void if all conditions have not been complied with and the occupancy or use of the land has not taken place within three (3) years after the day the land use decision becomes effective. One extension of time, not to exceed three (3) years, may be granted upon written request and the appropriate fee not less than thirty (30) days prior the date of expiration 6. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with the requirements of all state, county and local agencies as are applicable to the project. Those agencies include but are not limited to the County Environmental Health Services Division, Transportation/Flood Control Department, ' NON-STANDARD CONDITION "MITIGATION MONITORING MEASURE LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE, INC. PAGE 2 OF 12 CUP/97-0007NV139-45 WEST VALLEY FOOTHILLS Fire Department, Building and Safety Division and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control ,Board and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 7. All of the conditions of this Conditional Use Permit are continuing, conditions. Failure of the .applicant or operator to comply with any or all of said conditions at any time may result-in the revocation of. the permit granted to the property provided the applicant is given adequate notice and opportunity to correct/comply with the conditions of approval. 8. Should'~'ny enforcement activities be required to insure compliance with the conditions of approval, the applicant or property owner shall be charged for such activities in accordance with the San Bernardino C'~unty Code schedule of fees. 9. Landscaping shall be maintained throughout the life of the project. The developer shall obtain a Special Use Permit from the San Bernardino County Land Use Services Department, Code Enforcement Division, for the purpose of monitoring the landscaping. This permit shall be maintained for a minimum of two (2) consecutive years following the project'sdate of occupancy. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES (909~ 387-466G r purveyor shall be Cucamonga County Water District. 11. Method of sewage disposal shall be Cucamonga County Water Dj.sJ, dct. 12. Septic system(s) shall be maintained so as not to create a public nuisance and shall be serviced by an EHS permitted pumper. For information call (909) 387-4666. 13. Noise level shall be maintained at or below County Standards, Development Code Section 87.0905(b). For information, call EHS/Land Use at (909) 3874666. 14.AII refuse generated at the premises shall at all times be stored in approved containers and shall be placed in a manner so that visual, or other impacts, and environmental public health nuisance~ are minimized and complies with San Bernardino County Code Chapter 8. Section 33.0871 et seq. For information, call EHS/Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) at (909) 387- 4655. 15. All refuse containing garbage shall be removed from the premises at least two (2) times per week to an approved solid waste facility in conformance with. San Bernardino_ County Code Chapter 8, Section 33.081 et seq. For information call EHS/LEA at (909) 387-4655. ' NON-STANDARD CONDITION '* MITIGATION MONITORING MEASURE -- LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE, INC. PAGE 3 OF 2 CUP/97-0007/W139-45 WEST VALLEY FOOTHILLS DEVELOPMEN% COORDINATION DIVISION - DRAINAGE f909~ 387-2250 16. The naC:ral drainage courses traversing ;he site shall not be occupied or obstructed. FIRE DEPARTMENT - FIRE PROTECT!ON PLANNING (909~ 387- 5372 17. If the required 31owlhydrant system is not sufficient o' .',isting. alternate protection may be provided with a substitute system as an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. The applicant may need tO' contact the Fire Department regarding application processing for alternate fire protection measures. ~:. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS THE FOLLOWING CON:)ITIONS SHALL BE MET: BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION - (909~ 387- 4246 18.A preliminary soils repert shall be filed with and approved by the B~fiding Official. A fee to cover the cost of the review shall be submitted with the report. 19. Grading plans shall be submitted for review and approval. 20. A geology report, prepared'by a licensed geologist, shall be filed with and approved by the Building Official. A deposit to cover the cost of the review shall be submitted with the report. A n additional deposit may be required or a refund issued when the costs do not match the deposit. 21.An erosion and sediment control plan and permit shall be submitted tr 3nd approved by the ' Building Official. 22.An NPDES permit - Notice of Intent (NOI) -is required. DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION DIVISION - L, 2~a, INAGE fg0g~ 387-225-c'. 23.A Registered Civil Engineer shall investigate and design adequate drainage facilities to intercept and conduct the off site - on site drainage flows around and through the site in a manner which will not adversely affect adjacent or downstream properties at the time the site is developed. Submit related study for review and approval. 24.A topographic map shall be provided to facilitate the design and review of necessary drainage facilities at the time the site is developed. NON-STANDARD CONDITION MITIGATION MONITORING MEASURE LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE, INC. PAGE 4 OF 12 CUP/97-0007NV13945 WEST VALLEY FOOTHILLS 25. Grading plans shall be submitted to the Development Coordination Division, Drainage Sectionl for review. PLANNING DIVISION (909/387-4168 26.A Mitigation Monitoring application shall be submitted to the Land Use Services Department, Planning Division, to monitor and verify compliance with the environmental mitigation measures reflected in the Mitigation Monitoring and Compliance Program. *27. Obtain a_release from the Planning Division, Environmental Section, verifying compliance with the environmental miffgation measures required for this pb. ase of development. 28. Cucamonga County Water District shall process an out-of-agency water and sewer service contract-through the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES (909~ 3874666 9 applicant shall procure a verification letter from the water agency with jurisdiction. This letter shall state whether or not water connection and service shall be made available to the project by the water agency. The letter shall reference File Index Number and Assessor's Parcel Number. 30. The applicant shall procure a verification letter from the sewering agency with jurisdiction. This letter shall state whether or not sewer connection and service shall be made available to the project by the sewering agency. The letter shall reference File Index Number and Assessor's Parcel Number. 31. If sewer connection and service are unavailable, septic systems will then be allowed under the following condition: soil percolation report shall be submitted to Environmental Health Services for review and approval. 32. Existing septic system can be used if applicant provides certification from a qualified professional (i.e., Professionai Engineer, Registered Environmental Health Specialist, C-42 contractor, Certified Engineering Geologist, etc.) that the system functions properly, meets code, and had the capacity required for the proposed project. Applicant shall provide documentation outlining methods used in determining function. j3. Submit preJiminaW acoustical information demonstrating that the proposed project maintains noise levels at or below San Bernardino County Noise Standards, San Bernardino County * NON-STANDARD CONDITION ** MITIGATION MONITORING MEASURE LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE, INC. PAGE 5 OF 12 CUP/97-0007NV139-45 WEST VALLEY FOOTHILLS Development Code Section 87.0905(b). The purpose is to evaluate potential future on-site and/or adjacent off-site noise sourues. If the preliminary information cannot demonstrate compliance with noise standards, a project specific acoustical analysis shall be required. Submit information/analysis to the Environmental Health Services Division for review and approval. For in:~rmationand acoustical checklist contact EHS at (909) 387-4655. " 34. Plans for food establishments shall be reviewed and approved by EHS. For information call EHS/Plan Check at (909) 387-7570. PLANNING DIVISION (90_9) 387-4168 -~. 35. Three copies of a landscape plan prepared by a registered landscape architect showing the size, type, specifications and locations of all plant material shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval. Landscaping of the site shall make use of plants native to the local region wherever feasible. Non-native plant species that may invade natural areas should not be used in project landscaping. The required landscaping nay incorporate decorative rock, boulders or other suitable hardscape material. A. Locations and scaled and dimensioned elevations of all walls and planters, including profile of a typical crib wall that shows wall design and placement of landscaping within the wall. Indicate type of cor~struction material. B. Design of all permanent trash enclosures. C. Location and scaled and dimensioned elevations of all signs', 'to include proposed copy. Scaled and dimensioned elevations of buildings that propose signage with must also be shown. 36. Three (3) copies of an irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review. Irrigation shall include, where practical. drip, bubbler or other non-aerial water service methods or system. The system shall include timers for controlled application. ' ' ' 37. Surety, in a form and manner determined acEeptable i0 County Counsel, shall be required for all plantings and irrigation systems as shown on the approved landscape and irrigation plans. As a minimum, this surety shall be in an amount equal to 120% of the cost estimate prepared by a licensed landscape architect for all material and labor. Release of the surety shall be coordinated with the P~ '~ing Division and contingent upon correct, prescriptive planting methods after two full gre,ving seasons. '38. Obtain a release from the Planning Division, Environmental Section, verifying compliance with the environmental mitigation measures required for this phase of development. NON-STANDARD CONDITION MITIGATION MONITORING MEASURE LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE, INC. PAGE 6 OF 12 - CUP/97-0007NV13945 VALLEY FOOTHILLS DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION DIVISION - ROADS (909) 387-235u The followin9 conditions apply to Wardman Bullock Road 39. Submit engineered road improvement plans to San Bernard/no County Transportation/Flood Control Department, 825 East Third Street, Room 204, San Bernard/no, CA 92415-0835 for review and approval. Right-of-way and improvements (including offsite) to transition traffic and drainage flows fror~ proposed to existing shall be required as necessary. The plan shall reflect twenty-six (26) foot wide paved road section to nearest State or County maintained road (to meet existing to t~'~' south), curb and gutter (with match-up paving) eighteen (18) feet from centerline and AC dike (Standard 117), west side, within limits of property. The following conditions apply to DeClift Drive 40. Submit engineered road improvement plans to San Bemardino County Transportation/Flood Control Department, 825 East Third Street, Room 204, San Bernard/no, CA 92415-0835 for review and approval. Right-of-way and improvements (including offsite) to transition traffic and drainage flows from proposed to existing shall be required as necessary. The plan shall reflect thirty-six (36) foot wide paved road section to nearest State or County maintained road, curb and gutter eighteen (18) feet from centerline (both sides) and driveway approach/entrance lAW Standard 129. DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION DIVISION - DRAINAGE (909) 387-235u 41.The site is within the San Sevaine Creek Drainage Fee area and under ordinance #3358 is subject to a fee of $4,405 per acre. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION - (909~ 387- 4246 42. Submit professionally prepared plans for approval and obtain permits prior to any construction. FIRE DEPARTMENT- FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING (9091 387- 5372 43. The project is located within the San Bernard/no County Fire Safety Overlay Districts (Fire Review Areas) FR-1 and FR-2, and shall comply with applicable Fire Safety Overlay requirements. Applicable requirements shall be included in the construction plans prior to issuance of building permits. NON-STANDARD CONDITION MITIGATION MONITORING MEASURE LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE, INC. PAGe2 7 OF CUP/97-0007NV13945 WEST VALLEY FOOTHILLS 44.The applicant shall contact the Fire Department for verification of currer ; protectiv,, requirem, ents. All new construction shall comply with the existing UniL .-: Fire Code requirements and all applicable codes, ordinances or standards of the Fire Department. 45.The applicant shall provide the Fire Department with a letter from the water company having jurisdiction, verifying financial arrangements have been made for the rc:~uired water improvements or that existing fire hydrants and water system will meet distance and fire flow requirements. Fire flow water supply shall be in place prior to placing combustible materials on the project site. 46. A water system designeC~to meet the required fire flow shall be approved by the water company having jurisdiction and Fire Department staff. The developer shall furnish the Fire Department with two copies of the water system improvement plans and a letter from the water purveyor stating the water system is capable of providing --'e required fire flow. War! ' supply for fire protection shall be operational and field inspectie approval shall be grante_ before construction will be permitted. The required fire flow shall be determined ~by. Using appropriate calculations established by the San Bernardino County "Guide for Determinina Reouired Fire Flow." All underground piping for water systems shall have a minimum of e']ht (8) inches in diameter with no less than six (6) inch lateral lines, and six (6) inch risers. 47.Approved fire hydrants and fire hydrant pavement markers shall be installed. Fire hydrants shall be six (6).inches in diameter with a minimum of one foL 4) inch and one 2 1/2 irich connection as specified by fire staff. The design of the fire hydr~.qt and hydrant markers shall be approved by the Fire Department. All fire hydrant spacing shall be three hundred (300) feet. 48. Private road maintenance, including but not limited tr, grading and snow removal, shall be' provided. Written documentation shall be submitte- ~ the Fire Department. Private fire access roads shall be required to provide an all-we ,her surface with a minimum paving width of twenty (20) feet. 49.AII fiammable vegetation shall be removed from around all building materials and structures at a distar~ce of thirty (30) feet. 50.A one hundred (100) foot fuel modification zone in compliance with County standards is required. Contact the Fire Department for specific requirements'. 51.A turnaround shall be provided at the e: d of each roadway one hur. dred fifty (150) feet or more in length and shall be approved by the F~re Department. Cul-de-sac length shall not exceed three hundred fifty .350) feet in length unless otherwise approved by the Chief. ' NON-STANDARD CONDITION "MITIGATION MONITORING MEASURE LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE, INC. PAGE 8 OF 12 CUP/97-0007NV139-45 LLEY FOOTHILLS 52. A letter is required from the applicant stating agreement to providing a fire protection system, approved by fire staff, prior to occupancy. A second letter is required from the water company having jurisdiction establishing the existing water system is deficient in either duration, pressure, or required volume capabilities. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY OR USE OF THE FACILITY THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET: ,ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION (909~ 387-44666 53.A Certificate of Use req'~est shall be submitted to Environmental Health Services, For information contact EHS/Housing at (909) 387-3047. PLANNING DIVISION (909) 387,416R 54.All driveways and parking areas shall be surfaced with asphalt concrete paving. 55.AII parking stalls shall be clearly striped and permanently maintained with double or hairpin lines on the surface, with two fines being located an equal nine (9) inches on either side of the stall sidelines; arrows painted on the paving shall indicate the direction of traffic flow. 56.AII landscaping, irrigation, walls, signs, fencing, and road and drainage improvements shall be completed. '57. Obtain a release from the Planning Division,' Environmental Section, verifying compliance with the environmental mitigation measures required for this phase of development. FIRE DEPARTMENT - FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING ('909) 387- 5372 58. The project is located within the San Bernardino County Fire Safety Overlay Districts (Fire ' ' ' Review Areas) FR-1 and FR-2. and shall comply with applicable Fire Safety Overlay requirements. Applicable requirements shall in place on the ~{e prior to final occupancy. 59. Street address numbers shall be posted on the building, with a minimum eight (8) inch in height by three fourth (3/4) inch stroke width and shall be visible from the street. During the hours of darkness, the numbers shall be electrically illuminated. Where the building setback exceeds two (200) feet from the roadway, additional non-illuminated contrasting six (6) inch numbers shall be displayed at the property access entrances. "No Parking, Fire Lane" signs shall be installed on interior access drives and private roads. signs shall be posted at designated locations by Fire Department staff. Fire lane curbs shall be painted red. Signs shalLbe in accordance with Fire Department Guideline # 10.206. ' NON-STANDARD CONDITION '* MITIGATION MONITORING MEASURE /_ LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE, INC. PAGE 9 OF 12 CUP/97-0007AN13945 WEST VALLEY FOOTHILLS 61. Hand p,ortable fire extinguishers are required to be provided. The location, type and cabinet design shall be approved by the Fire Department. 62. Each chimney used in conjunction with any fireplace or any heatling appliance in wh, ip.b solid or liquid fueHs used, shall be maintained with an approved spark arrestor, as identified in the Uniform Fire Code. 63.The development and each phase thereof shall have two (2) points of vehicular access for fire and other emergency equipment, and for routes of escape which will safely handle ' evacuations as required b~the Development Code. 64. Private drives which exceed one hundred fifty (150) feet in length shall be approved by the Fire Department and shall be extended to within one hundred fifty (150) feet to all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of all buildings. An Access road shall be provided within fifty (50) feet of all buildings, if the natural grade between the access 'mad and the buildings is in excess of thirty (30) percent. Where access cannot be provided, protection systems shall be required as requested by Fire Department staff. 65. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed. This system shall comply with NFPA Pamphlet #13 and Fire Department Guideline #10.507. The applicant shall submit hydraulic calculations and detailed plans showing type of storage and use with the applicable protection system. Consultant fee for plan review shall be paid djE~tly to the consultant and shall include two field inspections. 66.An automatic fire alarm system is required in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code. The developer shall submit detailed plans to a Fire Protection Consultant approved by the Fire ' Department. 67. Pre-staged fire attack stations shall be installed in accordance with Fire Department Guideline #10.501PS. Number required and spacing shall be determined at the time of water plan submittal. Fire attack stations shall be provided with a tamper switch and shall be monitored by an approved central monitoring service. 68. Provide one-hour fire resistive construction for exterior wall(s). Contact the fire inspector regarding specifications for this requirement: CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION f909/3874044 . - · 69. A Special Use Permit shall be obtained for the purpose of monitoring the landscaping. ' NON-STANDARD CONDITION '* MITIGATION MONITORING MEASURE LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE, INC. PAGE 10 OF 12 CUP/97-0007NV139-.45 ' - iWEST VALLEY FOOTHILLS THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES EXTRACTED FROM THE PROJECT INITIAL STUDY. AS INDICATED IN THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE PROGRAM, COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE MEASURES IS REQUIRED FOR EACH PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT THE FOLLOWING MI'RGATION MEASURES ARE GENERAL/ON-GOING **70. The natural drainage couF~es traversing the site shall not be occupied or obstructed. "71. No outside public address systems, speakers, bells or other noise generating devices shall be installed on site without the applicant first applying for and receiving a revision to this conditional use permit. An acoustical analysis of potential effects on surrounding property owners shall accompany the revision application. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS THE FOLLOWING MITIGATION MEASURES SHALL BE MET: Project grading shall be designed to preserve existing native habitat wherever possible, *'73. The project site is located in an area which has the potential for archaeological resources, Prior to any land disturbance, an appmved archaeologist shall conduct an archaeological field survey per County Museum guidelines and submit two copies to the Land Use Services Department for review and approval. The field survey shall state whether monitoring for cultural resources is deemed necessary during land disturbance. "74. Submit preliminary acoustical information demonstrating that the proposed project maintains noise levels at or below San Bemardino County Noise Standards, San Bernardino County Development Code Section 87.0905(b). The purpose is to evaluate potential future on-site and/or adjacent off-site noise sources. If the preliminary information cannot demonstrate compliance with noise standards, a project specific acoustical analysis shall be required. Submit information/analysis to the Environmental Health Services Division for review and approval, For information and acoustical checklist contact EHS at (909) 387-4655. "75,A Registered Civil Engineer shall investigate and design adequate drainage facilities to intercept and conduct the off site - on site drainage flows around and through the site in a manner which will not adversely affect adjacent or downstream properties at the time the site is developed. Submit related study for review and approval. NON-STANDARD CONDITION MITIGATION MONITORING MEASURE LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE, INC. PAGE 11 OF 12 CUP/97-0007AN13945 WEST VALLEY FOOTHILLS **76. An erosion and sediment control plan and permit shall be submitted to and approved bY the Building. Official. - **77. Cessation of land disturbance shall occur, or water spraying or other' dust palliatives shall be utilized to suppress airborne. particles during periods of Wind exG'~eding 25 mph or during weather conditions which cause visible airborne dust. '*78.The construction contractors shall water the site and clean all equipment in the morning and evening. **79. The construction contract~rs shall schedule and require a phased schedule of construction to even out emission peaks. " "80. The construction contractors shall remove silt by paving construction roads, sweeping streets and washing trucks leaving the construction site. **81.The construction contractors shall suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts. "82. The construction contractors shall maintain construction equipment engines by keeping the~ tuned. "83. The construction contractors shall use Iow-sulfur fuel for equipment. "84.As much as possible, the contractor shall schedule clearing, grading and earthmoving activities during periods of low wind speeds. Construction activities during high wind conditions shall be restricted as -~uch as possible when wind speeds exceed 20 mph' average. *'85. The construction contractors shall restrict construction vehicle speeds to 15 mph on unpaved roads. · **86.The construction contractors shall: · provide rideshare and transit incentives for construction personnel. · configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference- - minimize obstructions of through traffic lanes. · provide a flag person to guide traffic properly. · schedule operations affecting traffic for 'off-peak hours. * NON-STANDARD CONDITION ** MITIGATION MONITORING MEASURE LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE, INC. PAGE 12 OF 12 CUP/97-0007NV139-45 -'Y FOOTHILLS PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS THE FOLLOWING MITIGATION MEASURES SHALL BE MET: '*87. Any building on site intended for human use or occupancy shall be setback from the edge of any earthquake fault zone by a minimum of 75 feet. **88.The project is located within the San Bernardino County Fire Safety Overlay Districts (Fire Review Areas) FR-1 and FR-2, and shall comply with applicable Fire Safety Overlay requirements. ApplicalSle requirements shall be included in the construction plans prior to issuance of building permits. ~:. "89. Landscaping of the site shall make use of plants native to the local region wherever feasible. A landscaping plan shall be developed emphasizing the use of plants native to the local region. Non-native plant species that may invade natural areas should not be used in project landscaping. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY OR USE OF THE FACILITY THE FOLLOWING MITIGATION MEASURES SHALL BE MET: lighting utilized on site shall be hooded and downshielded to prevent illumination of any surrounding properties. "91.All street, security, and landscape lighting of the project should be designed and installed such that it is not directed toward any natural open space areas. "92.Any building on site intended for human use or occupancy shall be setback from the edge of any earthquake fault zone by a minimum of 75 feet. "93.The project is located within the San Bernardino County Fire Safety Overlay Districts (Fire Review Areas) FR-1 and-FR-2, and shall comply with applicable Fire Safety Overlay .... requirements. Applicable requirements shall in place on the site prior to final occupancy... NON-STANDARD CONDITION MITIGATION MONITORING MEASURE ~ COUNTY OF SAN BERNA,,RDINO May7,1998 /~Or~ "79~, O RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES ~0C~C4~ ~ INTERESTED ORGANISTIONS AND INDIVIDUA W~4 RE: NOTICE OF AVAILABILI~ FOR THE INITIAL STUDY/PRC'3SED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLA~TION FOR THE LING YE~' MOUNTAIN TEMPLE Dear Reader/Reviewer: -~losed for your review and 'comment is the prop:,sed Initial Study/Environmental Checklist for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Ling Yen Mountain Temple. The temple is proposed to be located in the West Valley Foothills in the unincorporated poffion of San Bernardino CounW adjacent to the cities of Fontana and Rancho Cu~monga, just noaheast of the intersection of Wardman Bullock Drive and Declift Drive. This document has been prepared to meet the State requirements of the California Environmental Quality Ad. TF~ public comment period will end on June 8, 1998. For fu~her info~ation, call Nancy Sansoneffi at (909) 387~147. Wri~en comments shoutd be addressed to: CounW of San Bernardino Land Use Se~ices Depa~ment, Planning Division A~N: Nancy Sansoneffi, Senior Associate Planner - - 385 N. Arrowhead Avenue, 3rd Floor San Bernardino, CA 9241~182 ince , ~~ ~' NANCY 5 ' NS lEVI, Senior Associate Planner Enc osureS: initial Study Environmental Checklist /_ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM - (INITIAL STUDY) · ' FOR Ling-Yen Mountain Temple Prepared by County of San Bernardino, California Planning Department May, 1998 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM This form and the descriptive information in the application package constitute the contents of Initial Study pursuant to County Guidelines under Ordinance 3040 and Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines. I. Project Description: USGS Quad: Devore & Cucamonga Peak Ling Yen Mountain Temple APPLICANT: LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE, INC. T,R,Section: T01 NR06WS15 PROPOSAL: CONDmONAL USE pERMIT TO ESTABLISH A RELIGIOUS RETREAT W/OFFICES, DORMITORIES, WORSH p.CENTER & Thomas Bros: Page 4, Grid D1 &2 KITCHEN FACILmES WITH MAJOR VARIANCE FOR BUILDING HEIGHT ON 41.4 · ACRES. Planning Area: West Valley COMMUNITY: WEST VAL[FY FOOTHILLSIS2 Foothills LOCATION: DECLIFF DR., BOTH SIDES; WARDMAN BULLOCK RD.. EASTSIDE. OLUD: WFIPD-II1; PD-112.5 DATES: 745VVVL96009675CUC01/09675CN1 .-- FILE/INDX: CUpNV97-0007/W/139-45 & RL-t0 STAFF: Mac Coleman Improvemen1' REP{'S): ALLARD ENGINEERING (see description below and in Attachment "A") Level: 4 (Rurban) PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS: The proposed project is a Conditional Use Permit application ~ allow construction of a Buddhist Temple and Retreat in the West Valley Foothills area of the unincorporated portion of San Bemardino County adjacent to the cities~ Fontana and Rancho Cucamonga, just northeast of the intersection of Wardman Bullock Drive and Declift Drive (see Attachment "B"). The proposed development will involve the construction of a large Buddhist Temple, and retreat facilities which would include six dormitory buildings, offices, a kitchen, an assembly hall and a lecture hall for a total of approximately 120,000 square feet of new construction. Once a month the temple schedules a retreat wherein the resident monks and invited guests congregate to worship for a week-long service. Guest total is anticipated to be a maximum of 200 persons. No more than four times a year the temple will sponsor a week-long major retreat where a guest total approximates up to 600 persons throughout the course of the week. Depending on dormitory space, a number of guests are expected to remain overnight. .. ,:.....: .: For a detailed project description, refer to Attachment "A". Page I of 34 ENVIRONMENTAL/EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS: The proposed development is located on a 42 acre site which rises significantly in elevation from south to north_:_ Approximately 75% of the site (30 acres) contains slopes ranging from between 5-15%, 15% of ~e site (approximately 6 acres) contains slopes which range from 15-25%, and the remaining fifteen percent of the site (approximately 6 acres) contains slopes in excess of 25%. - Existing vegetation on the northern haft of the site includes coastal sage scrub habitat, and previously cleared sites. The southern half of the site has clearly been previously utilized for agricultural production and currently contains non-native grasses, oats and a eucalyptus windrow. Currently, two residences exist on the site. Properties to the north, south ~nd west are predominantly vacant. One residence is located on the adjacent parcel to the east of the project site. South of the site ar~l_ south of Declift DdVe, a Los Angeles Department of Water and Power transmission line easement is located. Also, an approved residential development (Tract 13664) is located southeast of the proposed project. Pdmary access to the site is currently obtained from Wardman Bullock Drive. EXISTING LAND USE OFFICIAL LAND USE DISTRICT IL North Vacant WF/PD- 112.5 4 South Vacant W'F/RL- 10 4 East _Residence WF/PD-I/1. PD-I/2.5 & RL-10 4 West Vacant WF/PD-I/1, PD-I/2.5 & RL-10 4 II. Identification of maximum potential environmental effect~ of the proposed project The purpose is to identify any botentiallv significant impacts and discuss mitigation measures for identified impacts. Please substantiate your responses by summarizing your assessment of sionificant impacts and referencing documents used as research (e.g.,). Include quantificetion of changes caused by the bro!ect's development at maximum potential buildout from existing status. Circle or underline specific item of concern for "yes" or "maybe" answers if one item applies and others do not. If an impact that would be significant can be mitigated below a level of significance, indicate by checking "yes" or "maybe" with an "®" to "no" and discuss mitigative measure(s) under substantiation. Substantiation is also necessary for "no" answers. NATURAL HAZARDS Yes Maybe No 1. Geologic Hazards. Will the proposal result Page 2 of 34 in significant impacts relat~ }: a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? __ X b. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? __ __X c. The destruction, covering or modification _, of any unique geologic or physical features? __ __X d. Exposure of people or property to geologi~ hazards, sue" as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? __ ~ _.X__ e. Exposure of people or property to water- related seismic hazards such as seiche? __ --~-- DISCUSSION: .__ The project is located in an Alquist-Priolo special studies zone (Cucamonga Fault) and also in an area identified on the County General Plan Hazard Overlay maps as having a range from low to high landslide susceptibility. This susceptibility ranges commensurate with the topography of the site (i.e. steeper slope/higher landslide risk). The proposed development is situated on the more gently sloping southern portion of the site and is therefore unlikely to be affected by any potential landslide susceptibility; however, the State of California and the San Bemafdi,o County Development Code, Section 85.020410(a) require that a detailed geologic study be prepared by a registered geologist to confirm the presence or absence of any hazardous faults and SLsceptibility to landslides and establish appropriate construction setbacks or building requirements. A fault ~'upture analysis was prepared for the project by Kaup Associates (see Attachment 'E') and reviewed by the County Geologist to determine the presence and/or location of the Cucamonga Thrust fault and ascertain the recency and recurrence of faulting in order to prescribe building setbacks. The Geologic Investigation showed that active traces of the Cucamonga Fault :~xist on the site, and recommended that buildings proposed for human occupancy have a setback distance of 75 feet from any fault boundary. Page 3 of 34 SUBSTANTIATION check__~~ if project is located in the Geologic Hazards Overlay District): a. The project will not result in unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures because no substantial excavation or earth moving activities are proposed as part of the development. b. The site is located in the San Sevaine Creek Drainage area. A number of drainage courses traverse the site and may have to be re-routed to accomodate site drainage. This may result in some minor changes to topography and ground surface relief features; however, the basic contours of the site will remain the same, and any re-routing of drainage will not significantly alter the topography of the site; therefore, no significant impact to ground surface relief features is anticipated. c. The project will not result in the destruction, covering or modification of a unique geologic or physical feature because no features of this nature are known to occur on the site. The site has been identified as a mineral resource zone (MRZ-3) by the State of California; however, the suspected aggregate materials on site are not of rare enough nature or in high enough demand to warrant a mining operation on the site which would pose extraction andaccess problems. d. The site is located on the County's Geologic Hazard Overlay as an area of high susceptibility to landslides. This is mainly due to the steepness of the terrain on the north end of the project parcel. The area proposed for development is situated on the less steeply sloping southern portion of the site, and is not likely to be significantly impacted b~) landslide potential. The site is also located within an Alquist-Pdolo special study zone because of the presence of the Cucamonga Fault. The State of California and the County of San Bemardino Development Code required that a project located in the Geologic Hazards Overlay or Alquist-Priolo zone must provide the reviewing body with a copy of a geologic report which addresses these potential hazards. The applicant submitted a geologic investigation performed by Kaup Associates which dextermined that a building setback of 75 feet from the edge of any mapped fault would be sufficient to mitigate potential damage to structures from fault rupture events to below a level of significance. No groundwater was encountered in the exploratory trench excavations on site. Research of published ground water levels in the vicinity of the site indicate that ground water is, and has been, greater than 50 feet in depth. Generally, if ground water levels are deeper than 50 feet, sun~cial deformation due to liquefaction will be minimal Page 4 of 34 /i_27 (Kaup, 1997), and no significant impacts regarding liquefaction are expected to occur. e. The project will not result in the exposure of people or property to water related seismic hazards such as seiche because there are no large 'bodies Of water located on or near the site. MITIGATION: 1. Any building on site intended for human use or occupancy shall be setback from the edge of any earthquake fault zone by a minimum of 75 feet. Yes Maybe No 2. Flood Hazards. Will the proposed project _. result in significant impacts related to: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements? -- b. Changes in deposition, erosion, or siltation that may modify the channel of a river, stream, bay, inlet, or lake? -- c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? __ X >X d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? -- e. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?. -- )~ >-~ f. Exposure of people or property to water- related hazards such as flooding or dam inundation? -- DISCUSSION: The project site is traversed by a number of ephemeral drainage courses which run from northeast to southwest, The northeast corner of the property is crossed by a San Bemardino County drainage easement and a blue line stream which runs through Morse Canyon along the northeast border of the property. Another San Bernardino County drainage easement crosses the subject property on the southwest comer, Site Page 5 of 34 development (see Attachment "D") is not proposed in any of the drainage easement or blueline stream areas; however, some of the smaller drainage courses on site may have to be re-routed to accomodate site flows. SUBSTANTIATION (check if project is located in the Flood Plain Safety Overlay District _ or Dam Inundation Overlay ): a. The project will not result in changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements because the blueline stream onsite does not flow through the area to be developed and is not proposed to be re-routed in any manner. b. There will be no changes in deposition, erosion, or siltation that may modify the channel of a river, stream, bay, inlet or lake because project development will not be occurring in an area where any water body presently exists. c & e. Changes or alterations may occur to the course or flow of flood waters and in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff because some of the onsite drainage courses may have to be re-routed to avoid the area proposed for development. In addition, accommodations must be made to remediate the effect of a large impervious surface parking lot on percolation of water flows into the soil. These alterations to the drainage flows shall be regulated through the requirement for a registered civil engineer to investigate and design adequate drainage facilities to intercept and conduct the flows through the site in a manner which will not adversely affect adjacent or downstream properties when development occurs. In additi~}n, the natural drainage · courses shall not be occupied or obstructed in any manner which would cause an interruption in flow. d. There will be no change in the amount of surface water in any water body as a result of development of this project because there are no water- bodies located on the site. f. There will be no exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or dam inundation because the site is not located near a large body of water nor dam, and is not situated in a flood plain area. MITIGATION: 2. A Registered Civil Engineer shaft investigate and design adequate drainage facilities to intercept and conduct the on-site drainage flows around and through Page 6 of 34 / 2q the site in a manner which will not adversely affect adjacent or dawnstream properties at the time the site is developed. 3. The nature/dreinage courses treversing the site shall not be occupied or obstructed. . Yes Maybe No 3, Fire Hazards, Will the proposed project result ~ "' in significant impacts related to: --- a. Exposure of people or property to wildland fires? X >X _ DISCUSSION: The project site is located in the FR-1 and FRo2 Fire Hazard Overlay Districts which are designated based on their likelihood for wildland conflagration with their locations derived from the California Department of Forestry and U.S. Forest Service. These fire hazard areas are subject to additional development standards as set forth in Sections 85.020210 through 85.020225. SUBSTANTIATION (check ~/if project is located in the Fire Safety Overlay District): a. The project site is located in an area identified as a high fire hazard area (FR-1 and FR-2). The development standards as set forth in County Development Code Sections 85.020210 through 85.020225 reduce the risk of hazard to people from wildland conflagration to below a level of significance. MI TIGA TION: 4. The project is located within the San 'Bemardino County Fire Safety Overlay Districts (Fire Review Areas) FR-1 and FR.2, and shall comp;v with applicable Fire Safety Overlay requirements. Applicable requirements shall be included in the construction plans prior to issuance of building permits, and in place on the site prior to final occupancy. Yes Maybe No 4. Wind and Water/Erosion. Will the proposed project result in significant impacts related to: a. Any increase in wind or water erosion of " X >X soils, either on or off the site? -- Page 7 of 34 DISCUSSION: During construction of the project, approximately 16 acres of land will be disturbed by grading operations. Approximately 150,000 cubic yards of earth are proposed to be moved during a balanced grading program. This land disturbance will increase the potential for wind and water erosion of soil on site. These incremental increases in erosion are not deemed to be significant because the exposed soil will be covered over by development and landscaping shortly after disturbance; however, to reduce potential effects to the lowest level possible, erosion controls are proposed as mitigation measures. These measures will assure that effects from wind and water erosion remain below a level of significance. SUBSTANTIATION: a. There will be incremental increases in wind and water erosion due to development of the site and commensurate soil disturbance which occurs with construction; however, the disturbance is t~mporary in nature and will occur immediately prior to development of the site___with structures, parking lot and landscaping. Erosion control measures are proposed which will assure that any erosion occurring will be maintained at a level below significance. MITIGATION: 5. An erosion and sediment control plan and permit shall be submitted to and approved by the Building Official prier to any land disturbance. 6. Cessation of land disturbance shall occur, or water spraying or other dust palliatives shall be utilized to suppress airborne particles during periods of wind exceeding 25 mph or during weather conditions which cause visible airborne dust. MANMADE HAZARDS Yes Maybe No 5. Noise. Will the proposed project result in significant impacts related to: a. Increases in existing noise levels? __ X > X b. Exposure of people to severe noise ..... _. levels? __ _X Page 8 of 34 DIE JSSION: _. '- The temple is proposed to'be developed on a site which currently is developed with just two single family residences. Up to 60 Buddhist monks will be permanently residing on site. These permanent residents will participate in their own religious services conducted by themselves on a daily basis. A very small number of non-resident visitc, , per week (less than 15) are expected at the temple and once a month4he~emple will hold a retreat where the resident monks and up to 200 invited guests will congregate to worship. Up to four times a year, the temple will sponsor a week.long major retreat where a guest total could be up to 600 persons over the course of the retreat, There will be limited room for some guests to remain overnight in the temple dormitories. The increase in number of people on site, and vehicles visiting the site will increase ambient noise levels in the area, No amplified outdoor p~_blic address system or noise generator of any kind is proposed with this project. SUBSTANTIATION (check if the project is located in the Noise Hazard Overlay District _ or is subject to severe noise levels according to the General Plan Noise Element ): a. An increase in existing noise levels will occur as a result'of temporary construction noise and the proposed development because a lar-.=, congregation area and dormitories are proposed where currently only t~;> single family residences now occur. Services and retreats held on site, as well as potential visitor type traffic such as experienced at Hsi Lai Temple in "' Hac c~-~da Heights will increase ambient noise levels e'~perienced by local resic~nts. While it is not anticipated th.~; the Ling Yen Mountain Temple will produce nc :e levels that fall above the decibel threshold established b~, County Ordinance, mitigation measur,.. _, have nevertheless beer ~-ropose: to a,:ld assurance that noise levels reaching surrounding proper . will no; exceed County standards. b. The project will not result in the exposure of people to severe noise levels because the proposed use is does not contain any developmental eler:ents known to generate severe noise, and there are no severe noise producers near the site to impact future users of the temple. MITIGATION: 7. No outside public address systems, speakers, bells or other noise generating devices shall be installed on site without the applicant first applying for and receiving a revision to this conditional use permit which includes an analysis of potential effects on surrounding property owners from noise. Page 9 of 34 I_ u'9 8. Prfor to issuance of building permits, the applicant shaft submit preliminary acoustical information demonstrating that the proposed project maintains noise levels at or below San Bemardino County Noise Standard(s), San Bemardino County Development Code Section 87.0905(b). The purpose is to evaluate potential future on-site and/or adjacent off-site noise sourues. If the preliminary information cannot demonstrate compliance to noise standards, a project specific acoustical analysis shall be required. Submit information/analysis to the Department of Environmental Health Services (DEHS) for review and approval. _. Yes Maybe No 6. Aviation Safety. Will the proposed project result in significant impacts related to: a. Exposure of people to dsk from aircraft operations? __ X DISCUSSION: The project site is not located in an Airport Safety Overlay District nor in any regular flight path. Aircraft operations are not likely to occur near the site in the future either due to the project's location adjacent to foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. SUBSTANTIATION (check if project is located in the Airport Safety Overlay District): a. The project will not result in exposure of people to risk from aircraft operations because there are no regular aircraft operations occurring, or likely to occur in the future, in close proximity to the site. MITIGATION: None Required Yes Maybe No 7. Hazardous/Radioactive Materials. Will the proposed project result in significaht impacts related to: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticicles, chemicals, or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? __ b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? __ _X Page 10 of 34 c. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? -- d. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? __ X · DISCUSSION AND SUBSTANTIATION: a.- d. The proposed temple is a predominantly residential use for the monks residing on site and for infrequent worshippers and retreat guests. No industry or any uses are proposed which would employ the use of toxic or caustic substances. The proposed use will not interfere with any emergency response plan or evacuation plan as the temple is not situated between any existing uses and routes of travel. No uses which would pose a health hazard are proposed and no health hazards are known to exist onsite which would subject people to exposure to health risks. MITIGA T/ON: None Required NATURAL RESOURCES Yes Maybe No 8. Biological Resources. W~II the proposed project result in significant impacts related to: a. Loss, reduction, or deterioration of habitat and/or change in diversity of species of plants or animals? X > X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of plants or animals? X c. Introduction of exotic species of plants or animals into an area, or in a barrier _ to the normal replenishment or migration of existing species? -- X DISCUSSION: The site of the proposed project is situated in southwestem San Bernardino County at the base of the coastal slope of the San Gabriel Mountains. Following the geographic system of The Jepson manual, the site is at the boundary between the Transverse Ranges and the South Coast subregions of the Southwestern California Region of the California Page 11 of 34 Floristic Province. The northerly half of the site is within the steep, rugged foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains while the southerly half is on a moderately sloping alluvial fan at the base of the bothills. Elevations on the site range from about 1,750 to 2,150 feet above sea level (LSA Associates 1996). '" '" General biological surveys of the site were done by the independent consulting firm of .LSA Associates in 1996 to map vegetation, inventory plant and animal species and assess habitat suitability for sensitive elements. In addition, focused surveys for the California gnatcatcher were conducted in the coastal sage scrub on the northerly portion of the site. The full biological assessment report is included in this initial environmental study as Attachment "C". The parcel the project is proposed to be located on is approximately 42 acres in size, and was completely assessed by LSA Associates for biological resources. The hilly, northerly half of the subject property is relatively undisturbed and supports native vegetation. The only disturbances to biological values consist of a single dirt roadway, a small water tank, and activities associated with the two occupied residences which exist on site. Adjacent foothill areas and some portions of the alluvial fan in nearby area~ support coastal sage scrub. Other nearby areas of the alluvial fan are occupied by non-native annual grassland and ruderal species (LSA Associates 1996). The southerly haft of the subject property (the portion of the site on the alluvial fan which is proposed for disturbance with this project) has been disturbed by past and current land uses that have reduced the biological values of this portion of the site. Virtually no native vegetation remains on this portion of the site. Disturbances include past agricultural ' ' operations, construction of two existing transmission lines, the presence of two occupied residences, construction of flood control. structures immediately south of the site, and ongoing weed abatement and fuel modification zone practices. The northerly portion of the site provides high value habitat for a variety of wildlife species. The vast majority of species detected on the site were found in this area. The high value of the northerly portion of the site as wildlife habitat can be attributed to the relatively undisturbed condition of the native vegetation and contiguity with extensive adjoining areas of undisturbed habitat. The primary habitat value of the southerly portion of-lhe site is as habitat for various raptor species. The eucalyptus trees existing on site (which are proposed for removal) provide perching and roosting sites and the cleared areas of the site and surrounding lands provide ample foraging opportunities. The virtual lack of native vegetation on the southerly portion of the site limits its value as habitat for most other wildlife species. (LSA 1996). ' ' Page 12 of 34 /_, The sensitive species identified as occurring or potentially occurring on the project site would be impacted by the proposed project through a loss of individuals from the and/or a loss of suitable habitat; howe ,'er, none of the sensitive species occurring: potentially occurring on the site are listed as Threatened or Endangered. An area encompassing about 16 acres will be graded for project construction. The area to be disturbed consists primarily of previously disturbed land, a small area (less than on- quarter acre) of coastal sage scrub will be removed as will the two eucalyptus windrows and some of the eucalyptus trees around the existing residence near the easteriy property boundary. The northerly portion of the site, which contains the highest quality habitat areas is not proposed for disturbance. The effects of the project on biological resources in general (sensitive and non-sensitive resources) would consist primarily of direct impacts to plants and wildlife associated with grading and other construction activities. These direct impacts are not considered significant at the project level because development is proposed to occur on the site in an area"'of heavy previous disturbance and little to no quality habitat. The project also represents a very small contribution to the cumulative effects of pa::t and ongoing development of wildlife habitat in the project vicinity and Southem California. Due to the relatively small area to be graded of previously disturbed low value habitat, impacts of the proposed project are not considered to be signifir ~t regarding biological resources. - ' SUBSTANTI/~"")N (check if project is located in the Biological Resources Overlay __ or contains habita, ~ar any species listed in the California Natural Diversity Database ~/ ): a. The proposal is located on a site which contains coastal sage scrub whi:'i may provide habitat for sensitive species of flora and fauna. However, development is proposed on the southern portion of the site in an area that has been previous.;y disturbed and developed with two residences. To · assure that potential loss,-reduction or deterioration of habitat for plant or animals is kept below a level of significance, mitigation measures are- included which provide for avoidance of any a.reas containing native habitat. b. No rare, threatened, or endangered species of plants or animals were located on site during biological surveys done by LSA Associates. The area :.' coastal sage scrub has potential to provide habitat for the California gna~. ::her, Plummer's madposa lily and Parry's spineflower; however, the areas of coastal sage scrub are steep, rugged ant; -~latively inaccessible and not proposed for development with this project. ,: :tigation Measure #9 below also mandates that areas of native habitat remain undisturbed. P,_ .j. 13 of 34 c. Since landscaping is a component of the project, the potential for invasive non-native species to migrate into the coastal sage scrub habitat exists. A landscaping plan (mitigation measure #10) shall be required which stipulates use of non-invasive flora and/or native plants shall be followed. This requirement will reduce the potential for the introduction of exotic species into the native area to below a level of significance. Nighttime lighting of the site may affect the feeding, breeding, migration or other behavior patterns of wildlife in the area. To insure that this effect does not -reach a level of significance, mitigation measure #11 has been proposed which directs all manmade night lighting away from natural open space --- areas. MITIGA T/ON: 9. Project grading shall be designed to preserve existing native habitat. 10.' Landscaping of the site shall make use of plants native to the local ragion wherever feasible. A landscaping plan shall be developed emphasizing the use of plants native to the local region. Non-native plant species that may invade natural areas should not be used in project landscaping. 11. All street, secuMy, and landscape lighting of the project should be designed and installed such that it is not directed toward any natural open space areas. Yes Maybe No 9. CulturallPaleontological Resources. Will the proposed project result in significant impacts related to: a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric/historic archaeological site? X > .,~ b. Physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? X > _X c. A physical change that would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Restricting existing religious or sacred- uses within the potential impact area? __ X Page 14 of 34 e. Any alteration or destruction of fossil remains? __ _X DISCUSSION: The site has been identified as being located within an area of high potential for buried historic amhaeological resources associated with historic structures and previously mapped archaeological sites by the San Bernardino County Museum Archaeological Information Center. SUBSTANTIATION (check if the project is located in the Cultural ',/or Paleontologic._ Resources overlays or cite results of cultural resource review): a &b. The site is 10ceted in an area with potential for buded historical archaeological resources. Prior to any land disturbance on site, a field inventory shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist to determine if monitoring should be required during land disturbance. If recommended, on-site monitodng and subsequent curation of any specimens found shall occur. This measure shall reduce potential impacts2t_o cultural resources to below a level of significance. c & d. The proposed project will have no impact on ethnic, cultural or religious uses in the area because no such uses have been historically occurring on site. e. The site is not identified by the County Museum as being of a soil type to be rich in fossil remains, nor have fossil remains histodcally been located there. M/TIGA T/ON: 12. The project site is located in an area which has the potential for ArchaeOlogical Resources. Prior to any land disturbance, an approved archaeologist shall conduct an archaeological field survey per County Museum guidelines and submit two copies to the Land Use Services Department for review and approval. The field survey shall state whether monitoring for cultural resources is deemed necessary during land disturbance. Yes Maybe , No 10. Air Quality. Will the proposal result in: a. Subs;antial air emissions or deterioration.... of ambient air quality? __ X , X Page 15 of 34 b. The creation of objectionable odors? __ _. _X c. Alteration of/~ir movement, moisture or temperature, Or_any change in climate, either locally or regionally? __ X DISCUSSION: TemDorary Construction Related Impacts Potential air quality impacts from construction activities were evaluated using the South Coast Air Quality Management Distdct CEQA Handbook procedures and emissions factors. During construction of the project, approximately 16 acres of land will be disturbed by grading operations. Clearing, excavation and grading during construction will generate temporary construction related fugitive dust and emissions at or near the site during active building periods. During an estimated 45-day earthmoving period, a front end loader, two heavy transport trucks and one to two graders/scrapers will be used to move approximately 150,000 cubic yards of earthen material on site in a balanced grading program. The grading would take place during 30 working days witl'iin the 45 day schedule with an estimated two (2) acres of land area being graded per day. These temporary construction activities are anticipated to fall well below thresholds of- signfficance set by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for airborne emissions. The following table estimates average daily construction related emissions as they relate~E} daily thresholds of significance. ' Average Daily Emissions From Construction Related ACtivities (Ibs/day) Emission Factors · in Ibs/hr Unjt PM10** ROC NOx SOx CO PM10 ROC NOx SOx CO Front End Loader .11 ,12 1,26 .14 1.25 lu/Bhr 0.9 1.0 10.1 1.1 10.0 Heavy Trans~ort Trucks ,14 ,15 1,70 .14 .68 2u/8hr 2.3 2.4 27.2 2.3 10.9 1 Grader/1 Scraper ,41 .27 3.84 .46 1,25 2u/Bhr 66 4.3 61.4 8.3 20 Earthmoving Operations 26.4 Ibs per acre per day [ 2 aches/day 72,0 - Total Daily Average N.A. 81.8 7.7 98.7 11.7 40.9 AQMD Daily Threshold of N,A. 150 55 55 150 550 Signfficance *Sou;ce: SCAQMD CEQA Handbook 1993 --PM10 total is a sum of PM10 associated exhaust emissions, unpaved mad emissions and construction emissions. As shown, daily emissions are not expected to be above the thresholds of significance allowed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The implementation of mitigation measures for these impacts will further reduce any potential for significant impacts .... ... Page 16 of 34 Mobile Emission Sources Daily operations of the temple are expected to result in no more than 15 visitors from offsite during a typical week. This activity would result in an estimated 7 vehicle trips ( a vehicle trip equals one, two-way trip), assuming an average of 2 visitors per vehicle. The project description provides for a very limited number of 'retreats' which would result in larger numbers of vehicles going to and from the site. Vehicle emissions occurring from transport vehicles durin9 the scheduled retreats will vary depending on the number of vehicles attending the retreat. The maximum of 200 visit_ors during monthly retreats would result in approximately 100 vehicles (at 2 persons per vehicle) over the course of the week long retreat. This would average less than 15 cars per day during that retreat week. The large retreats, which would host up to 600 people during a week four times a year, are expected to result in a maximum of approximately 300 vehicles (at 2 persons per vehicle) over a week long period. In the worst case scenario, 300 vehicle trips to the site could occur on a single day at the beginning of the retreat and at the end; however, it is exp~ed that the vehicles' ardval and departure will be spread over the course of the retreat week since there are no overnight accommodations for 600 guests at the temple. The periods of mobile emissions sources occurring are so limited and sporadic in nature that significance thresholds for daily air emissions are not exceeded, and therefore no mitigation is required. SUBSTANTIATION (discuss conformity with the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, if applicable): __ a. The proposed project may cause degradation of air quality during the construction phase due to land disturbance and emissions from construction related vehicles. The only emission source that exceeds average daily thresholds is NOx, all other emissions fall below threshold limitations. The threshold exceedance for NOx is not considered significant since it will be of extremely limited duration (approximately 30 days) during grading activities and all oth~ u~i~eria pollutants are below threshold levels, Mitigation measures have been developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District which when employed have been shown to reduce construction related air emissions to below a level of significance. Those mitigation measures are included below and shall be incorporated into the project's conditions of approval in order to reduce potential air quality impacts to below a level of significance. Mobile emission sources are recognized within the growth management projections of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (SCAQMP). The yearly traffic generated by the Ling Yen Temple will not produce mobile emissions which fall outside those already accounted for in the SCAQMP. b. No odor producing uses are proposed on-site. Page 17 of 34 c. No uses proposed for the site will impede air flow or movement, not cause fluctuations in temperature or general climate. MITIGATION: 13. The construction contractors shall water the site and clean all equipment in the morning and evening, " 14, The construction contractors shaft schedule and require a phased schedule of construction to even out emission peaks. 15. The construction contractors shall remove silt by paving construction reads, sweeping streets, and washing trucks leaving construction site. 16. The construction contractors shall suspend grading operations during the first and ' second stage smog alerts. 17. The construction contractors shall maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned. 18. The construction contractors shall use Iow-sulfur fuel for equipment. 19. As much as possible, the contractor shall schedule clearing, grading, and earthmoving activities during periods of low wind speeds. Construction activities during high wind conditions shall be restricted as much as possible when wind speeds exceed 20 mph average. 20, The construction contractors shall restrict construction vehicles speeds to 15 mph on unpaved roads, 2~. The construction contractors shall: a. provide rideshare and transit incentives for construction personnel. b. configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. c, minimize obstructions of through traffic lanes d. provide a flagperson to guide traffic preperiy. ~ e. schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Yes Maybe No 11. Water Supply/Water Quality. Will the proposed project result in significant impacts related to: a. Changes in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or Page 18 of 34 ,. :hdrawals, or through in~, ception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations (onsite)? -- b. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? -- c. Alteration of the directioL .~r rate of flow of groundwaters? __ X d. P-~llution, contamination, or any change in the quality of groundwater (toxics, nitrates, fluorides, salts, etc.)? _ X _ e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? __ _.. X DISCUSSION: The project is located within the Cucemonga County Water District. Currently no a~:..:~ct water facilities are in the immediate area. The nearest water and sewer facilities are approximatel.~ _700 feet to the south. Use of these facilities to serve the temple would require an extension at the developer's expense as well as a private onsite distribution and storage system. This system would be maintained by the owner/developer. SUBSTANTIATION: a. The proposed project does not include ~ny new on-site wells or other excavations which would intercept any acquifers or result in the withdrawal of any groundwater underlying the site, b. The Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD) has issued a "will-serve" letter indicating there is adequatewater supply available to the new temple use with the provision that they extend existing water lines to the site. This additional use of the water available from CCWD will not result in a reduction or shortage of water otherwise available for public consumption, c, No alteration to the direction and rate of flow of Groundwater is anticipated with this project, as it proposes no uses which wGald intercept the underlying acquifer. Page 19 of 34 d&e. The proposed temple does not include any uses which would result in the discharge of chemicals or toxics into water bodies or the soil. MITIGATION: None Required Yes Maybe No 12. Open Space/Recreation/Scenic. Will the proposed project result in significant impacts related to: a. The quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? __ _X b. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? __ X c. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? -- X d. New light or glare? X > X DISCUSSION: The site is not located in a scenic comdor or within the viewshed of any scenic route as listed in the San Bemardino County General Plan; however, it is located in the southern foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains within the boundaries of the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program (NEOSHPP) where currently some residential development exists. The NEOSHPP encourages the preservation of open space lands. The temple will be visible from the existing residential areas which lie approximately 3/4 of a mile to the south and from Interstate 15 (approximately 3 miles southeast of the site) by the traveling public. A total of ten new structures are proposed around a centrally located open courtyard. All structures proposed..are single story except for the six dormitory buildings (2-story) and the main temple focal point of the complex which is proposed to be- approximately ninety-six feet high. Attachment "G" shows a colored architectura rendering of the complex as well as photographs of the site as it exists today. Structures are proposed to be developed in earthtone colors such as brown, tan, rust, white and pimento. SUBSTANTIATION (check __ if project is located within the viewshed of any Scenic Route listed in the General Plan): a. The site is not currently available for, nor used for, recreational activities as it is privately held land with an occupied residence on site. Page 20 of 34 b. The site is not located in a scenic corridor or within the viewshed of any scenic route as listed in the San Bernardino County General Plan; however, it is located in the southem foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains within the boundaries of the NEOSHPP. The project is consistent with the goals of the NEOSHPP because 31.3 acres (76%) of the site will remain open space. The temple will be visible from the existing residential areas to the south and from Interstate 15 by the'traveling public. The color scheme proposed will blend with the foothills and with the existing residential development on site. The temple's location in a small cove-like area of the foothills will make it less than obtrusive into the visual expanse. It is not · -- anticipated to be an intrusion to the vistas viewable from the freeway nor the residential developments to the south. Future development of an approved tract just south of the temple site will further obstruct the temple from surrounding views. Development on site currently disrupts the visual lines of the foothills and breaks them up with color. The development of the temple is not anticipated to produce any offensive vistas in this currently disturbed area. c. The proposed temple design will use earthtone type colors which are not expected to be offensive visually (see visual simulations in Attachment "G"). No outside storage or other potentially aesthetically displeasing uses are proposed on site. In addition to hues of brown, tan, white and rust, materials used will be non-reflective in nature and are expected to be compatible with the visual setting of the area. d. W~h the development of the temple, new light sources have the potential to occur on site. No outside spotlights are proposed for the development. Mitigation measure number 11 prohibits any lighting to illuminate natural open space areas. In addition, a mitigation measure which contains provisions for hooding of any ligl~ting to contain illumination within site boundaries will reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. MITIGATION: 22. Any lighting utilized on site shall be hooded and downshielded to prevent illumination of any surrounding properties. Yes Maybe No 13. Soils/Agriculture. Will the proposed project result in significant impacts related to: a. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or overcovering of the soil? -- Page 21 of 34 b. Loss of agricultural soils? _ X c, Reduction in-acreage of any agricultural crop? __ _~ DISCUSSION: The site has previously been under agricultural production, but has been fallow for quite some time. The lands proposed for development are not listed on the Important Farmlands Overlay nor in demand for agricultural production. SUBSTANTIATION (check if project is located in the Important Farmlands Overlay): a-c. No significant impacts to Soils/Agriculture will occur as the site is not classified as an important farmland, and is not currently under any agricultural production. MITIGA T/ON: None Required Yes Maybe No 14. Mineral Resources. Will the proposed project result in significant impacts related to: a. Prohibit or restrict the development of any mineral resource rated as Classified or Designated by the State Mining and Geology Board? __ _X DISCUSSION: The site is within the Mineral Resource Zone Oveday (MRZ-3) and mining has previously occurred near the site; however, there are currently no mining operations being conducted on site, nor is there a demand for any mineral resources existing on the site. SUBSTANTIATION (check __~_ if project is located within the Mineral Resource Zone Overlay): a. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act requires the identification and classification of all areas subject to urbanization to determine mineral resources. The California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (DDMG) compiled geologic information to develop a classification of the land in the San Bernardino region by Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs). The MRZs are identified by the presence or absence of significant sand, gravel, or stone deposits that are suitable for grade aggregate. The Ling Yen Temple site is classified as Mineral Resource Page 22 of 34 Zone '3'. This is defined as :n area containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot b: evaluated from available data. However, the only identified resource at the site appears to be construction aggregate that is not conSjdered suitable for use or feasible to mine due to the difficulty in obtaining access to the site throug.~ '-9sidential areas. MITIGATION: None Required -" "" MANMADE RESOURCES Yes Maybe No 15116.' Utilities/Infrastructure. Will the proposal rest!" in significant impacts related to a need Tot r;ew systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? -- b. Communications systems? -- c. Water? -- X-- d, Sewer? -- e. Storm water drainage? -- f. Solid waste and disposal? -- DISCUSSION: At present, the site has been developed with two houses. Said homes are currently serviced by all utilities except public ~ ~ter or ': ~tural gas. Pdvate wells are currently used for domestic water services and p' ae is used for gas service. The development will be required to utilize Cucamonga County Water District. Their lines will have to be extended to the development from approxim~ 2700 feet away at the developer's expense. SUBSTANTIATION: a-f. All necessary power, natural gas, communication systems, water, sewer, storm water systems and solid waste disposal are available to the site, or can be extended to the site at the develDpe~"s expense./~'~v extensions of these systems that may occur will not result in a signific~ '- impact to the surrounding area. Page 23 of 34 MITIGATION: None Required. '17. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposed project result in significant impacts related to: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present pattems of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? _~_ f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, equestrians, or pedestrians? X DISCUSSION: Vehicle trips to and from the proposed temple will be primarily passenger vehicles with some busing of visitors and members on occasion. Up to 60 monks will reside on site and normal operations of the temple are expected to result in no more than 15 visitors from off site dudng a typical week. Approxin~at~ly 7 vehicle trips per day would result from visits to the temple. The monks residing on site may have occasional need to leave the site. This need is not expected to result in more than 14 vehicle trips per week. Once a month, the temple schedules a retreat wherein the resident monks and invited guests congregate to worship for a week-long service. Guest total is anticipated to be a maximum of 200 persons. No more than four times a year the temple will sponsor a week-long major retreat where a guest total approximates up to 600 persons throughout the course of the week. Depending on dormitory space, a number of guests are expected to remain overnight. The project description provides for a very limited number of 'retreats' which would result in larger numbers of vehicles going to and from the site as a result of scheduled retreats throughout the year. The maximum number of passenger vehicles expected at any monthly retreat would be approximately 100 (at 2 persons per vehicle) during a week long event. This would result in an average of less Page 24 of 34 /- than 15 cars per day during that retreat week. Large retreats would occur at a maximum of 4 times per year are expected to result in a maximum of a~.~roximately 300 vehicles (at 2 persons per vehicle) over a week long period. These lar~;= retreats would result in an average of up to 43 passenger vehicles per day. The County Traffic Division of Transportation/Flood Control evaluated this project for · conformance under the Congestion Management Plan (CMP). The CMP requireme, -; primarily focus on potential impacts which may occur during'times that the roa~.o, highways and freeways are experiencing peak hour flows. The area in which the Ling Yen Temple is proposed to be developed experiences peak hour flows norrnally dudng the weekday morning home to work commute between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and the weekday afternoon work to home commute between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. The large retreats, which would host up to 600 people dudng a week four times a year, are expected to result in a maximum of approximately 300 vehicles (at 2 persons per vehicle) over a week long period. In the worst case scenario, 300 vehicle trips to the site could occur on a single day at the beginning of the retreat and at the end; however, it is expected that the vehicles' arrival and departure will be spread over the course of the retreat week since there are no ovemight accommodations for 600 guests at the temple. The location proposed for the temple is north of the existing residential development in the foothills, where Wardman-Bullock Road has minimal traffic and a level of service of 'A'. The sixty or so resident monks will not leave the site to commute to work, and the maximum 200 monthly/600 quarterly retreat visitors are not expected to affect the peak hour traffic on the weekdays. The site is not located within an urban setting with a high volume of traffic or low levels of service on the existing roadways. The County Traffic Division determined that there was no indication that this Buddhist temple will cause significant traffic problem for commuters nor reduce the level of service experienced on the existing roadways. In addition, road paving improvements to Wardman-Bullock Road and Declift .Drive from the end of the existing improved roadways to the entrance to the facility are required commensurate with this development, and will add to the quality of the existing overall road system in the area. SUBSTANTIATION: a & c. New vehicle trips will be generated as a result of retreats v~hich will be held on site on a monthly and quarterly basis; however, the number of vehicle tdps generated will not degrade the current level of service experienced on existing roadways, nor substantially impact traffic in the area dudng peak travel times. Improvements required for Wardman-Bullock Road and Declift Drive will actually improve the overall circulation for the area residents. b. The project proposes a total of 426 parking spaces (397 autos, 9 buses, 4 loading zones and 16 handicapped designated spaces). The proposed Page 25 of 34 parking exceeds the County Development Code requirements for parking for this type of development. No new demands for parking, or effects on existing parking areas will result from this development. d. The proposed temple will not be producing nor importing products which would result in an alteration to the present pattern of circulation or movement of people and/or goods. e. The project will not employ the use of waterbome, rail or air traffic, nor encroach on those transportation means. f. The project will utilize existing roadways with passenger vehicles. No new hazards will be presented to bicyclists, vehicles, equestrians or pedestrians that do not currently exist with the roadways in place. MITIGA T/ON: None Required Yes Maybe No 18. Energy. Will the proposed project result in significant impacts related to: a. An increase in the rate of consumption of any natural resources? __ _X b. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? __ X c. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? __ X DISCUSSION & SUBSTANTIATION a-c: The proposed temple use will not generate a substantial increase in the rate of consumption of natural resources. The permanent monk population on-site will consume nominal amounts of electricity and propane and/or natural gas, but the net consumption will be less than if the site was developed 'at its full residential as allowed under the current county land use designation or under the City of Rancho Cucamonga's pre- zoning. MITIGA T/ON: None Required. Page 26 of 34 Yes Maybe No 19. Housing/DemographicslSocioeconomics. Will the , . . proposed project result in significant impacts related to: a. An effect on existing housing, or creation of a demand for additional housing? __ X b. Alteration of the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of the area? __ X DISCUSSION: The proposed Buddhist Temple will provide housing for appreximatel.~ :::) monks to live on's~Te full time, and dormitory housing for an additional 36 people to ut~hze during retreat functions. SUBSTANTIATION: a. No effect on existing housing in the area will occur because residents will be monks affiliated directly with the temple and will live-on-site. No creation of a demand for additional housing in the area will occur as all on-site residents will remain in the housing facilities proposed with the project. b. The proposed temple does not have the potential to affect demographics of the area. The use will not create new jobs, nor provide incentive for relocation of large numbers of people to the immediate area. MITIGATION: None Required Yes Maybe No 20. Public Sen/ices, Wi; le proposed project result .... in significant impacts related to a need for new or altered governmental services in: -- a. Fire protection? - __ X b. Police protection? -- c. Schools? -- d. Parks or other recreational facilities? _ X Page 27 of 34 e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? __ X f. Other govemmental services? __ X DISCUSSION: The proposed Ling Yen Mountain Temple is currently served by existing fire and'police protection services in the area. No uses or resident children are proposed for the site which would increase the need for schools, recreation facilities or other governmental sentices. The temple will be subject to the applicable property taxes which fund these services and maintenance of roads. SUBSTANTIATION: a-f. The proposed temple will not increase the need for, or use of, schools, · -- recreational facilities, parks or public services in the area. Necessary access road improvements will be funded by the developer, and tax revenues generated from the development will contribute towards maintenance of roads and public fire and police protection in the area. MITIGATION: None Required LAND USE Yes Maybe No 21. Will the proposed project result in significant impacts related to: a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? (C~onsider the Official Land Use Designation of the project site and surrounding property, as well as their Improvement Level designations on the General Plan infrastructure Overlay and any relevant Resource Overlays.) X SUBSTANTIATION: The project site is located in an area of San Bemardino County which contains land use designations for 'Planned Development' and 'Rural Living'. A church,'s~hagogue, temple or other religious gathering place is allowed in any land use district in the County, subject to a Conditional Use Permit approval. The applicant has filed the appropriate requests for Page 28 of 34 a Conditional Use Permit as well as Major Varianc. requests for an increase in the automatically allowable structure and wall heights in the land use district. The site i.~ '~o adjacent to the City of Rancho Cucamonga within the City's 'sphere of influence. '~e City's Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP) has prezoned the .area as "Hillside Residential Estate" (HRE) which permits up to one dwelling ~nit per ne' ~uildable acre. Although the City of Rancho Cucamanga states that the HRE :~esignation does not permit churches because that use is deemed 'too intensive within this area', this use is consistent with the County's current land use restrictions on site. The proposed temple differs from other churches in that there are no regular weekend services which are often the cause of incompatibilities between churches arid residential uses. The HRE district does however allow Golf Courses, Tennis Clubs and Private Country Clubs. It does not appear that the proposed Buddhist Temple would produce any more traffic or other impacts nor be an ;ntense' use which would conflict with residential uses any more than other allowed uses in the ENSP would. MITIGATION: None Required - Yes Maybe No 22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Does the project have the potential to d~c~rade the quality of the enw '~ment, substantially reduce the habita~ ~f a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or anir~' ~1 community, reduce the number or rostdct th~ --ange of a rare or endangered plant or animal ar eliminate important examples of the major pedods of California history or prehistory? __ X >X b. 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 while long- term impacts will endure well into the future.) -. ~, '...--'- __ X c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively Page 29 of 34 considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) __ _~_ d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? __ X ~ X SUBSTANTIATION: a. The project site is located in an area of coastal sage scrub and potential archaeological artifacts. Mitigation measures Which are included in the conditions of approval will reduce significant impacts to these resources to below a level of significance. b & c. The development of this predominantly disturbed site will not result i~ significant short term impacts no impede long term environmental goals in the area. A long term environmental benefit may actually occur as the site "~ will not be developed with the highest density of residential development which is ultimately proposed by the City of__B_aD~:ho Cucamonga's pre- zoning of the area. d. The development of the temple has the potential to cause adverse effects on human beings in the area by being located in the area in which the Cucamonga earthquake fault is located. Also identified were potential impacts to humans regarding traffic and air quality issues. Mitigation measures have been proposed which are deemed sufficient to reduce these potential effects to a level below significance. III. Discussionof Environmental Evaluation: The Initial Study identified potential impacts in the areas of Geologic Hazards, Flood Hazards, Fire Hazards, Noise, Biological Resources, Cultural/Paleontological Resources, Air Quality, Scenic Resources and Transportation/Cjr~U!at!o_n. Mitigation measures which would become mandates through the project's approvarare proposed in this initial study which would reduce those impacts to below a level of significance. Based upon the Page 30 of 34 effectiveness of the mitigation, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed as the environmental determination on this proposal. IV. Mitigation Measures to be included in project Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Monitoring Program: '1. Any building on site intended for human use or occupancy shall be setback from the edge of any e. arthquake fault zone by a minimum of 75 feet. 2. A Registered Civil Engineer shall investigate and d~sign adequate drainage facilities to intercept and conduct the on-site drainage flows around and through the site in a manner which wftl no~ adversely affect adjacent or downstream properties at the time the site is developed. 3. The natural drainage courses traversing the site shall not be occupied or obstructed. 4. The project is located within the San Bemardino County Fire Safety Overlay Districts (Fire Review Areas) FR-1 and FR-2, and shall comply with applicable Fire Safety Overlay requirements. Applicable requirements shall be included in the construction plans prior to issuance of building permits, and in place on the site prior to final occupancy. 5. An erosion and sediment control plan and perre,;! shall be submitted to and approved by the Building Official prior to any land disturbance. 6. Cessation of land disturbance shall occur, or water-spraying or other dust paftiatives shaft be utilized to suppress airborne particles during periods of wind exceeding 25 mph or durfng weather conditions which cause visible airborne dust. 7. No outside public address systems, speakers, bells or other noise generating devices shaft be installed on site without the applicant first applying for and receiving a revision to this conditional use permit which includes an analysis of potential effects on surrounding property owners from noise. 8. Prior t~ issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit preliminary acoustical information demonstrating that the proposed project maintains noise levels at or below San Bemardino County Noise Standard(s), San Bemardino De Development Code Section 87.0905(b). The purpose is to evaluate potential future on-site and/or adjacent off-site noise sources. If the preliminary information cannot demonstrate compliance to noise standards, a project specific acoustical analysis shall be required. Submit information/analysis to the Department of Environmental Health Services (DEHS) for review and approval. 9. Project grading shall be designed to preserve existing native habitat wherever possible. lO. Landscaping of the site shall make use of plants native to the local region wherever feasible. A landscaping plan shall be developed emphasizing the use of plants native to Page 31 of 34 the local region. Non-native p/ant species that may invade natural areas should not be used in project landscaping. 1'1. Aft street, security, and landscape lighting of the project should be designed and installed such that it is not directed toward any natural open space areas. '12 The project site is located in an area which has the potential for Archaeological Resources. Prior to any land disturbance, an approved arch~ieologist shall conduct an archaeological field survey per County Museum guidelines and submit two copies to the Land Use Services Department for review and approval. The field survey shall state whether monitoring for cultural resources is deemed necessary during land disturbance. 13, The construction contractors shall water the site and clean all equipment in the morning and evening. 14. The construction contractors shall schedule and require a phased schedule of construction to even out emission peaks. 15. The construction contractors shall remove silt by paving construction roads, sweeping streets, and washing trucks leaving construction site. The construction contractors shall suspend grading operations during the first and second stage smog alerts. 17. The construction contractors shall maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned. 18. The construction contractors shall use Iow-sulfur fuel for equipment. '19. As much as possible, the contractor shall schedule clearing, grading, and earthmoving activities during periods of low wind speeds. Construction activities during high wind conditions shall be restricted as much as possible when wind speeds exceed 20 mph average. 20. The construction contractors shall restrict construction vehicles speeds to '15 mph on unpaved roads. 21. The construction contractors shall: a. provide rideshare and transitjncentives for construction personnel b. configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. c. minimize obstructions of through traffic lanes d. provide a flagperson to guide traffic properly. e. schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. 22. Any lighting utilized on site shall be hooded and downshielded to prevent illumination of any surrounding properties. Page 32 of 34 It" :al Environmental Evaluation R epared,(~ . -~ . .. <::} ~ ' ,:::;" ;~r~ior Associate F;lanner . Date Nancy~/,.~ On the basis of this initial evaluation: The proposed project WOULD NOT have a significant _ ';ect [ ~ I on the environment, (and Mitigation Measures are incluoed within the project's Conditions of Approval) and a '3EGATIVE _ DECLARATION should be prepared. The proposed project MAY have a significant adverse effect I I on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ..... should be required. , ..... \ RaCy Sc~t~ P"Fa'anning Manager For Valerv Pilmer. Land Use Services Director ATTACHMENTS: A. Project Description B. Vicinity Map C. Assessor's Page D. Site Plans E. Geologic Study F. Biological Assessment G, Visual Simulation Page 33 of 34 ,,/. .- REFERENCES (List author or agency, date, title) Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act Map Series (PRC 27500) . CEQA Guidelines, Appendix K County Museum Archaeological Information Center County Museum Paleontologic Information Center County of San Bernardino Development Code (Printing B), 1991; Revised May 15, 1997 County of San Bernardino General Plan, adopted 1989, revised December, 1998 County of San Bernardino Hazard Oveday Maps FH 20 & 21 County of San Bernardino Identified Hazardous Materials Waste Sites List, November 1990 Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map and Flood Boundary Map Kaup Associates, Geotechnical Consultants, Enoineerin_o Geolo_eic Investi_eation. November 1997 LSA Associates, Inc.. Lin_e Yen Mountain Temple Biolo_oical Assessment Report. November 1996 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, September 1992 State of California, Division of Mines and Geology; Mineral Land Classification of a Dart of Southwestern San Bemardino County: The San Bernardino Valley Area. California. 1995 Page 34 of 34 _ Attachment "A" LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION ProDosal The project proposes to establish a Buddhist temple and retreat with a major variance for building height on approximately 40 acres in the West Valley foothills north of the City of. Rancho Cucamonga. The complex consists of a sanctuary, lecture hall, kitchen and dining hall, offices and dormitories. New construction totals approximately 132,550 square feet. Two existing residential structures will remain and be used for caretaker purposes and storage. Permane'~-occupancy is expected to be 60 persons. Existing Setting The project site is currently undeveloped but highly disturbed from past agricultural activity. Two residential structures located north and outside the project's development footprint are existing and will remain for storage and caretaker purposes. The property slopes from north to South at varying angles. Approximately seventy percent (30 acres) contains slopes ranging from 5 to 15 percent. Fifteen percent (6 acres) contain slopes ranging from 15 to 25 percent and the remaining fifteen percent (6 acres) contains slopes greater than 25' percent. Vegetation includes coastal sage scrub on the northern half of the site and a stand of approximately 50 eucalyptus tree on the southern half of the property. ' - Physical Improvements The project is designed with a traditional Buddhist architectural style featuring large profile buildings with high upward sloping roof lines. A total of ten (10) new structures are proposed around a centrally located open courtyard. The centerpiece and focal point of the complex is the assembly hall located on the northern perimeter of the courtyard. This two story structure will be approximately ninety-six (96) feet high. A dining room and kitchen will be located immediately beneath and form the first floor of this structure. Two single story office/conference buildings are proposed on the southern perimeter of the courtyard. Six dormitory structures will rim the east and west perimeter of the courtyard, thus completely enclosing the facility. The dormitories.are two story and designed for sixteen rooms per structure. Maximum capacity totals 96 persons (including resident monks) for the combined six units. A one story lecture hall is proposed directly north and behind the assembly hall. All on site parking areas-arid access approaches will be surfaced with A.C. paving. Ling Yen Mountain Temple Project Description · Page 2 Site preparation will involve the movement of approximately 150,000 cubic yards of earth in a balanced grading program. The eucalyptus windrow will be removed. Criblock retaining walls will be installed throughout the project to control the height of cut and fill slopes. The maximum height of the criblock walls is proposedAD be ..tWenty (20) feet. The walls will be landscaped. Primary access to the project will be provided via Wardman Bullock and Declift Ddves.. Neither street is currently improved. Permanent improvements will be consistent with San Bemardino County Transportation Department standards are will provide paved access to the project. The day to day operation of the temple is passive. Approximately 60 monks are expected to reside on site in the dormitories. These permanent residents participate in services conducted by themselves daily. A nominal number of worshippers visit the facility during these inactive times (less than 15 persons per week anticipated). ' Once a month the temple schedules a retreat wherein the resident monks and invited guests congregate to 'worship for a week-long service. Guest total is anticipated to be a maximum of 200 persons. No more than four times a year the temple will sponsor a week-long-major retreat where a guest total approximates up to 600'persons throughout the course of the week. Depending on dormitory space, a number of guests are expected to remain overnight. - Attachment "B" DECLIFt R ~' _,_,,-- LADW & P GLENDORA DR - SUk4Mff / - HIGHLAND AVE VICINITY MAP Attachment ~C" I 0050-79 -, ® ,/ 40 AC #00 AC 80 ;~C "" "/~ ~) 40 AC '40AC 4 ~ ~ ~ 40 AC / · ~ ~. J WB~ -- 0~'0 7. c A .C~r/~./e-~ S C. = ~ TOC23 I ~ 20 AC 20~. ~ 22.52 AC+ B 15.15 AC ~0 AC I T, CA. ~ ..... f ~r~~ I "~" "' '= ~ I ~SSE: Attachment ~D" Attachment KA UP ASSOCiATES GEO TECttNICAL CONS UL TANTS ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION PROPOSED LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE (LOT 7, PM NO. 9461) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA Prepared For Mr. RICHARD HU, P.E. HU ASSOCIATES 11955 RIVERA ROAD ~~l~ November 9, 1997 Job No: 97-425 KA UP A. CIA TE, TECHNIC L UL November 9, 997 Job No.: 97.425 2 Mr.. Richard Hu, P.E. Hu Associates 11955 Rivera Road Santa Fe Springs, California 90670 SUBJECT: Engineering Geologic Investigation, Proposed Ling Yen Mountain Temple, Lot 7, PM No. 9461, County of San Bemardino, California Dear Mr. Hu: According to our discussions and mutual ascent to the t~rms, an engineering get ~logic investigation was performed for the proposed Ling Yen Mountain Temple, County o1 ~a~ Bernardino, California. The purpose of our investigation was to determine the presence and Iocatio of the Cucamonga Thrust fault and ascertain the recency and recurrence of faulting :to pre crfbe building set-backs. The investigation coi~sisted Of: · 1) re~,iew of previous geologic studio! both pertinent to our task and readily available. 2) excavation of approximately f,O f O lineal feet of t~ ench, 3) geologic examination of the subsudace materials, 4) preparatio~ of detailed logs of the ge ~logic units exposed in the exploratory trench,=,.. 5) review of aerial photographs, 6) analysis of all collected data, and 7) preparation of this report. LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE JOB NO: 97425 SITE CONDITIONS The site is located north of Declift Drive and west of Dawnridge Drive in the unincorporated territory of San Bernardino County, California. Rectangular in shape, the approximately 40 acre site contains two single family residential structures near the base of the San Gabriel Mountains within the northern one thirdof the 40 acre site. Previous grading evidently occurred to create the level building pads that provide support for the residential structures. Additional uncertified grading is conspicuous as the small artificially planar area between the existing dwellings. Minor surficial grading presumably occurred to facilitate site irrigation for an extinct citrus grove reported to have occupied the majority of the southern two thirds of the Lot. Site topography consists chiefly of planar alluvial terrain that slopes toward the south at approximately 10 percent. Within the northern one of the property, steep ascending terrain forms the southern timits of the San Gabriel Mountains. These south-facing natural slopes contain gradients of up to 50 percent. Vegetation within the southern two thirds of the site consists of large shade trees.near the residential structures and a stand of eucalyptus trees north of and parallel to the unimproved Declift Drive. The steep south f~cing northern one third of the site supports a moderate growth of brush, cactus and annual grasses common to the lower reaches of the San Gabriel Mountains. A small natural drainage course discharges surficial water that ~ow~ from a source within the ascending footh~ls. This short channel trickles water onto the site east of the western most residential structure, where highly permeable younger fan deposits capture the surface flow and leach it into the subsurface. The southern two thirds of the site is drained by sheet flow that spreads meteoric waters over the gently alluvial areas. No other significant surface features were noted. LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE JOB NO: 97-425 PROPOSED PROJECT We understand tha: the approximately 40 acre site is to be developed to receive a Budc rhist Temple and retreat. All structures are intended for human occupancy** These proposed struct!res represent the 'Ling Yen Mountain Temple. Site development will include rough grading to craat! the II building~3ad area'* ~lfive and parking areas, establish and maintain drainage and provide aesthetic landscaping. Max,hum cuts and fills are anticipated to be less than approximately lO vertical feet* ' II n Aft manufactured slopes are to be constructed at gradients ~f no steeper than 2:~ (ho *zontal to vertical). Retaining walls are also indicated on the 100 scale Site Plan prepared by Al/ard Engineering, dated July' ' '997. FIELD INVESTIGATION To evaluate the potential hazard from recent and recurrent displacement along active traces witr,,n that portion of the Special Studies Zone containing the site, a geologic field investig rtion was undertaken. The geologic investigation consisted of excavating approximately :'. 0~0 lineal feet of exploratory trenches to obtain subsurfaCe geolcgic informatio~ a review of pubfished and unpublished geologic literature, stereoscopic interpretation of aerial photographs, and field ma oping of the site and surroundiP ~ area. Detailed and dire~ observation of the near-surface geologic Units was provided by the continuous exposure within the trenches. The trenches were excavat~ *th a tractor-mounted backhoe to provide continuous exposure of approximately 10 to 15 eeT~of undisturbed natura/materials. The geologic units and features were logged and graph~ sally presented at a scale of ~ "=5'. Where evidence of active faulting was exoosed in the trench side waft, a subparallel trench w~ :?xcavated to confirm the nature and directic ' ofthe feature. The su~ficial anc ;urface geologic data was coupled with analysis of aerial photographs to compile II geologic information to identify the location, recency, and nature of faulting that affects the project* LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE JOB NO: 97-425 EARLIER SITE STUDIES TO MAP ACTIVE FAULTING Previous investigators have endeavored to map the active trace of the Cucamonga Thrust fault and present opinions on fault locations, building set-backs and other development restrictions to render the site geologically suitable for the proposed land use. In 1983, a PRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC HAZARDS INVESTIGATION was performed by Craig Smith, P.E, R.G. The investigation relied upon the 1979, C.D.M.G's Cucamonga Peak and Devore Quadrangle sheets. Smith's conclusions regarding the location of the Cucamonga fault omits the fault trace mapped near the base of the San Gab~el Mountains. Overlooking the well defined fault trace along the base lof the mountains coupled with a perceptible lack of geologic skills, yielded a worthless exploration and a nonsensical building set-back. Consequently, the "active" trace of the Cucamonga Thrust fault was 'Tdentified" as approximately 300 to 700 feet north of the trace shown on the current 1995, C.D.M.G. Special Studies Zone map. The erroneous location of the Cucamonga fault, reported in 1983, Geologic Hazards Investigation generated building set-backs that would have been useless to prevent damage from occurring due to sudace displacement along the active fault splays known to exist to the south. The delineated limits of the Special Studies ZOne shown on the Cucamonga Peak and Devore Quadrangles were revised by the C.D.M.G. in 1995' PresUmably, studies subsequent to 1979, contained the locations of known and inferred fault traces and the data were used to up-date revise the 1995, publication of the Cucamonga Peak and Devore Quadrangles and the limits of the Special Studies Zone. LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE JOB NO: 97-425 In August, 1997, Kleinfelder prepared a two page Site Reconnaissance and Geo~ gic Literature Review for the proposed Ling Yen Mountain Temple. The short Kleinfelder letter, II 1987, USGS Map. he , referenced the 1983o investigation by Smith and the more recent T~ 1987 II publication revised the width and location of the Cucamonga fault zone in this area with data indicating the fault zone contained three active splays, (D.M. Morton and J. C. Matti, USGS PP1339). These splays (A, B, and C) trend subparallel to and south of the mountain front. S!~ays B and C intersect west of the site. On-site, splay C occurs north of§play B along the base of the mountains with splay B extending across the southern part of the 40 acre Lot. as an uncertain and concealed trace beneath the younger fan deposits. Criteria applied by the Division of Mines and Geology, requires fault traces shown o~ the Official Maps to be well defined features identifiable in the field by a trained geologist. The southern most trace of the on-site Cucamonga fault zone (Splay B) is concealed with no tOpograplical, geom~Trphic or other reasonably suspicious surficial expression that could arguably be considered a dearly detectable trace or physical feature. GEOLOGIC SETTING The site is located in the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province of southern California. The Transverse Ranges are essentially east-west trending elongate mountain ranges and valleys that are geologically very complex. Structurall! ~ S'Tfansverse Ranges consist of east- west trending steep-sided folds that have been ruptured along their axes on one or both flat gently to steeply dipping compressional f~_.:s. LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE JOB NO: 97-425 The site lies in the southeastern portion of the province, within the Upper Santa Ana River Basin at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains. This portion of the San Gabriel Mountains is unde~ain by hi-grade cataclastically deformed (Miocene?) metamoG3hic rocks with lenticular masses of relatively undeformed quartz diorite ( E J. Bortugno and T.E Spittier, 1986). These basement rocks occur north of the site and are exposed within the northerly ascending terrain. Up-lift from ancestral movement along the frontal fault systems has produced erosion and deposition of bedrock materials creating older fan deposits. In this area, the Cucamonga fault marks the ~'oundary between the older alluvium (Pleistocene?, Terrace/Older Fan Deposits) and younger (Holocene) alluvial fan deposits. - - .. The area indicated for development and the territory adjacent to and surrounding the site - underlain by alluvial fan deposits assigned to the early to mid-Holocene epoch. These recent sediments consist of angular to well rounded cobbles and boulders surrounded by a matrix of medium to coarse grained sands and subangular gravels. These crudely stratified, near-source, fan deposits grade laterally and vertically into water-laid silty sands that are dissected by gravel- filled cfiannels. Locally, aeolean silts with fine sands fill surficial hollows. Geoloqic Structure The Upper Santa Ana River Basin is an alluvial basin bounded on the-north by the San Gabriel Mountains, on the east by the San Bernardino Mountains and the San Andreas Fault, on the south by Tertiary-Cretaceous age sediments in the northern Santa Ana Mountains and the granitic rocks of the eastern basement complex, and on the west by the Tertiary age sedimentary Puente ~ Chino and San Jose Hills. UNG YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE JOB NO: 97-425 The principle .-,-.=.ologic strL~ture that affects, influences and impacts'the site and the area is the on-site ~.-.;amonga fault. This north dipping tecto~ure is well defined at orj t below the surface and represents a potential hazard resulting from surface rupture along traces that are considered active. The abrupt stratigraphic breaks within the designated fault zone that either exhibT[ a weft defined sudace expression or offset He-; .~ene sediments are defined as ac: traces. Primar, or secondary geologic structure within the crudely stratified coarse-grained sediments and foliated bedrock materials that occur in the nalural ascending terrain along thi northern limits of the proposed development, do not appear to contain features or continuo_us · planes of weaknesses that lack lateral support. Faulting The site is located within a currently estabfished Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. Therefore, active faults have been mapped adjacent to or within the limits of the site. No structures for human occupancy are permitted to be placed across the trace of an active fa~ (CDMG, SP 42). EARTH MATERIALS Fill - Af Rough grading created artificial fills of a mappable thickness along the northern porti~ ~n of the site near the base of the San Gabriel Mountains. These fills appear limited to construction of the level building pads for the residences and a small planar area between the two dwellin structures. LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE JOB NO: 97-425 Trench excavations within the artificial fill placed for the planar area in the nodh-centra/ portion of the site encountered approximately five feet of loose, si/ty sands with scattered grave/s. These materials appear to have been generated from excavatir~-~rficia/ Ho/ocene a//uvium and appear to have been placed without geotechnica/ control. Holocene Alluvium-Qal/Slope Wash - Qsw The ~rficial native materials encountered in the exploratory trenches consisted of loose silty sands that were highly porous, compressib/e and represent water laid deposits and those materials transported principally by gravity. Where encountered, these recent materials had a maximum thickness of approximately four to six feet. Ho/ocene a/luvium consist of those surficia/ unconso/idated sediments representing channel deposits. No slope wash material appeared excavations south of the fault zone indicated on the enclosed Geologic Map (P/ate 1.1). Alluvial Fan Deposits- qyf The southern two-thirds of the site are underlain by granular unconsolidated alluvial sediments. These recent materials are comprised of silty sands, sands,. sandy gravels, gravelly sands and sandy gravels with cobbles and boulders. The coarser fraction was angular to subrounded indicating the source or parent. material was near and sediment was transported a limited distance prior to deposition. These crudely stratifie~ deposits contain stratigraphic contacts that are locally faint due to the presence of isolated oversized cobbles and boulders wilhin a sand and grave/matrix. The indistinct bedding features indicate deposition occurred //n a high energy environment. Lenses of clean sand extended for significant distances and exhibited/ocafized cross bedding and other features indicating deposition within channels. LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE JOB NO: 97-425 Throughout the area south of the fault, confined sur~cia/ water flows created cut ancient channels and created ephemeral water courses in the Ho/ocene fan. These former shallow streams became filled with youthful sediments when flow became suspended within the waterway. Principally, these lenticular channel deposits are characterized by a distinctive bas~ zone marking a stratigrephic unconformity with the underlying ~ediments. This basal conglomer- /I ate is distinguish by rounded to subrounded cobbles that lie unconformable over the fan deposits and exhibit an arcuate shape near the lateral limits of the channel. Terrace Deposits - Ot (Qoal) North of the proposed development the ascending terrain consists of older (Pleistocen~ fan deposits or terrace materials of Quaternary age. The contact between these older fan deposits and the Holocene sediments that beneath the southern portion of the site is generall) marked by the Cucamonga fault zone. These older fan or terrace deposits were notably denser than the younger fan deposits and contained minerals that have become altered by chemical weathering creating a cohesive red/brown clay matrix. The subrounded to subang ar cobbles and boulders within this unit were locally disintegrated and frequently exhibited staining from oxides of iron and manganese that precipitated along fracture surfaces. The coareer fraction was surrounded by a cohesive matrix of argillaceous sands. The conspicuous absence of depositional sequences or clast sorting, yields barely discernable bedding features within the subangular cobbles and boulders, suggesting that ancient physiography, sediment transport distance and depositional environment was comparable to the conditions that eroded, trans- pored and distributed the younger fan materials. lING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE JOB NO: 97-425 SEISMICITY Although the site is undedain by fault traces found to be active, it is also located in seismically active southern California, and is therefore subject to i~tense ground shaking by earthquakes generated from movement along active regional faults. Tabulated below is a list of significan~t_regional faults, known active faults within a 60 mile (100 kilometer) radius of the site. Included in the table is the distance the fault lies from the site, the maximum credible earthquake event (Richter Magnitude) and the corresponding maximum peak horizontal acceleration. Accelerations are based on the attenuation relationships of Campbell 1987. Maximum Peak Maximum Peak Distance Credible Site Probable Site Fault mi. Maqnitude Acc.(q~ Maqnitude ~ aL"~'~'p 7~ro c k F 7.5 .07 6.0 Casa Loma 36 7.5 .11 7.0 .08 ,7 7.0 .16 4.75 .04 ter 57 7.0 .07 3.0 .004 Cleghorn 10 6.5 .14 6.25 .12 Cucamonga 0 7. 0 .41 6.75 .37 Elsin ore 27 7. 5 .15 6.75 .10 Lytle Crk 4 7.5 .32 7.0 .25 Harper 58 7. 0 .05 5.75 .02 Hellendale 36 7. 5 .12 6.25 .05 San Jacinto 41 7.5 .10 7.0 .04 LenwoQd 49 7.25 .07 6.0 .03 Lockhart 54 7. 5 .07 ' 6.0 .03 Mojave 16 7,0 .17 6.25 .11 Nwpt-lngle wd 45 7. 5 .09 6.5 .05 North ridge 55 6, 5 .05 4.0 .01 Off Shore Zn 48 7.5 .08 6.0 .03 Old Wren Spngs 47 7.0 .06 5.75 .03 Palos Verdes 53 7.0 .06 5.5 .02 Pinto Mtn 52 7. 5 .08 6.0 .03 Raymond 30 7.5 .19 5.5 .05 San Andreas 9 8.5 ,53 8.25 ,48 San Gabriel 34 7.5 .12 6.25 .05 San Gorgonio 16 8.0 .19 7.0 .11 Santa Monica 43 7.5 .13 6.00 .05 Santa Susana 55 7.0 .07 6.5 .05 Sierra Madre 17 7. 5 .21 6.50 .12 Verdugo 38 7. O0 .1 ~ 4.50 ,02 Whittier 23 7.50 .18 6.25 .08 LING YF, N MOUNTAIN TEMPLE JOB NO: 97,.425 Based on our knowledge of the known regional active faults and their seismic characte~ the above tabulation indicates that the closest major fault, the Cuca_monga fault, is capable of generating a maximum credible horizontal seismic acceleration at the site of O. 41g and a maximum probable site acceleration of 0.37g. However, the San Andreas fault, located approximately 9 miles from the site, is capable of generating a maximum credible .horizontal seismic acceleration of 0.53g from a maximum credible earthquake event having a magnitud6 of 8.50. Generally, predicted earthquakes generated from the San Andreas fault are considered the maximum probable event and are treated as the functional-basis earthquake. Research performed by Dr. Kerry Seih on the recurrence interval of great earthquakes generated in the central portion of the San Andreas fault indicates that maximum magnitude events occur with a predictable frequency. This frequency averages f 45 years between major events. The last great earthquake on the central San Andreas fault occurred in 1857. It is probable that not all active or potentially active faults in the region have been identified. In addition, the seismicity envelope for many of the smaller and less notable faults is not sufficiently developed for a reliable analysis of the maximum credible and probable Richter magnitudes assignable to these faults and the consequent levels of ground-shaking that migj occur at the site. Air Photo Analyses To detect features possibly indicative of fault r~lat~d-topography, stereoscopic photographic images were examined at the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. Frights valued to uncover lineaments of geologic consequence and reveal the possible LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE JOB NO: 97-425 occurrence of a co-seismic response to Southern Califomia's historic tectonism and crustal movement were reviewed. The aerial imagery was studied using a pocket stereoscope to distinguish sur~cial lineaments marked by contrasts in either vegetation, soil, sur~cia/ morphology, or other features indicative of faulting. Examination of stereographic aeria/ photographs that provided complete coverage of the site and adjacent terrain, did not unveil any unusual lineaments, off-set drainage courses or other geomorphic features used to indirectly identify a physical'feature as a possible fault. Features identified in the photographic images as possibly having a fault origin appeared substantially simi/ar to those fault segments identified on current fault maps that synthesize all other geologic information. ..... l(~round Water Ground water or moist soil was not encountered within the trenches. Regional ground water levels are indicated to be approximately 500 feet beneath the ground surface (CDMG, SR I f3). However, free moisture appeared along the lowest stratigraphic unit in Trench 1 south of the fauTt zone approximately one week after precipitation from a tropical storm soaked the area. This water bearing sand unit, appeared to transmit the recent meteoric water that in~ltrated into the subsurface. However, no standing water was created in the trench bottom. The migration of the subsurface water toward the area of low pressure created by the trench excavation appeared to slightly exceed that quantity dissipated by subaerial evaporation. LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE JOB NO:- 97-425 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENd..' ONS The proposed Ling Yen Mountain Temple lies wi.~:~in a State established Alquist-Pfiolo, Special Studies Zone. T,'~e engineering geologic investigation presented herein discovered a,e fault traces within the State established Special Studies Zone forthe Cucamonga fault. The active traces were identified as lineaments dipping 30 to 90 degrees within a zone of highly sheared matefials discovered near the base of the San Gabriei Mountains. Active faut traces were distinguished from inert shear surfaces by documenting those conspicuous features noti :ed to propagate to the ground surface and cause stratigraphic displacements and off-set recent surficial deposits. All active fault traces discovered were accurately located in the-field by surveyore provided by Allard Engineering. Survey data was then plotted on the 100 scale site Plan prepare{ '.r the Conditional Use Permit by project civil engineer. These active fault traces impact the proposed construction of the Ling Yen Mountain Temple by prohibiting structures for human occupancy to be built on or near the discovered locations. The potential hazard to the proposed land use, from active faulting at this site may be reduced to an acceptable level by controlling building locations and proscribe a minimum set- back distance of 75 feet south of the surveyed location of the active tra.~es. This set-back zone, d.~lineated on lhe enclc ~ed Geologic Map, includes a "five degree factor of safety" establish!d by generating a five degree arc diverging from a point centered at the surveyed location extending along the projected strike. The technique modifies the width of the 75 foot set-back and conservatively incr~-, es the distan oetween the ~ault trace and building locations throu ,h separation along the diverging projection. LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE JOB NO: 97-425 Landslidinq No landslides were noted during our field investigation that would affect the site. Additionally, regional landslide maps of the San Gabriel Mountains do not indicate the presence of a major landslide either on or near the site. Furthermore, geomorphic features suggestive of either recent or ancient mass wasting were not detected in the aerial photographs. Differential Settlement The earth materials that underlie the site am geologically divided to reflect the distinctively different engineering properties of the regional sediments. Specifically, the denser, older, alluvial fan deposits that underlie the northern one-third of the site differ substantially from the younger, unconsolidated fan deposits that cover the southern two-thirds of the site. Recommendations contained in this engineering geologic report include a structural set-back from the surveyed active fault traces. The Site Plan for the Conditional Use Permit indicates structures and improvements are to be constructor within the southern two-thirds of the site, which is entirely underlain by the younger unconsolidated fan deposits. The Holocene alluvial fan deposits that will underlie and support the proposed-structures are considered to be vertically continuous, with uniform consolidation characteristics. Significant variations in either material type or geologic composition do not appear to be present in the shallow subsurface. At depth, the denser, older fan deposits conformably underlie and uniformly support the surficial fan Therefore, the potential for dynamic seismic loading to be reflected as damage induced by differential foundation settlement is considered very low. LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE JOB NO: 97-425 Liquefaction . .. Liquefaction of a saturated, cohesionless soil causes a temporary transformation of t[e soil to a fluid mass, resulting in a loss of foundation support. The susceptibility of a soil to undergo liquefaction is dependent upon five criteria. These criteria are: 1) The relative soil density, 2) presence of and proximity to ground water, 3) critical grain size distribution, 4) intensity and duration of ground shaking, and 5) confinement of the saturated zone to inhibit drainage and promote the development of high pore water pressures during a seismic event. Given that the proposed building area is underlain by Holocene alluvial deposits representing soils with relatively low to moderate soil densities and the proximity of the site to known active fault systems exposes the area to intense ground shaking, the criteria controlling the relative susceptib~ity to seismically induced liquefaction are the presence and proximity to ground water and sediments h xlr containing a critical grain size distribution. No ground water was encountered in t e e p o atory trench excavations. Research of published ground water levels in the vicinity of the site indic ate that ground water is and has been greater than 50 feet in depth. Generally, if ground water levels are deeper than 50 feet, surficial deformation due to liquefaction will be minimal However, fully saturated sediments within 15 feet of the surface were observed in the Iowes~ unit exposed in Trench 1. This free moisture appeared to occur as a result of a tropical storm that soaked the area approximately one week earlier. Certain zones within the underlying Holocene sediments may contain materials having a critical grain size distribution similar to sediments that have undergone seismically induced liquefaction at other sites. Consequently, the potentiaI for strong seismic shaking sufficient to induce fiquefaction appears to present a potential seismic hazard within select granular fan deposits when migrating subsurface water saturates these '~ materials. The liquefaction potential of these select water-bearjng sediments should be qua tively evaluated to ascertain w_h~ether geotechnical measures are required to mitigate this potential seismic hazard. LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE JOB NO: 97-425 SUMMARY The site lies within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone established by the State of California and recognized by the County of San Bernardino. Special Studies Zones delineate areas presumed to contain traces of active faults. The geologic investigation outlined supra, was conducted to resolve whether active traces of the Cucamonga fault affect the locations of buildings intended for human occupancy. The methods described in this engineering geologic investigation incorporate procedui:es personally developed during prior studies within the Cucamonga fault zone, combined with the standards outlined in C.D.M.G. Special Publication 42. The integrated techniques allowed interpretation of the near-surface topographic expressions to correlate with typical subsurface profiles and specific stratigraphic separations found at other locations along the tectonically active frontal mountain range. This interpretative data was central ~ discover the presence and locations of active on-site faulting in order to provide recommendations to mitigate hazards known to emanate from fault movement. The structures proposed for human occupancy can be made reasonably safe from damage caused by surficial ground displacement due to movement along active fault traces. The recommended building setback shown as a zone having a width of 75 feet and is intended to provide a distance sufficient to preclude potential damage from movement of the on-site Cucamonga fault. Subsurface water discovered within the lowest sand unit in Trench 1, following a brief soaking of the area by a tropical storm, isolated or perched ground water is likely to be much shallower than the depth reported in regional ground water surveys. Consequently, geologic hazards associated with seismically induced liquefaction and lateral spread need to be fully evaluated by the project g- eotechnical engineer. Determining the susceptibility of the ground to receive damage from jsmically induced liquefaction and the related hazard of lateral spread, should be ~otechnically resolved according to the methods, formulas and procedures described in C.D.M.G., Special Paper 117 and the technical references used to produce that pub~cation. LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE JOB NO:_ 97-425 CLOSURE The findings and recommendations presented in this report comply with generally accepted engineering geologic priinciples common m other practitioners, ~,'. good standing, within the same profession, practicing in the same area under similar cimumstancos. The puroose of the geologic investigation waE to demonstrate that the proposed Ling Yen Mountain Temple development will not t;~ adversely impacted by ground ru: .~re due to active faulting along the on-site Cucamonga f~. .'.. This engineering geologic report has been prepared for the sole use < Mr..~."~'hard Hu, P.E., and Mr. Gar~, .r)ou, to be used as part of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed Ung Yen Mountain Tern; :5, as indicated on the plan prepared by Allard Engineering, dated July 7, 1997. Any other parties are expressly forbidden to either use or interpret thr :nformation presented without the written consent of the undersigned. All claims are fraudulent, that allege pedormanco is an intended or incidental benefit designed to run to a third party. No other warranties neith~ - express nor implied are hereby made, understood or created as part of the contract for these services.Should any questions arise, please do not hesitate to contact this office. KAUP ASSOCIA TES ' --- RG #6487 (exp. 8/31/98) CEG #1291 (exp. 3/31/993 XC: (4) Addressee _=NCLOSURES: Geologic Map .......................Plate 1.1 Geologic- Index Map ..............Plate 1.2 Trench Logs ...........................Plates 2. I-2.6 & 3.0 California Fault map ...............Plate FM Earthquake Compatfson ........Plate QC Peak Acceleration ..................Plates PA 1-PA2 References .............................Plate R GEOLOGIC INDEX MAP- KAUP ASSOCIATES FROM: Stote OF Collfornio. AlqUiSt~F>'~iOIo 5peclo! $tud;e$ Zones GEOTECHNZCAX, CONSULTAt4T~ Eorthquok, rO.l' Zone HozOrd MOpS 11/5/97 K.L.K. C.D.M.G.. Revised I/I/95 ~~ ~ ~ "~ -'----,.__.,. ,,~s~'21G' PIVOT ~-~. ~ ] 225 .. ~.. - ~ .. / ~ ~ / ---~ ......~ ....-' ~_ ._ ~ / ~ ~ _. ~ . ..~ IKA UP ASSOC¢Z~ES Attachment "F' "' LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT Novernbff 19, 1996 Prepared f~r: Ling Yen Temple, Ir~ "' C/o Gary Dou . . 15538E. Gale AVenue .... ' Haderu~a Heights, California ~1745 (818) 968-8342 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Ir~ 3403 1Orb Street, Suite 520 Riverside, California 92.501 (909) 782-9310 15.4 Project #ZFT630 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ................................................. 1 pROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ............................. 1 ~[ETHODS ...................................................... 4 LITERKI'LrRE tLEVIEVr ....................................... 4 FIELD SURVEY .............................. ............... 4 4 RESULTS ................................. SITE CONDITIONS ......................................... 4 SOILS .................................................... 5 VEGETATION AND FLORA ................................... 5 WILDLIE HABITAT AND FAUNA .............................. 7 SENSITIVE RESOURCES ..................................... 8 12 PROJECT IMPACTS .............................................. EFFECTS ON BIOLOGICAL IRESOURCES IN GENERAL ........... 12 IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE SPECIES ............................ 12 EDGE EFFECTS ........................................... '14 MITIGATION MEASURES ......................................... 15 BIOLOGICAL P,.ESOURCES IN GENER.M- ....................... 15 EDGE EFFECTS ........................................... 15 REFERENCES ................................................... 16 APPENDICES A - pLANT SPECIES B - WILDLIFE SPECIES LIST OF FIGURES 1 - Regional Location ......................... .... 3 2 - Site Location Map ...................................... 3 - Biological Resources Map .................................... 6 LIST OF TABLE 8 A - Sensitive Species ........................................... LING YEN MOUNTAINTEMPLE BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT INTRODUCTION LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) x~s contracted by Ling Yen Mountain Temple, Inc. to prepare a biological assessment for the proposed te~mple proiect. This report presenLs the results of the assessment and is intended to provide teahnical · · information for project review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State and federal Endangered Species Acts, and other pertinent regu- lations. LSA peTsonnel who contributed to the preparation of this assessment were as -- follows: · Jack Easton, Project Manager, Biologist · Michael Parten, Biologist · Jennifer Schuk, Graphics Designer · Elsa Brewer, Word Processing. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The site of the proposed pn~ject is situated in southwestern San Bernardino County at the base of the coastal slope of the San Gabriel Mountains. Following the geo- graphic system of The Jepson Manual (Hickman, 1993), the site is at the boundary between the Transveme Ranges (San Gabriel District) and the South Coast subre- gions of the Southwestern Calffomis Region of the California Floristic Province. The northeHy haft of the site is within the steep, rugged foothill~ of the San Gabriel Mountains while the southerly haft is on a moderately sloping alluvial fan at the base of the foothills. Ele~tlom on the site range from about 1',750 to 2,150 feet above sea level. The site is about 2 miles north of the Interstate 15/Cherry Avenue Interchange and is located at the northeast comer of the inte~ection of Wardman Bullock Road and Decliff Drive (Figure l) . The site encompasses about 40 acre occupying the west-Vz of the east-V1 of the $outhwest-~ of Section 15, Range 6 West, Township 1 North, SBM (Figur~ 2). '." Crossing the southern 7* acres of the site are two power trammission lines within a Los Angeles Department of Water and Power CLADWP) right-of-way. The transmis- sion lines extend off site to the east and west. A drainage easement travesties the southwesterly portion of the site including a portion of the IADWP right-of-way. There are two exist'rag houses on the site, both centrally located north to south and situated near the east and west boundaries, ~pectively. The proposed project consists of the construc;~on of a church t~m~le, and associ- ated facilities including dormitories, courtyard, offices, and parking ar~as. The proposed construction will be limited primarily to the alluvial fan area between the northerly boundary of the LADWP right-of-way and the toe of the foothills. San Bemardino Angeles National National I Forest Forest / , J PRO/ECT i / ~----~ LOCATION / t Pomona Ontario Angeles County San Bernardino , County - ' ,/'/ Riverside ' County Orange County 28 __ ~-- Bas¢ Map S~rcc: USGS Maps: Cucamonga Pcdtk, ~d ~vo~ ~ndmgl~, 198~- 11/13~6{L~630} Figu N LSA ~ ~ '//~ -~ ~ ~o~,,,~ ~ ~> o. Looo, ~,~o' ' Site Location 1 ~ap METHODS LITERA TURE REVIEW' The following sources were reviewed to assess site conditions and identi~' sensitive biological elements known from the site vicinity: California Native Plant Soeiety's Electronic Inventory of Rare and BEn- dangered Vascular Plants of California; Cucamonga Peak and Devore quadrangles (Skinner and Pavlik, eds., 1994). r California Natural Diversity Darn Base; Cucamonga Peak and Devote quadrangles (California Department of Fish and Game, 1996). ' 'Soil Survey of San Bernardino County Southv,'estern Part, California (Soil Conservation Service, 1980). FIFr. D SURVEY Field surveys were conducted on November 11, 1996 by Jack Easton and on November 1, 6, and 14, 1996 by Michael pat~en. A combination of two survey methods was used: general surveys by meandering transects and focused surveys for the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila califor'nica). A total of 12 person-hours were spent conducting the surveys. Field observations were aided by the use of binoculars. Vegetation was mapped using a 1"=100' scale base map of the site. All plant and animal species observed or otherwise de- tected were noted; a complete species list is attached as Appendix A for plant species and Appendix B for animal species. The general s~rveys were conducted to map vegetation, inventory plant and animal species, and assess habitat suitability for sensitive elements. Focused surveys for the California gnatcatcher were conducted in the coastal sage scrub on the northerly portion of the site. Surveys were initiated about 7:00 a.m. and completed by 10:00 a.m. Surveys for the California Gnatcatcher followed the protocol recommended by the U.S. Fish and ~'qldlife Service. RESULTS SITE COiVDITIONS The southerly half of the subject property (the portion of the site on the allu- · ' vial fan) has been disturbed by past and current land uses that have reduced the biological values of the this portion of the site. Virtually no native vegeta- tion remains on this portion of the site. Disturbances include past agricultural · · operations, construction of the two existing transmission lines, the presence of two occupied residences, construction of flood control structures immediately south of the site, and ongoing weed abatement practices. 4 llpig~)6(R:XI.yr630~BIO-RIZPT.I-Yl') ..... · ~-:~ ' "5 ' "' ' ' The hilly, northerly half of the subject F' er~ is relatively undisturbed and supports r,~tive vegetation. The only dis Antes to biolog;' values consist -- Of a single dirt road~ay, a small water t and activities ;- ated with the t~,o occupied residences. , The site is traversed by 'two major drainage courses, Morse Canyon in the northeast corner and a small, unnamed streambed near the southwest corner. Both drainage courses are USGS-designated intermittent blueline streams and am tributary to a flood control basin south of Summit Avenue which, in turn, drains to East Etiwanda Creek. A small swale drains the central portion of the site joining with the unnamed blueline stream near the southwest corner of the property. : Adjacent foothill areas and some portions of the alluvial fan in nearby ar~as support e-~.astal sa~;~ scrub. Other nearby ar~as of the alluvial fan are .occupied by non-native annual grassland and roderal species. Ru~ residential uses are - ' present on scattered parcels in the surrounding area. Residential developments have been constructed on lands to the south and south¢ . ~t in the vicinity of Summit Avenue. The Soil Survey (Soii Consen'ation Sen'~ce, 1980) identifies four soil types as present on theftire: · Cieneba-Rock outcrop complex: steep corr.~lex occupying upland areas on slopes of 30 to 50 percent; soils are a mix of Cieneba sandy loam and granitie rock outcrops; rock outcrops are generally along ridgetops and on uorth-facing slopes. · Ramona sandy loam: well-drained, strongly sloping soils found on fans and terraces in granltic alluvium. · Soboba stony loamy sand: excessively drained soils formed on granitic alluv .-n; nearly level to moderately sloping soil on'long broad alluvial fans, gravelly surface layer and upper hor~..'ons. · Tujunga gravelly loam: excessively drained soil formed on alluvial fans in granitic a!iuvium; level to moderately sloping soil on long broad alluvial fans, gravelly surface layer and upper horizons. VEGETATION AND FLORA TBe project site supF three types ,of. y~getation: coastal sage scrub, ruderal/dis-','r bed, and sycamore woodland (Figure 3). ll/19tgSCR.,~I,y/-S30~BiO.REpT, LyF)- =~ .'~ ·- ' ~ .... .7.":7 -..... .- \ \~' // _.- ,..1 i :~., ........ · ', ...... '~ ........L ........ ~',\~' .......... ~-..""'l'l .... .,,, .... ..., .,' ../ -...~ ~ ~ ....' ~ /-.-~,.'. ....' .......'~ ~'-~).., ~ ~ ~' ~x ../-~ ,' / .'~,~. ~ j~ ,- ......... ~ .........~ '~ ~.._ ....... ~,...= ',..~,~ · ..' ~,. ".~X ~ ~ x ., ~ ~ ~,.'~'.;"~ ,~ '~ ' .:' ..~ ...~-. %. -.~ , LX. .~.' ~, ....~:~ . ....r~,.~ ~. ~. ~/'~.. ./.z.- .....":.~.ZZL> ..~ '["~'~,~---." ' ;~ """ZL.''Lr./ ~/~ ,---""'D/ "~, ,.. .....~". 'C" / ;>~ ~',~ ...........i .: ......."-"~ ~"'~'..' ."',~ ~,=' .... .~-_ · ,., . ', . , .- '.. ~ . , .... , ~ ?'- ..--; ,.~.~ ............ ............ ..,.,.. ~7' ' ' " "' >' .~ /'~ .~'), ......~,, ~' .~. ......~ .........--.-..",, _.,:,., ..........-'-,~-. _.., ,. ,.~/~.. .... ~ ........ . ..... ~ ....... ~'~ ...... "- .,. ~' ~ Project Bound~ .... [ [ Syc~oreWoodl~d nn3~3o~ Figure 3 .... '- Ling Yen Mountain Temple LSA --~ Biological Resources Map ' ' 0' 150' 300' Coastal sage scrub occurs throughout the northern half of the property (i.e., on the hillsl0pes and ridges in the foothill area). This vegetation on site is dominated by California buckwheat (Eriogonum faseieulatum), California sagebrush (Artemisia californlca), Deerweed (Zotus scoparius), and. White sage (Salvia apiana). Understory is largely open with patches of non-native _ grass species, especially red brome (Bromus madritensis). The ruderal/disturbed habitat occurs throughout the southern portion of the site, basically from the existing residences to the southern property boundary. " This "vegetation" type is actually a catch-all name for disturbed habitats throughout this area. Because the southern portion of the project site has been recently (and probably regula~y) cleared of vegetation, presumably for weed- abatement or fire-safety purposes, linle native vegetation exists. THus, this area ~' supports species that are tolerant of disturbance and recolonize quickly after a disturbanr..e.. Native and non-native weed species such as telegraph weed · - (Heterotheca grandiflora), California croton (Croton californicus), red-stem filaree (~rodium cicutarium), and various grasses (e.g., At,ena sp., Bromus sp., etc.) occur in this vegetation type. There are also two windrows of large euca- lyptus trees (2~ucal. l,ptus camadulertsls) on the southerly portion of the site. Various ornamental planrings are present around the t~,o residences with many large eucalyptus trees surrounding the residence nearest the easterly boundary. Sycamore woodland occupies the drainage courses on the northeast and southwest comers of the site. A well developed stand of this community is present in the northeast comer of the site. In the southwest portion of the site, this community is limited to two small patches consisting of a few trees. A small patch of this community is also present in the northwest portion of the site within the headwaters of the small swale that drains the central portion of the site. THis .community is .dominated by California sycamore (Platanus racemosa) with and under. ,-~ry that includes mulefat (Baccbaris saliclfolla) and shrub species from the surrounding coastal sage scrub community. See Appendix A for a complete list of all plant species observed. WILD lIFE HAB ITA T AND IrA UNA The northerly portion of the site provides high value habitat for a variety of wildlife species. THe vast-majority of wildlife- species detected on the site was found in this area. THe high value of the northerly portion of the site as wildllfe habitat can be anributed to the relatively undisturbed condition of the native vegetation and the contiguity with extensive adjoining areas of undisturbed habitat. THis portion of the site provides habitat for a full range of wildlife species including wide ranging species such as coyote (Canis latran$) and mule deer (Odocoileus bemionu$), THe primary habitat value of the southerly portion of the site is as habitat for various raptor (bird of prey) species. The eucalyptus trees provide pen:hing and roosting sites and the cleared areas of the site and surrounding lands .. provide ample foraging opportunities. THe virtual lack of native vegetation on 7 l IAgt~6(R:'XLYT65~BIO-REPT.LYI') -. the southerly portion of the site limits its value as habitat for most other wild- life species. See Appendix B for a complete list of all animal species detected. · · SENSITIVE RESOUBCES Sensitive species are those plants and animals occurring or potentially occur- ring on the project site that am endangered or rare, as those terms am used by CEQA and its Guidelines, or am of current local, regional or State concern. Plant communities are considered to be sensitive biological resources based on 1) federal, State or local laws regulating their development, 2) limited distribu- tions, and/or 3) the habitat requirements of sensitive plants or animals occur- ring on the site· Legal protection for sensitive species varies widely, from the relitively compre- 'hensire protection extended to listed threatened/endangered species to no legal starus at present. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), U.S. Fish and W'ddlife Service (USFW$), local agencies, and special interest groups such as the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) publish watch lists of declining species; these lists often describe the general nature and perceived severity of the decline. In addition, recently published findings and preliminary results of ongoing research prnvide a basis for consideration of species that are candidates for State and/or federal listing. Finally, species that are clearly not rare or threatened statewide or regionally, but whose local populations are sparae, rapidly dwindling or otherwise unstable, may be considered to be of "local interest." Table A provid.es a summary 9f information regarding the species identified from literature sources as occurring in the project v cinigy. Table A - Sensitive Species ACTIVITY STATUS OCCUKR.8~CE SPECIES HABITAT AND DISTRIBUTION PERIOD DESIGNATION pROBABILITY pL~d'4TS plummer's taariposa Dry', rocky places, ofxen in brush, }.fay - July US: ND High: suitable habitat is · CA: C1 present on site; known lily below 5000 feet elevation. Usually on granitic soils· Found in gnu- CNPS: List IB from many locations in the surrounding area; Calochortus land, chaparral, coastal sage likely present in the p/urnrnera~ scrub, yellow p ne forest. Santa ' area of coastal sage Monicn Mrs to San Jacinto Mrs. scrub. River,side, San Bernardino. L~s Angeles and Venturn Cos. parr~s spineflower Sandy openings in coastal sage April -June US: ND Moderate: suitable sc'pab and chapanal 900 to 3,500 CA: ND habitat is present on CNPS: List 3 site, known from man)' Chor~anrh~parryi vat. feet elevation; east L~s Angeles Iocztions in surround- parryi County to San Gorgonio Pa~ and ing area, may be pres- west Riverside County. ent in the area of 8 ACTMTY STATUS OCCURRENCE SPECIES HA~ITAT A_~D DISTRIBUTION pERIOD DESIGNATION pROBABILITY' pelrson's spring This'subsF . ~nown only from M~y -~ ~ne US: ND [USFS?] Absent: suitable habitat beauty San Bernar,.; .; County in subsl- -CA: ND is not present, site is ClaytonAs lanceoAsta pine sad upper moatshe conifer- CNPS: list 1B below known elevation var. peirsonit ous forest of the San Gabriel range of species. Mountains; g-~velly soils or scree. Slesader-borned Found on terraces consisting of April - US: END Absent: habitat on site splneflower sandy and pvelly soils on allu- June CA: END is unsuitable (lack of vial fans and old floodplains; 500 CNPS: list IB terraces and old Dodeca/:N~aa to 2,000 feet elevation. Los An- floodplains adjacent t~. exiting drainage /e/~toceras gales, Riverside, and San Bemardino counties. - courses) Santa Asm River wool- P';rennisl sub-shrub F-: ,',~d in allu- Year round US: END Absent: not detected ly surf vial fan sage scrub an, coastal CA: END during field surveys, ssge.le.rub habitats on alluvial CNPS: list 111 habitat not suitable 2~rlaszrum ~tensifoZlum deposits of riverbeds; along the (lack of riverbed areas Count. Pious d~sy Chapsrral and lower coniferous May - US: ND Low: suitable habitat _~P/~'eron ~,~,~,r/~r. forest of the San Gabriel sad San September CA: ND may be present in the btsanctu= Bemsrdino mountains; this sub- CNPS: list 1B area of coastal sage species known only from Los An- scrub. gales and San Bemardino court- ties; open drr slopes sad washes; 1,000 to 4,500 feet elevation. Jek,,-~oa's buckwheat Upper montana and subalpine year-round US: ND Absent: suitable habidt ]~Ho~onum coniferous foresl of the San Ga- CA: ND is not p~sent, site is microtbecum vsr. briel mountains; 7,000 to 9,000 CNPS: List 1B below known elev-atiot jobastonii feet elevation __ range of species ]._-"mort lily Meadows and streams of montana July - US: ND Absent: suitable habitat ~l/lum~oarryi coniferous foresls~ Transverse and August CA: ND is not present, site is Fen~sular ranges of southern' CNPS: List 1B below known California; a|so kno~'n from .~'~- range of species zons; 4,000 to ~,500 feet aleva- ries Calil'ornln muhly Streambanks, canyons, and other July o US: ND : ' ' · cat/omits sage scnsb, coniferous forest, sn~l CNPS: List 1B' Morse Canyon in notzh- east conlet of site; meadows; IS00 to 6,000 feet eleva- ginsl to unsuitable. tlon; San Gabriel, San ms inder of site msr- Bemardino, and SanJacinto Lagusa Mount-;,,- Chapsrill and lower montana May -June US:ND Absent: suitable habitat jewel-flower coniferous forest; 5,500 to ~,500 ~ CA: ND is not present, site is Streptant/~u$ feet ele~-ation; Transverse and CNPS: List 1B below known elstiz bernar~/inus peninsular ranges of soulhero range of species California; possibly in Baja C~ll- foroia REPTILES San Diego horned Wide variety of habitate inc~dlng April - US: ND High: reposed fTom lizard coastal sage scrub, g~saland, ri- October numerous loc=tions pariah woodland; .typically on or CA: CSC surrounding ares, su}t- />/~rynosoma near loose sandy soils; coastal able habitat is present coronalura blatnt, illei and inland areas from Vanfurs on site. Count)' to Bsjs C=llfornia. .: //6 ~_- 9 11/19/96CR:~LYr6t0~BIO'I~EPT'LY'D . ~ ACTIVITY STATUS OCCLrRR~NCE SPECIES 1L~31TAT AND DISTRIBUTION pERIOD DESIGNATION PROB.~d31LITY BIRDS Northern harrier Grassland and marshy habitats in Year round US: ND Occurs: (foraging) oh- Southern California. Uncom- CA: CSC served foraging on site Claus cyar~us monly in open desert and and on surrounding brushlands. lands; not expected to Cooper's hawk Woodland and semi-open habi- Year US: ND Occurs: observed for- tat.s, riparian groves and moun- round; CA: CSC aging on site and on Accipiter cooper tain canyons. Uncommon perma- predoml- surrounding lands; suit- nent r~sident in coastal, moun- nant in able nesting habitat , Call foals. Transients IraiHy corn- east corner of site. mon on coast in fall. Golden eagle Grasslanch, brushlands, deserts, Year round US: ND Occurs: (forging) oh- ing primariEy in rugged m~untain- lands~ no suitable nest- in Southern California. CalLror~a gnatcatcher Coastal sage scrub~ occurs only Year round US: THR .~,.bscnt: appar~ndy suitable habitat present cismontane southwestern Callfor- CA: CSC in coastal sage scrub; polloptila callf omits nia and Baja California in Iow-ly- not detected during cal~fornica ing foothills and valleys. focused survey for spe- Califonxla Mastiff Bat . From north<entral California US: ND Low: reported from south to northern Baja California, CA: CSC surrounding region; Texas and Coshulls. In California, occurs primarily in crevices. Saa Diego black- Various habitats including desert Year round US: ND Occm-s: observed on tailed jack~bblt scrub areas, early stages 0fopen CA: CSC site. Lapus californlcus mon in relatively open habitats. of Southern California, from the Gabriel, 5an Bernardino, and San Bernard~o Eady successional stages of allu- Year round US: C Absent: habitat on site Merriam's kax~garoo vial fan sage scab; active drain- CA: CSC is unsuitable (lack of alluvial fan sage scrub rat age channels and braided river- and fluvial scouring / Dipodortrys marrlami beds characterized by fluvial deposition). parrus scouring and deposition. Los .~ageles pocket prefem sandy soil for burrowing, late spring US: ND Moderate: habitat on mouse but has been found on gravel to CA: CSC site appears suitable, washes and stony soils. Found in early fall. site is v,-ithin knov,,n perogruTthus coastal scrub. Los Angeles, River- range of species. longirnernbrls side, and San Bernardino coun- -//7 Legend - Table A _. US: Federal Classiflc~tions END -Taxa listed as Endangered. THR Taxa listed as Threatened. Prop END Tara proposed to be listed as Endangered. Prop THR Tara proposed to be listed as Threatened. Note: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service CLTSF1FS) has recently revised its classifica- 'lions of candidate tara (species, subspecies, and other taxonomic designa- tions), species formerly designated as "Category nc:~;known simply as "Candidate." The former designat~Dn of '!Category Candidate for listing" has been discontin~.ed, the USF'~CrS will continue to · - assess the need for protection of these tara and may, in the f~rure, designate such tara as Candidates. - C Candidate [or listing. Refers to taxa [or which the US~-w', has sufficient ird'or- marion to suppor~ a proposal to list as Endangered or Threatened, issuance of the proposal(s) is anticipated but. precluded at this time. Not designated !s a sensitive species CA: State C]ass~ftcatlons E~TD Taxa State-listed as ]';nda ngcred. THR Tara State-listed as Threatened. C E State candidate (Endangered). C T State candidate (Threatened). CSC Cali/ornia Species of Special Concern. Refers to taxa with populations declin- ing seriously or that are otherwise highly vulnerable to human developments. SA Special Animal. Refers to tara of concern to the Natural Diversity Data Base regardless of their legal or protection Not designated as a sensitive species. .C_.~'PS: California Native Plant Societ~ Classifications 1B List of plants considered by C, NPS to be rare or endangered in Cali. fomia and elsewhere. 2 List of plant5 considered by CNPS tO be~ ra. re, threatened or endangered in Cali- fornia, but which are more common ~lSe~l~ere. Review list or plants suggested by CNI~S for consideration as endangered but about which more information is needed. Watch list of plants of limited distribution, whose status should be monitored. PROJECT IMPACTS E. FFECTS ON BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES I,N GE.~'F_RAL ?~n area encompassing about 16 acres will be graded for project construction. The area to be disturbed consists primarily of ruderal/disturbed land, a small area (less than one-quarter acre) of coastal sage scrub will be removed as will the two eucalyptus windrows and some of the eucalyptus trees around the existing residence near the easterly property boundary. The northerly portion of the site, which contains the highest quality habitat areas will be retained in its existing natural condition. The effects of the project on biological resources in general (sensitive and non- sensitive resources) would consist primarily of direct impacts to plants and wildlife associated with grading and other construction activities. In addition, the project may result in some indirect effects associated with human activities · ' adjacent to undeveloped natural lands. Grading Impacts to Wildlffe Habitat/Reductions in grildfiLfe iN'umbers The smaller, less mobile rodent and reptile species would experience a direct reduction in population numbers as a result of destruction during clearing and project grading. More mobile small mammals (e.g., rabbits), larger mammals (e.g., coyote), and birds would be displaced and would attempt to fred habitat elsewhere within the region. To the extent that adjacent areas are not already at their carD'inS capacity for the displaced species, some individuals would possibly be able to utilize these areas. t--Io~,ever, this is not usually the case and the increased competition for habitat, food, and water in surrounding areas would lead to ~t reduction in ~e total number c~f~nimals present within the region roughly equal to the number of animals inhabiting the impacted area. These direct impacts are not considered significant on a project level, but represent a relatively small contribution to the cumulative effects of past and ongoing development of wildlife habitat in the project vicinity and Southern California. I, MPA CTS TO SENSITIVE SPECIES The sensitive species identified as occurring or potentially occurring on the project site would be impacted by the proposed project through a loss of individuals from the site and/or a loss of suitable habitat. None of the sensitive species occurring or potentially occurring on the site are listed as Threatened or Endangered. The following species were identified' (Table, A) as occurring on site or as having a moderate or high potential to occur on the site: Plummer's Mariposa lily Parrfs spineflower 12 · San Diego horned l~zard · Northern harrier · Cooper's hawk · Golden eagle · San Diego black'~iled jackrabbit · Los Angeles pocket mouse. · hese species are of limited distribution in Southern California, and ongolng development in the region is further reducing their range 'and numbers. The highest quality habitat for many of these species is located on the northerly . portion of the site and will be retained in its existing natural condition. The . proiect's impacts to these species and their required habitat represents a rela- tively S'inall contribution to this cumulative effect. These impacts are not con- sidered to be significant. Further discussion on the potential impacts to raptor species fo~k~ws,·- Other sensitive species, as identified in Table A, that may occur on the site are as follows: California muhly · California mastiff bat · Pious daisy. The pious daisy may be present within the area of coastal sage scrub. This portion of the site will be retained in its existing natunl condition. Areas of habitat within the site are either marginal or unsuitable for these species. Although; a few California muMy plants might be present within the Morse Canyon area, this portion of the site will not be disturbed by the proposed project. The California mastiff bat may use the site for foraging purposes and may roost, in Ic~z numbers, in the eucalyptus trees on site. Potential impacts, if any, to these three species Would be minimal and are not considered to be significant. Raptors Project construction will result in the loss of about 16 acres of raptor foraging habitat and the removal of eucalyptus trees that provide perching and roosting sites for various birds of prey. Foraging ranges of the sensitive raptor species observed on sit~ (Cooper's hawk, northern harrier, and golden eagle) vary widely depending on local habitat conditions. Home ranges reported by Zeiner et al. (1990) for the three species are as follows: · Cooper's hawk 45 to 1,912 acres · Northern harrier 30 to 2,200 acres · Golden eagle 9 to 74 square miles. The actual home range size of an individual bird will vary depending on avail- ability and density of prey items and other factors (in areas of high quality foraging habitat a bird requires a smaller home range than would be needed in 13 areas of poor quality. foraging habitat). The area to be graded for proiect con- struction is in a disturbed condition and is of low to moderate value as raptor foraging habitat. Given the relatively small area to be graded, the project will result in an incremental loss of raptor foraging habitat and will contribute to the ongoing cumulative loss of this habitat in the surrounding area and in southern California. Due to the relatively small area that will be graded and the availability of other perching and roosting sites in the surrounding area (in- cluding trees to be retained on site), impacts of the proposed project on raptor foraging habitat are not considered to be significant. EDGE EFFECTS Following project implementation, a range of incidental effects, generally · - referred to as "edge effects," could potentially impact plants and wildlife on undeveloped lands at the project boundary. Typical edge effects resulting from human uses near natural areas may be organized under three general head- . ings: (l) Human Related Disturbance, (2) Facility Lighting, and (3) Non-Native! Invasive Plant Species. Human Related Disturbance Generally, humans may be expected to disturb the wildlife in natural open space areas adjacent to any development. Impacts can include, but are not limited to, the following: Willful or accidental destruction of habitat. Disturbance of wildlife species that are not adaptable to human pres- ence (e..g., gray fox, bobc. at) . Alteration of behavior patterns and population levels of species that are adaptable to human presence (e.g., raccoon and coyote). Increased risk of fire. 2:acility Lighting Nighttime lighting associated with project facilities may affect the behavior pat- terns of nocturnal or crepuscular (active at dawn or dusk) animals in the vicin- ity. Examples of wildlife that may be particularly vulnerable to the effects of nighttime lighting include small mammals that forage only in darkness to avoid detection by predators, and owls, which are adapted to hunting in darkness. Artificial lighting may also affect roosting patterns of diurnal birds. Non-Native, Invasive Plant Species Exotic and non-native plant species planted as part of landscaping could potentially invade adjacent natu~l open space areas and displace native species. po:,~rtial Si~nifi'cance of Edge Effects The effects of human activities on adiaccnt nana~, as are additive, and may reduce native plant populations and degrade'wilaiife breeding and foraging activities in these areas. Much of the land adioining the southerly portions of the site is in a disturbed condition due to past agri:ultural operations, existing roadways, transmission llne construction and operation, and flood control · activities. I~nd adjoining the northerly portion of the site are in a relatively undisturbed condition. However, these lands are steep, rugged, and relatively inaccess:ble. In addition, it is expectec~ :hat the human activities associated with the proposed temple project will be concentrated wir:..;n the southerly portion of the site and will have minimal e~fects on the adja-.ent lands. There- fore, th,~ edge effects are not expected to be significant MITIGA'TiON MEASURES AS is described in the Project Impacts Section, project implementation is not expected to result in significant impacts to biological resources. Under CEQA, mitigation is required for project effects that are identified as being significant on the project level, or that otherwise represent a contribution to cumulatively significant effects. BIOLOGICAL RE,CO~C..E'S IN Although impSets to biological resources in general are not considered to be :nificant, it is recommended that project grading be designed to preserve :sting native habitat wherever possible. It is also recommended that, to the ~reatest extent ft. ble, project landscaping make use of plants native to the local region. EDGE EPI-~ CTS Mita~atlon for Edge Effects Although potential edge effects resulting from the project are not considered to be significant, it is recommended that the following measures be under- taken to minimize the potential edge effects of the proposed project: _. * All street, security, and landscape lighting of the project should be de- signed and installed such that it~is not-directed toward any natural open space areas. · It is r_commended that a landscaping palerie be developed emph~i' . the use of plants native to the local regio.~.. Non-native plant species tF,:, may invade natural areas should not be used m project landscaping. L,CA Associates. Inc. _ REFERENCES American Ornithologists' Union, 1983. Checklist of North American Birds. Sixth Edition. AOU, Washington, D.C. American Ornithologists' Union, 1995. Fortieth supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Checklist of North American Birds. AUK 112:819-850 Beauchamp, R.M. 1986. A flora of San Diego County. Sweetwater Press, Na- tional City, CA. California Natural Diversity Data Base, 1996. Data Base report on threatened! endangered, rare or otherwise sensitive species and communities for the Cucamonga Peak and Devore quads. California Department of Fish and Game, 1995. Special Plantl List. Hickman, J. C., ed. 1993. TheJepson Manual: Higher plants of California. University of California Press. 1400 pp. Holland, R. F., 1986. preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 156 pp. Laudenslayer, W.F., Jr., W.E. Grenfell, Jr., and D.C. Zeiner. 199t. A Check-list of the Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals of California. Califor- nia Fish and Game 77:109-141. Skinner, M.W. and Pavlik, B.M, 1994. Inventory of Rare and Endangered -' Vascular Plants of Cahfornia. California Native Plant Society, Spec. Pub. No. i (Sth editi6n), Berkeley, California. 338 pp. Soil Conservation Service, 1980. Soil Survey of San Bernardino County, Southwestern Part, California. USDA, Washington D.C. -- The Wildlife Society, Southern California Chapter, 1993. Biology and Man- agement of Rodents in Southern California. Rodent Biology Work- shop, June, 1993. Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, M. White. 1990. California's Wildlife. California Department of~sh and Game. Sacramento, CA. APPENDIX A - PLANT SPECIES - SPECIES LIST The following list includes all plant and animal species detected on the Ling _. Yen Mountain Temple project site during field surveys conducted by LSA. Ornamental plant species clearly planted on site are excluded from this list. For plants, taxonomy and nomenclature follows Hickman'(1993), with many .-. common names taken from Beauchamp (1986). Taxonomy and nomenclature for all vertebrate species in this list follows I~udenslayer er ~,l. (1991), as up- dated, for birds, by the American Ornithologists' Union ' 795). An asterisk indicates that a species is not native to 'California. FERNS ' P~ridaecae Ferns Pellaea arutromedifolia Coffee Fern DICOT FLOWERING PIAN'rS Amaranthaceae Amaranths * Amaranthus albu$ White Tumbleweed Aaaeardiaceae Sumacs P, hux ovata Sugar Bush lbu~ trilobata Basket Bush Toxicoderdron diverMlobum Poisc~n Oak Asteraceae Suaflower~, Aster, etc. Ambroxla ancanthocarpa Burweed .Ambrogla p$11o.$tachya Western Ragweed ArtemiMa californica California Sagebrush Arternix~a draeunculu$ Tarragon Bzaccharis $alieifolla Mule fat Bebblajuneea Sweetbush * Centaurea meliter~M$ Toealote * Cbamornilla suaveolen$ Pineapple Weed * Cir$1um vulgare Bull Thistle ..... * Conyxa bonarlemix F!ax-!eafYleabane Conyxa canademi$ -- Mare's Tail Eneelia farinosa Brinlebush Eri~ameriapalmeri Palmer's Goldenbush Eriophytlurn confertifiorurn Golden Yarrow ' Gru~phallum californicum California Cudweed Hazardia squatrosa Saw-tooth Goldenbush Helfant!Ju$ annuus Common Sunflower Heterothec~a gramtifiora Telegraph Weed * Laetuca $erriola Prickly Lettuce Lesgingia~laginifolia Cudweed Aster * $onchu$ oleraceus Sow Thistle $tephanomerla ~qrgata Twiggy Wreathplant * ~ --Xarffbfum $trumarlum Cocklebur II/19,96CR:XtYr6~O~IO-P,.EPT. LYI) A-1 Boraghaaceae Borages Amsinckia menxiesii Rancher's Fiddleneck Heliotropium curassavicum Salt Heliotrope Brasslcaceae Mustards · Hirschfeldia incana Short-pod Mustard · Sirymbrium sp. mustard Caprlfollaceae Hoileysuckles, Eiderberries Sambucus mexicana Mexican Elderberry Cheuopodiaceae Saltbushs, Che~aopodes · Salsola tragus Russian Thistle Convolv~laceae Morn ;ng-gloHes Calystegia macrostegia Finger-leaf Morning-glory Euphorblaceae Spurges Chamaesyce albornarginata Rattlesnake Weed Croton californicus California Croton Eremocarpus setigerus Doveweed Fabaceae Peas, Clovers, Lupines, etc. Lotus scoparius Deetweed · Melilotus sp. sweet-clover Geraaiaceae Geraniums · Erodium cicutarium Red-stemmed Filaree HydrophyBaceae Waterleaf$ Phacelia ramo;issirrta 'B'ranching phacelia Lamiaceae Mints, Sages · Marrublum vulgare Horehound Salvia apiarta White Sage Salvia mellifera Black Sage Trichostema lanceolatum Vinegar Weed Malvaceae MaLlows · Malva parviJTora Cheeseweed Myrtaceae My~rtles · Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red Gum Nyctaginaceae Your O'Clocks Mirabilis californica California Wishbone Bush Onagraceae ' 'EVe~nlng prim.roses ' Camissonia sp. camissonia 1 lFig/96(~:XL'FE630%BIO'RI!PT.LYI) Platanaceae Sycamor~ ' Platanus racernosa (,. iifomia sycamore Polygonaceae Buckwheats, Docks EHogonumfasciculatum California Buckwheat Eriogonum gracile Slender Buck'wheat Portulacaeae Punlanes-; * Protulaca oleracea Common Punlane Rhantnacese Buckthorns Rh~ ' ~nu$ crocea Redberry Rosaceae Roses ~t: Menostoma fasclculatum Chamise Rubiaceae Madden Galium angustif olium Bedstraw Scrophularlaceae Figworts, Monkeyflowers Mimulus aurantiacus B,uSh Monkeyflower Solanace~e Nightshades, Tabaccoes Z ura wrightii Jimson Weed * lv,scotiana glauca Tree Tobacco MONOCOT FLOWERING PLANTS Yucca whipplel Spanish Bayonet Poaceae Grasses * Arena sp. wild oat * Bromus diandrus Ripgut Grass * Bromu$ rnadritensi$ Red Brome * Cynodon daaylon Bermuda Grass Leymus condensatus Giant Wild Rye , $chisrnus barbatus Abu-mashi * Vulpia myuros Foxtail Fes_cue APPENDIX B - WILDLIFE SPECIES ' ' REPTILES Iguaajdae Iguaaid Lizards Uta stansburiana Side-blotched Lizard BItLDS Cathartidae New World Vultures Catbartes aura Turkey Vulture Accipitridae Kites, Hawks, Eagles Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier Accipiter cooperi Cooper's Hawk · · Buteojamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk Aquila chrysateos Golden Eagle Falcoaidae Falcons Falco sparverius American Kestrel Phasianidae Pheasa/ats, Grouse, Quail Callipepla californica California Quail Columbidae Pigeons, Doves Zenaida macrourn Mourning Dove Cuculldae Cuckoos, Roadrumaers Geococcyx ca[ifornianus Greater Roadrunner Trochilidae Hummhagbixds Calypte anna Anna's Hummingbird Picidae Woodpeckers Colaptes auratus collaris Red-shafted Flicker Tyrannldae Tyrant Flycatchers Sayornis saya Say's Phoebe Corvidae Jays, Crows, Paveas Aphelocoma califomica Western Scrub-Jay Corvus corax Common Raven AegithaLidae Bushtits Psaltriparus minimus Bushtit Troglody~idae Wrens Salpinctes obsoletus Rock Wren Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's Wren 11/'~9/96CR:xLYF630xBIO'I~'EPT'LYT) B-1 Muscie~pidae Gr~teatchers, Tl~fusbes, l~bb~ex~, etc. Regulus calendula Ruby-crowned Kinglet Polioptila caerulea Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Sialia mexicana Western Bluebird Catharusguttatus Hermit Thrush Cbamaea fasdata Wrentit Mimidae Thrashers Mimuspolyglottos Northern Mockingbird Toxostorna rediuivum California Thrasher PtLl~gonatidae Silky Flycatchers Pbainopepla nitens Phainopepla Sturnldae Starlings ' * $turnus vulgaris European Starling Emberizidae . Warblers, S~oarrows, etc. Vermivora celata Orange-crowned Warbler Dendro:z~ coronata auduboni Audubon's Warbler Pipilo maculatus Spotted Towhee Pipilo crissalis California Towhee Chordestes grammac'us l,~rk Sparrow Zonotrichia leucopbrys gambelii Gambers White-crowned Sparrow Sturnella neglecta Western Meadowlark Fringillidae Finches Carpodacus mexicanus House Finch Carduelispinus Pine Siskin Carduelispsaltria Lesser Goldfinch Leporidae Rabbits, Ham Lepus californicus Black-tailed Jackrabbit 5yluilagus audubonii Audubon's Cottontail Sciuridae S~irreis $p~, mophilus beecbeyi California Ground Squirrel Geomyidae Pocket Gophers Thomomys bottae Borm's Pocket Gopher Heteromyldae Pocket Mice, Kangaroo Rats Dipodomys sp. kangaroo rat sp. (probably stephens0 Cricetidae Mice, WoodraB, Voles Peromyscus sp. deer mouse $p. Neotorna leoida Dcser~ Woodrat Canldae Dogs, Wolves, Foxes Urocyon cinereoargenteus Gray Fox . Canis latrans Coyote .. Procyoaidae Raccoons Procyon lotor Raccoon Musteljdae ~Veasels, Skunks, Badgers Mephitis mephitis Striped Skunk Cervidae Elk, Deer, Caribou Odocoileus bemionus Mule Deer I3-3 1 I/'I9,~)6(R:"-LYT630',BIO'P'~PT'LYT) /-~ -/~? ..~ MEAN + 1-SIGMA PEAK HORIZ. ACCELERATION 2 LM ._~ 1 LD ,,,, LU 0.5 n 0 ~ I 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 . 24 26 28 30 32 34 METHOD NUMBER ', 1~ STRIKE-SLIP FAULTS .~m REVERSE-SLIP FAULTSi Attachment "C" I ""'\ ~ 160 AC. ' I "~ Pa~ ~. -POT. 4 / ~ 19:18AC 22.52 AC. M/L por. Par. 5 Po~P.~ ~ p~.~ar. 7 I ~ I~ -- · ~ ~'~ ~ "" ~G YEN - ASS E',~ U"P ~SSOCIA TES , GEO TECHNIC~ L CONSUL T.,,CVTS RESPONSE TO REVIEW OF ENGINEERING GETOLOGIC INVESTIGATION PROPOSED LING YEN MOUNTAIN TEMPLE ~; - ~ (LOT 7, PM No. 9461) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA Prepared FoT"- Mr. RICHARD HU, P.E. HU ASSOCIATES 11955 RIVERA ROAD SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670 MARCH 3, 1998 JOB NO: 97-425 EA UP ASSOCIATE$ GEO TECI-A2VICAL CONS UL TANT, S March 3, I998 Job No.: '-425 Mr. Richard Hu, P.E. Hu Associates ~11955 Rivera Road Santa Fe Springs, California 90670 SUBJECT: Response to Review of Engineering Geologic Investigation, Proposed Ling Yen Mountain Temple, Lot 7, PM No. 9461, County of San Bernardino, California REFERENCES: Kaup Associates, November 9, 4997; Engineering Geologic Investigation, Proposed Ling Yen Mountain Temple, Lot 7, PM No. 9464, County of San Bernardino, California Countyof San Bemardino Land Use Services Department, December ~ ~, ~ 99 7; Review of Fault Rupture Hazard Investigation Report, Lin Yen Mountain Temple Site, Etiwanda, County Review Number 748 Dear Mr. Hu: The referenced review by the County of San Bemardino Land Use Services Depart, .ent has outlined four items that require additional clarification and or explanation. The following represents an itemized response to the issues raised by Mr. Wessly A. Reeder, County Geologisf, Building and Safety Division, Land Use Services Department, Pubtic Services Group. 2 /-/ ITEM #1 Rate 1.1 has been revised to clearly identify the bu~dable envelope that represents that portion of the restricted use zone suitable for structures designated for human occupancy. In addition, those portions of the site that fie within the A-P Zone that were not covered by the recent trenching remain within the restricted use zone and are therefore not to be considered areas suitable for the construction of structures for human occupancy. It should be noted that additional tre~ching beyond those extentS' covered by the referenced November 9, 1997 investigation may yield additional areas within the r'~stricted use Zone that may be deemed suitable to receive structures for human occupancy at a later date. ITEM #2 The buildable envelope identified on the revised Plate 1.1 (attached to this response) is based upon measurements made in the field by a survey crew under the direction of the project civil engineer. Those control points used by the surveyors and plotted by the project civil engineer should be duly recorded and filed with the County Recorder together with those other survey lines, coordinates, azimuths, bearings, directions, distances, etc.'to legally describe the bu~dable envelope as identified within that portion of the A-P Zone for the Cucamonga fault investigated and reported in the November 9, 1997 report. The project civil engineer must plot those survey control points on either Plate 1.1 or an identical document and should be included with .this response. ITEM #3 Based upon the investigation described ~n the referenced engineering geologic report, this office has no reasonable belief that a buried fault is likely to exist just beyond the southern extent of Trench #1. Neve~heless, this office believes that it is reasonable to setback from any postulated active fault regardless. Considering the nature and complexity ?f the Cucamonga Thrust Fault, it 3 must be assumed that a buried fault undiscovered -ough the investigation described in the referenced engineering geologic report may indeed r6 nt a geologic hazard within the restri ;tel use zone designated by the State of California. According/y, absent information to the contrary that would either refute or establish the presence of a buried active fault, the setback shown on P/at{ ~. ~ that includes a 5 degree factor of safety centered at the southern end of Trench #1 is include ~ as.. a recommendation by this office. Considering the proximity of the proposed structures to the active fault traces identified ih 9 referenced engineering geologic investigation coupled with the accelerations known to exist i! tl, e I/ near-field during a seismic event, this office redommends that all foundation systems contain a minimal amount of reinforcing steel to provide sufficient support for structures that may experience tensiona/ ground cracking beneath their footprints. Respectfully Submitted, '~, ~~ i ~ . ~Berger, C.E. ' ~ "' · . . XC: (5) Addressee ENCLOSURES:' Geologic Map .......................Rate 4. f (in pocket) 0 50 100 \ (u..) SAN FRANCISCO LOS SITE LOCATION (+): '~ Lotitude - 34.1667 N Longitude - 117.5000 W Ling Yen Mountoin Temple CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP ...COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM EARTHQUAKES MAXIMUM CREDIBLE EARTHQUAKES MAXIMUM PROBABLE EARTHQUAKES ---- ~. o 'J ~xx t.u CJ x ~, 0 Z 0.01 0.01 v ,/ Q- 0.001 0. I ! I0 100 1000 0.001 0.1 1 10 !00 ~000 DISTANCE (mi) DISTANCE (mi) J_OB~O.: 9]-425 ~I.~,~I~UDE: 34.4-667=N~---i;ONGiTUDE:--H?~5000~W~ Attachment ~G~' i "'" VIEW FROM HIGHLAND AVE.