HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/08/12 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY AUGUST 12, 1998 7:00 PM
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chamber
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Chairman McNiel __ Vice Chairman Macias __
Commissioner Barker ~ Commissioner Tolstoy __
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. 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 concem over any item, it should be removed for
discussion.
A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-40 FOR TRACT 13812
WEALTH V. LLC - The review of the detailed site pian and building
elevations for a recorded final subdivision map consisting of 107 single
family lots on 31.47 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4
dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located
west of Etiwanda Avenue, between Highland and Summit Avenues -
APN: 225-441-01 through 11 and 225-431-01 through 83.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice
their opinion of the related projecL Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman
and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions
shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each projecL Please sign in after
speaking.
B. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 98-02 - CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the regulations for second
dwelling units for consistency with changes in State law. (Continued
from July 8, 1998.) (TO BE CONTINUED TO AUGUST 26, 1998.)
C, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15170 - STRINGFELLOW - A subdivision
of 2.52 acres of land into 3 parcels in the Ver,j Low Residential District
(less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of
Hellman Avenue, north of Wilson Avenue - APN: 1061-601-01.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT 14120 - PANDA DEVELOPMENT - A request for
a time extension for an approved residential subdivision of 68 single
family lots on 53.05 acres of land in the Veff Low Residential District
(1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located
north and south of Summit Avenue, approximately 1,300 feet west of
Etiwanda Avenue -APN: 225-111-22 and 225-171-02, 08, 11, and 16.
Related file: Tree Removal Permit 91-21. Staff has prepared a
Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT 15711 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES -A
request for a time extension for an approved residential subdivision of
283 lots on 80.39 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District
(4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, generally
located north of Foothill Boulevard, east of Etiwanda Avenue, south of
the Interstate 15 Freeway, and west of East Avenue
APN: 1100-141-01 and 02, 1100-171-01 and 13, 1100-181-01 and 04,
and 1100-201-01. Related files: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment
96-01 and Tree Removal Permit 96-17. Staff has prepared a Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION AND
CONDITION MODIFICATION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14509 -
BAAYOUN CORPORATION - A request for a time extension and
condition modification for a previously approved Tentative Tract Map
and design review of 18 single family lots on 3.84 acres of land in the
Low Residential District (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), located on the
east side of Hermosa Avenue, between Wilson Avenue and Banyan
Street - APN: 201-183-01. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration
of environmental impacts for consideration.
G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 MODIFICATION - RODRIGUEZ
- A request to modify a condition of approval related to preparation of
Design Guidelines for an approved master planned shopping center,
with Phase One development consisting of a 2,900 square foot
drive-thru restaurant (Burger King) and a 5,548 square foot restaurant
(previously Zendejas) on 3.7 acres of land in the Community
Page 2
Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located
at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue -
APN: 207-211-12 and 13.
V. NEW BUSINESS
H. UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25
- RODRIGUEZ - A request for review and approval of a Uniform Sign
Program for an approved master planned shopping center with Phase
One development consisting of a 2,900 square foot drive-thru
restaurant (Burger King) and a 5,548 square foot restaurant (previously
Zendejas) on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial
designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the
southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue -
APN: 207-211-12 and 13.
I. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW g8-13 - THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW
ESTATES, LLC - A design review of the detailed site plan and building
elevations for Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single family homes on
25.35 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2
dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of
Ringstem Ddve - APN: 1074-511-27 through 31 and 1074-621-01
through 35. (Although not necessarily required by law, this item was
noticed at the direction of the City Council.)
J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
98-04 - RUSSELL STOUT & ASSOCIATES - The development of a
retail building totaling 7,000 square feet on a 39,750 square foot parcel
in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the northeast
cornerofArchibaldAvenueandBaseLineRoad-ApN: 1076-191-09.
Related file: Conditional Use Permit 84-13. Staff has prepared a
Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
VI. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
K. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24 - MASI - A review of a request to
place the La Fourcade arch in a recessed area at the west elevation
instead of placing it above the building entry at the east elevation of
Building 5.
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.
Page 3
VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS
L. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITI'EE APPOINTMENTS
M. SIGNS/MULTI-FAMILY TASK FORCE UPDATE - Oral report
N. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TASK
FORCE UPDATE - Oral report
O. UPDATE ON VICTORIA ARBORS (FORMERLY THE LAKES)
IX. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an
11:OO p. m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only
with the consent of the Commission.
I, Jeanenne Spikes, Office Specialist II for the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
hereby certify that a tree, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on
August 6, ~998, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code
" /~, ' /
Page 4
VICINITY MAP
· k CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY OF I~NCHO CUCAMONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 12, 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Cecilia Gallardo, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-40 FOR TRACT 13812 - WEALTH V. LLC - The
review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for a recorded final
subdivision map consisting of 107 single family lots on 31.47 acres of land in the
Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific
Plan, located west of Etiwanda Avenue, between Highland and Summit Avenues -
APN: 225-441-01 through 11 and 225-431-01 through 83.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The project includes only the westerly one-half of Tract
13812. The project site was previously graded in 1990 and perimeter and retaining walls
constructed. Since that time, the site has been left undisturbed. The 31.47 acre project area lies
within the Day Creek Neighborhood of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP). Tract 13812 was
approved by the Planning Commission on November 9, 1988.
ANALYSIS:
A. General: The applicant is proposing four basic floor plans of 2.677, 3,053, 3,345, and 4,095
square feet each with four model elevations. With reverse floor plans and one side-on garage
variation, there are at least nine possible floor plan configurations. The ENSP calls for new
home designs to consist of primary and secondary architectural styles that reflect the
architectural and cultural heritage of the Etiwanda area. The required architectural styles for
the Day Creek Neighborhood include Victorian, Country, Bungalow, Ranch, Monterey, San
Juan, and Santa Barbara Revival. The applicant has chosen a mix of these styles for the
exterior treatments. The proposed landscaping and wall treatments along the street frontages
will be consistent with the Conditions of Approval for the subdivision and the Day Creek
Neighborhood theme of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan.
B. Desiqn Review Committee: On May 5, 1998, the Design Review Committee (Bethel, Macias,
and Fong) reviewed the project and recommended approval with conditions, which have been
incorporated into the attached Resolution of Approval. Action comments from this meeting
are attached (Exhibit "E").
C. Gradinq Committee: The Grading Committee reviewed the project on two separate ,
occasions, May 5 and June 16, 1998. At their meeting on June 16, 1998, the Committee
determined that, with the recommended conditions of approval, the project is in compliance
with all applicable City standards and ordinances.
ITEM A
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 97-40 FOR TT 13812 - WEALTH V. LLC
August 12, 1998
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The site was reviewed by the Planning Commission on
July 22, 1998, for environmental clearance. A Negative Declaration of environmental impacts was
issued by the Planning Commission for this project. iSubsequently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has identified the project site as a potential habitat for the endangered San Bernardino
kangaroo rat and the threatened California Gnatcatcher. A biological habitat assessment (Bon
Terra, June 3, 1998) concluded that the habitat is marginally suitable for both species and neither
species were found on the site. Therefore. the information and circumstances haven*t changed and
no furlher environmental review is necessary.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development
Review 97-40 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions.
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:CG/jfs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Floor Plans/Building Elevations
Exhibit "D" - Master Street Tree Plan
Exhibit "E" - Design Review Committee Action Comments dated May 5, 1998
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
%"' !__HIGH HORSE DRIVE
--
..
.... VINTAGE DRIVE
~ ::'::': ....~-'~---~ ~::7;:-,.. :~ ~.,,,.,,.,. ~, ,:.,,,;.
.... I "' ':) :' '~ ~ Z~C'
~ ..... ' ..........~ENTUCKY DERBY ~:'6URT ....... I
,_ ~?) ,,
,?,?, .............
_ s' '?~.. ,.:: .
'""""""" ...............'~''~'
®' ~ : ,..l~ . :.'~, ' .
~,.: '" - ~ ] -I -
nT _ ~ ?. ..........
t
: ~,1 I4 .....P''T~''Y[<~>~"'~~'fi. ~ ~'~
.~,~-~ ~ ......
...~ ~- ..
· ,~ -,'*~
SECOND FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN
PLAN
....... /
SECOND lq,OOR I'I.AN FIRST lrLOOR PLAN
I:I,OOR I'I,AN' I'I~AN -4
c ~ ..[
M,,ISTER STREET Tlelz'l:' PL/IN
: . :~;~ , TRTICT 13812
r '~ ~ CITY OF RJNCtlO CU~IMONGJ
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:40 p,m. Cecilia Gallardo May 5, 1998
DESIGN REVIEW 97-40 FOR TRACT 13812 - WEALTH V. LLC: The review of the detailed site plan
and building elevations for a a portion of a previously approved subdivision map consisting of 107 single
family lots on 31.47 acres of land in the Low Residential Distdct of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (2-4
d.u. per acre) located west of Etiwanda Avenue between Highland Avenue and Summit Avenue.
Desicln Parameters:
The project includes only the westerly one-half of Tract 13812. The project site was previously graded
in 1990, and perimeter and retaining walls constructed. The site has since been left undisturbed. The
31.47 acre site lies within the Day Creek Neighborhood of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP).
The ENSP recognizes architecture as a dominant visual element within the built environment and an
important element in establishing the neighborhood identity of a given community. The ENSP calls for
new t~ome design to consist of primary and secondary architectural styles that recall the architectural
and cultural heritage ofthe Etiwanda area. Recommendations forthe use of architectural style is based
on an assessment of those styles which best compliment five "neighborhood" themes. Several historic
themes of California architecture within the Day Creek Neighborhood have been established including
Victorian, Country, Bungalow, Ranch, Monterey, San Juan, and Santa Barbara Revival. The applicant
has chosen a mix of these styles for the exterior treatments.
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. Architecture: The applicant is proposing 4 basic floor plans of 2,057, 2,405.2,650, and 3,439 sq.
ft., each with four model elevations. Wr~h reverse floor plans and one side-on garage
variation, there are at least nine possible floor plan configurations. Generally, staff
believes the various model elevations incorporate the architectural styles selected for
the front elevations. The side and rear elevations, however, do not exhibit sufficient
front elevation details to satisfy 360 degree architecture policy. The following
treatments are recommended to improve the overall designs:
a. Plan 1: Architectural details provided on front elevation should be carried over
to sides and rear. Embellishments such as additional window shutters, pot
shelves, multi-pane windows, and projecting wall dormers should be used to
help in providing a complete 360 degree architectural treatment.
Victorian: Provide horizontal siding and/or shingles on all sides,
Country: Provide more stone accents, and consider arched multi-pane
windows throughout.
Bungalow: Incorporate front porch railing on plan 1C. Increase the size of
the front porch columns, or provide slightly larger, squared piers for Plan
1CR.
Santa Barbara: Provide arch over garage doors.
b. Plan 2: The right and rear elevations of this plan appear identical. Add roof or
projecting wall dormers, varied window treatments, and changes in the roof line.
Continue stone base treatment, and stucco band along garage wall, on left
elevation. Add multi-pane windows to nil elevations. Carry window shutters
and pot shelf details to side and rear elevations.
'KftlZ l F "
DRC COMMENTS
DR 9740 - WEALTH V. LLC
May 5, 1998
Page 2
Victorian: Provide larger front window on Plan 2A. Consider arched second
story windows on front elevation.
Country: More use of stone is recommended. Add shutters to front window
to match front second story windows.
Santa Barbara: Add elements, to incorporate more of the Santa Barbara
style including recessed windows, decorative window grills, and balconies.
Upgrade rear elevation to provide greater variation in the building plane.
c. Plan 3: The side and rear elevations of this plan are similar. Provide additional
details to differentiate plan types. Architectural styles proposed are reflected
in front elevation, but are not reflected in side or rear elevations. Add chimney
~ accents, vary window treatments, provide variation in roof line with projecting
wall or roof dormers, rear balconies, or movement in the building plane with
enhanced pop-outs.
d. Plan 4: Make changes in side and [ear elevations to provide variations in plan
types. Carry front elevations details such as shutters, multi-pane windows,
arches, gables, recessed windows, and pots shelves with corbels to side and
rear elevations, particularly the Country, Santa Barbara. and San Juan styles.
,-- 2. Materials: Staff had requested that the applicant revise the building materials sample
board to provide more detailed information on color and material types. In
addition, the color palettes chosen are inconsistent with the design themes.
The applicant will provide a revised materials sample board at the meeting.
3. Landscaping: The applicant has submitted a master plan for street trees, and will be required
to verify with the City Engineer if the proposed trees are appropriate for use in
publicly maintained landscape area. Flowering vines are to be located along
perimeter theme walls and entry areas to soften the appearance. Front yard
landscaping of all units is a requirement of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan.
Please refer to the attached examples from the Etiwanda North Specific Plan for architectural
detailing of the proposed architectural themes.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Accent base treatments used on front elevations such as rock, brick, stucco banding, etc.,
should be wrapped around to the side elevations to the point where it is anticipated the return
wall will be constructed.
2. Provide extra deep corner side setbacks for two-story houses on corner lots.
3. One story massing is preferred on corner side yards.
4. Design chimney stacks with accent materials used on house such as stone.
5. Taper garage driveways down to a standard two-car width at the street.
6. Provide return walls between houses.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 9740 - WEALTH V. LLC
May 5, 1998
Page 3
7. Return walls and corner side walls to be composed of a decorative block material or have a
decorative finish such as stucco.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. Driveway treatments should vary, with some driveways incorporating decorative paving
consisting of various patterns/textures of concrete, as well as walkway leading to the front
door.
2. Provide a minimum 5-foot setback between fencing on corner side yards and sidewalk to allow
~ for landscaping (including trees).
3. Provide decorative perimeter fencing at tract edges.
4. Retaining walls exposed to public view to be decorative masonry.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the applicant revise the project to address all design issues. Revised plan should
be submitted for further committee review.
Attachments: Excerpts of Design Guidelines of North Etiwanda Specific Plan
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Bill Bethel. Rich Macias, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Cecilia Gallardo
At the meeting, the applicant presented revised building elevations that displayed enhanced side and
rear elevation architecture. The revisions incorporated additional details recommended by staff with
front elevation features carried over to side and rear elevations. The Committee agreed that the
changes satisfied the City's 360 degree architecture policy and were pleased with the modifications.
The outstanding issue for this application is the color palette presented by the applicant. The
Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to develop a revised color scheme consistent with
the architectural themes selected.
The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to submission of revised elevations
incorporating the changes presented to the Committee, and a requirement that the applicant work
with staff to revise the color scheme prior to scheduling for Planning Commission.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW 97-40, THE DESIGN REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN
AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
SUBDIVISION (TRACT NO. 13812) OF 107 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON
31.47 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4
DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC
PLAN, LOCATED WEST OF ETIWANDAAVENUE, BETWEEN HIGHLAND
AND SUMMIT AVENUES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: APN: 225-441-01 THROUGH 11 AND 225-431-01
THROUGH 83.
A. Recitals.
1. Wealth V. LLC has filed an application for the Development Review of Tract No. 13812,
as described in the title of this Resolution. Heroinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development
Review request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 12th day of August 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting on August 12, 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 design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code
and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and
c. That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions
of the Development Code; and
d. That the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not
be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 97-40 FOR TT 13812 - WEALTH V. LLC
August 12, 1998
Page 2
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 applicable conditions of approval from Resolution 88-167. the
original Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract 13812, shall apply
to this project.
2) Accent base treatments used on front elevations such as rock, brick,
stucco banding, etc., shall be wrapped around to the side elevations to
the point where it is anticipated the return wall will be constructed.
3) Provide extra deep corner side setbacks for two-story houses on
corner lots.
4) Provide one story massing on corner Side yards whenever possible.
5) Design chimney stacks with accent materials used on house such as
stone.
6) Taper garage driveways down to a standard two-car width of 16 feet
at the street.
7) Provide return walls between houses.,
8) Return walls and corner side yard walls shall be composed of a
decorative block material or have a decorative finish such as stucco.
9) Driveway treatments shall vary, with some driveways incorporating
decorative paving consisting of variou~ patterns/textures of concrete,
as well as walkways leading to the front door.
10) Provide a minimum 5-foot setback between fencing on corner side
yards and sidewalk to allow for landscaping (including trees).
11 ) Provide decorative perimeter fencing at tract edges.
12) Retaining walls exposed to public view shall be decorative masonry.
13) A decorative perimeter block wall shall be required around the western
portion of the tract, along Summit Avenue, along both sides of Vintage
Street.
14) A sound wall, as required by the acoustical analysis, shall be installed
along the south tract boundary. The final design of the wall shall be
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 97-40 FOR TI'13812-WEALTH V. LLC
August12,1998
Page 3
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the
issuance of building permits.
15) A final acoustical analysis shall be required to identify necessary
mitigation measures to reduce the noise levels within the residences
to below 45 CNEL. The report shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits.
Enqineerinfi Division
1) Tract 13812 has completed plans per City Improvement Drawing No.
417. In accordance with City policy, all improvement plans over one
year old since their approval date. with no activity occurring since said
approval date, are required to be rechecked for conformance with
current City standards and policy.
2) All off-site street improvements shall be constructed full width, including
street lights. Street trees and sidewalk may be deferred until
development of the adjacent properties. The developer may request
a reimbursement agreement to recover the cost of off-site
improvements from future development of the adjacent properties.
However, if the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement
agreement within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted
by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate.
3) During grading operations, erosion protection measures shall be
employed. Said measures shall be delineated on the approved
grading plans and bonded for.
4) A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the
estimated cost of operating all new street lights during the first six
months of operation, prior to building permit issuance.
5) Street tree types, as shown on City Improvement Drawing No. 1417,
shall be revised per the following table:
i e'O
Stable Falls Ave. Rhus Lancea African Sumac 20' O.C. 15 Gal
Golden Trails Ave. Rhus Lancea African Sumac 20' O.C. 15 Ca[
Bluegrass Ave. Rhus Lancea African Sumac i 20' O.C. 15 Gal
Show Horse Way Geigera Parvi~ora Australian Willow 20' O.C. 15 Gal
Filly Court Geigera Parvifiora Australian W~llow 20' O.C. 15 Gai
Ascot Place Geigera Parvi~ora Australian Willow 20' O.C. 15 Gal
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 97-40 FOR T]' 13812 - WEALTH V. LLC
August 12, 1998
Page 4
Bronco Place Geigera PaNifiora Australian Willow 20' O.C. 15 Gal
Polo Place Geigera Pa~ifiora Australian Wdlow 20' O.C. 15 Gal
Preakness Place Geigera Pa~ifiora Australian ~llow 20' O.C. 15 Gal
Rodeo Drive Pyrus Calle~ana Bradford Pear 20' O.C. 15 Gal
High Horse Dr. Pyrus Calle~ana Bradford Pear 20' O.C. 15 Gal
Triple Crown Ct. Pyrus Calle~ana Bradford Pear 20' O.C. 15 Gal
Kentucky Derby Ct. Pyrus Calle~ana Bradford Pear 20' O.C. 15 Gal
Silver Saddle Dr. Pyrus Calle~ana Bradford Pear 20' O.C. 15 Gal
Secretariat Dr. Pyrup Calle~ana Bradford Pear 20' O.C. 15 Gal
Colt Drive Sophora Japonica Japanese Pagoda 30' Q.C. 15 Gal
6) All previous conditions of approval for Tract 13812 shall be complied with.
4. The Secreta~ to this Commission shall ce~ify the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 1998.
P~NNING COMMISSION OF THE CI~ OF ~NCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City ofRancho 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 AUgust 1998 by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 9740
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT: WEALTH V. LLC
LOCATION: WEST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE BETWEEN HIGHLAND & SUMMIT AVENUES
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, {909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
R. 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 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. The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, ___/__
participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire
station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to all
specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the District's
property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with
its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and
regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation
of the final map occurs.
3. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, __ __/__
the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community
Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However
if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant
shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such
existing District prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and
1
Project No. DR 9746'
Completion Date
prior to the recordalien 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.
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
Departmentof Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water district
within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of
permits in the case of all other residential projects.
B. 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, exterior materials and oo ors, andscaping, sign program, and
grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions Contained herein, Development Code
regulations, and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan.
2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon. all Conditions /
of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and __/__ __
State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be
submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division
tO show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy.
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 condensers. etc., shall he
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. 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. Proofofthis landscape
maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved 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 concerns, hours of construction
activity, dust control measures, and security fencing.
10. 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.
11. 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 ¼-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.
12. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant.
13. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk.
14. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry.
15. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock, Other stone veneers may be manufactured
products.
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-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 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 the Etiwanda North Specific 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.All wails shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
8. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho CUcamonga Municipal Code.
E. Environmental
1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock /
Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash
deposit on any property.
2. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special __/__
Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner. prior
to accepting a cash deposit on any property.
3. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway project __ /
in a standard format as determined by ,the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any
property.
4. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the /
issuance of 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. The building plans will be checked
for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report.
5. 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 $719.00, 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
shall be considered grounds for forfeit;
In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final certificate of occupancy), the
applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior to
issuance of building permits. Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified
to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented.
Project No.DR 97-10
Completion Date
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
;OMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
F, Site Development
1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical
Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National 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 residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to
existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate, Such fees may
include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation
Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees.
3.Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and
prior to issuance of building permits.
4. 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.
G. New Structures
1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering
use, area, and fire-resistiveness.
2. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for required occupancy separation(s).
3. Roofing material shall be installed as for wind-resistant roof covering at wind velocity not less
than 90 mph.
H. Grading
1. Grading of the subject proper~ 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 sails 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 appreved prior to issuance of building permits.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project.
2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,500 gallons per minute.
a A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department
personnel prior to water plan approval.
b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall /
be conducted by the builde~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 operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing
materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel.
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 Safely 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. All roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards per Rancho /
Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance No. 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 prior to final plan approval: /
Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms,
etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans.
9.Plans shall be submitted and approved, prior to construction in accordance with 1994 U BC, UFC, /
UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15.
10. With the home located above Hillside Road. it shall comply to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire __/__ __
District's Standards for a high fire hazard zone,
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
J. Security Hardware
1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. /
2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts sha!l be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within
40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used.
3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices.
K. 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.
L. Building Numbering
1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime
visibility,
CITY OF ILa~NCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 12. 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad BulleL City Planner
BY: Rudy Zeledon, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 98-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -
A request to amend the regulations for second dwelling units for consistency with
changes in state law. (Continued from July 8, 1998.)
BACKGROU N D: The Planning Commission continued this item twice, on June 10 and July 8, 1998.
at the request of staff so that they could further review and research state law for second dwelling
units. On August 3, 1998, staff received new information from the City Attorney, which would allow
the City an opportunity to establish additional development criteria for second dwelling units.
Because of the new information, staff requests a continuance of four weeks to allow more time to
develop the appropriate criteria.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue Development Code
Amendment 98-02 to the meeting of September 9, 1998.
Respe bm~tted~
City Planner
BB:RZ:mlg
ITEM B
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 12, 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer
BY: Maria E. Perez, Assistant Engineer
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15170 - STRINGFELLOW - A subdivision of 2.52
acres of land into 3 parcels in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling
units per acre), located on the east side of Hellman Avenue, noah of Wilson Avenue
- APN: 1061-601-01.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested:
Approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map as shown on Exhibit "B."
B. Surroundin,2 General Plan Designations and Zonin.o:
Single Family Residential, Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre).
C. Surroundin~ Land Use:
Noah - Single Family Residential, Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling
units per acre).
South - Single Family Residential, Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling
units per acre).
East Single Family Residential, Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling
units per acre).
West Vacant
D. Site Characteristics: The property is situated on the east side of Hellman Avenue, noah of
Wilson Avenue. The site currently has one single family home fronting Hellman Avenue and
slopes approximately 2-3 percent to the south. There are no defined drainage courses.
ITEM C
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
PM 15170
August 12, 1998
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
The parcel map will create three lots. Parcel 1 will front Hellman Avenue with an existing home.
Parcels 2 and 3 will be vacant and front an extension of Hillside Cove.
Full frontage improvements will be required along Heliman Avenue and the extension of Hillside
Cove.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The applicant has completed Part I of the Initial Study with the application. Staff has concluded that
the site is exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Categorical
Exemptions, Section 15315, Class 15, Part ti of the Initial Study is not required. Therefore, staff has
prepared an environmental Notice of Exemption for consideration.
CORRESPONDENCE:
Notices of Public Heating have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in the Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin. Posting at the site has also been completed.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Parcel Map 15170 by adoption
of the attached Resolution and approval of the environmental Notice of Exemption.
Respectfully submitted,
Senior Civil Engineer
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map
Exhibit "B" - Tentative Map
Environmental Notice of Exemption
Resolution and Recommended Conditions of Approval
CITY OF ITEM: TPM 15170
RANCH0 CUGAMONGA TITLE: Vicinity Map
ENGINEERING DIVISION EXHIBIT: "A"
TENTAT I VE MAP
ARCEl MAP 15170
UTILITY PROVIDERS:
v,¢,.nv ~.,' ITEM:= TPM-151,TO
TITLE: Tentative Map
EXHIBIT: "B
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
TO: X Clerk of the Board FROM: City ofRancho Cucamonga
San Bemardino County P.O. Box 807
Auditor/Controller-Recorder Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
222 W. Hospitality Lane
SanBernardino, CA 92415-0018 ATTN: EngineeringDivision
Tentative Parcel Map 15170
Project Title
5655 Hellman Avenue, east side of Hellman Avenue north of VFilson Avenue
Project Location - Specific
Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino
Project Location - City Project Location - County
A subdivision of 2.52 acres into 3 parcels
Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Name of Public Agency Approving Project
City qf Rancho Cucamonga
Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project
Exempt Status: (Check One)
Ministerial (Sec. 15073)
Declared Emergency (Sec. 15071 (a))
Emergency Project (See. 15071 (b) and (c))
X Categorical Exemption. State type and section number.
California Environmental Oualirv Act. Section 15315. Class 15
Reasons why project is exempt:
Maria E. Perez 909 477-2740 2314
Contact Person Area Code Telephone Extension
If filed by applicant: 1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the
project? Yes__ No__
Date Received for Filing
Signature
Title
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY
APPROVTNG TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15170,
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HELLMAN AVENUE, NORTH
OF WILSON AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 1061-601-01.
WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 15170, submitted by Mr. Stan Stringfellow,
applicant for the purpose of subdividing into three parcels, the real property situated in the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, identified as
APN: 1061-601-01, located on the east side of Hellman Avenue, north of Wilson Avenue; and
WHEREAS, on August 12, 1998, the Planning Commission held a duly-advertised public
hearing for the above-described map.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made:
1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan.
2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development.
4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial
environmental damage or public health problems or have adverse effects on abutting
properties.
SECTION 2: Based upon the facts and information of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission can approve the environmental Notice of Exemption based
upon the findings as follow:
1. ThatthesiteisexemptpursuanttotheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct, Categorical
Exemptions, Section 15315, Class 15, which states the following:
"Consists of the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for
residential, commercial, or industrial use into four or fewer
parcels when the division is in conformance with the General
Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, all
services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards
are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger
parcel within the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not have
an average slope greater than 20 percent."
SECTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map Number 15170 is hereby approved subject to the
Standard Conditions attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and the following
Special Conditions:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
PM 15170 - STRINGFELLOW
August 12, 1998
Page 2
Planninq Division
1 ) 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.
En~ineerinq Division '
1) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing
overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except for the 66 kV
electrical) on the project side (full fee) of Hellman Avenue shall be paid to the
City prior to the issuance of building permitS. The fee shall bethe City-adopted
unit amount times the length of the project frontage.
Fire Protection District
1) The Tentative Parcel Map shall install fire hydrants in conformance with City
Codes and to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief.
SECTION 4: The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 1998
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buffer, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 12th day of Apgust 1998, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. l ~ ~)
Those items checked are Conditions of Approval.
A. Dedications and Vehicular Access
~. I. Pdghts-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community traits,
public paseos, public landscape areas. street trees. traffic signal encroachment and maintenance and public
drainao_e facilities as shown on the plans ancb'or tentative map. Private easements tbr non-public facilities
(cross-~ot drainage, local feeder trails. etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map.
~ 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way for the perinteter streets (measored from street
/ centerline):
total feet on
total feet on
3. An irrevocable offer of dedication ~br roadway purposes shall be made for die private streets,
X_ 4. Comer property line cutoffs sitall be dedicated per City Standards.
5, Vehicular access rights shall bc dedicated to the City for the foHov,'ing streets, except for approvcd
openings:
6. Recivrocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by C C & R's or by deeds and
' shall'be recorded prior to or concurrent v.'ith the final parcel map.
__ 7. Reciprocal parking agreements for all parcels and maintenance agreemems ensuring joint lnnintennnce
of all common roads, drives, or parking areas shall be provided by C C & [('s or deeds and shah be
recorded prior to or conentreat with the final parcel map.
S. All existing easements lying v~idtin future righ -of-v,'av are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the final
parcel map per the City Engineer's requirements.
9. Easements for public sidcv,'alks and/ur street trees phicod outside the public ri.__'llt-or-'.va? shall he
dedicated to the City.
Prb.'at" drainaoe easentents for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shah be dclincatcd or tlotcd on the
Fula[ parcel map.
I I. Additional sweet right-of-'.vay shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum of 7 feet
measured from the face of curbs. if curb adjacent sidewalk is used along thc right turn kmc. a pal allcl
street~ree easement shall be provided.
I2. The developer shall make a good faith effor~ to ace uire the required off-site propen}' interests necessan.'
to construct the required public intproventents and, if he/she should fail to do so. the developer shah at
[east 120 days prior to submittal of the final parcel map for approval enter into an agreement to complete
the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the
propemy interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shah provide for payment by the
developer of all costs incurTed by the City to acquire the off-site propert}' interests required in connection
with the subdivision. SecuriLv for a portion of these costs shah be in the form of a cash deposit in the
amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at deveioper's cost. Tile appraiser shall
have been approved by tile Cit.'.' prior to commencement of the appraisah This condition applies in
particular, but not limited, to:
B. Street Improvements
~ I. All public improvements. (interior streets, drainage fact es, communiD' trails paseos. landscaped areas,
etc. ) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shah be construcled to City Standards. Intoriot street
improvements shall include. bul are not limited tO. curb and glitter. AC pa;'emenl, drive approaches,
sidewalks, street lights. and street trees.
2. A minimum, of 26-foot ,.vide pavement within a 40- foot ;vide dedicated righl-of-,.:'ay shall be constructed
for all half-section streets.
3. Construct the follo',ving missing perimeter street improvements including. bnt not limited to:
G r v/
4. Imprpvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans including street trees. street lights and intersection safety lights on furare
signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer nod shall be
subn~itted to and approved b.'.' the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the CitS' Attorney guaranteelag completion of the public and/or
private street improvements, prior Io final parcel map approvah
b. Prior to any work being perforated in the public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction
perufit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's office in addition to an>' other permits required.
c. Pavement swiping, 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 ns aed with an>' new construction or reconstruction project
along major or secondaN' streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect '.,,'trine.
PuN boxes shall be placed on both sides ofthe street at 3 feet outside of BCR. ECR or an>' other locations
approved by t e City Engineer.
Notes: (I) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections =rid No 5 along streets. a nla.~imum or' 200 I~cl apart. unless oltlen~isc
specified by he Cilv Engineer (2} Conduit sly:Ill bc 3-inch (at inxcrscctiolls). or 2-izlcll (:llong str.'etsl galvanized steel
with pullrope or ~ specified.
e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all comers of intersections per City Standards or as
d rec ed by the Citv Engineer.
f. Ex sing CitZ..' roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times v.'ith adequate detours
during construction. Street or lane closure pem'dts are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover
the cost of grading and paving. '.'. hich shall be refunded tipon completion of the construction to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
~, Concentrated drainage ~ov,'s shall not cross sidev'alks. Under sidev,'alk drains shall be installed to City
Standards. except for single family residential lots.
h. Street names shall be appro:'ed by the City Planner prior to subnfittal for first plan check.
5. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all private streets shall be provided for revie'.~ and
approval by the City Engineer. Prior Io any v.'ork being perromped on the private streets. fees si~all be paid and
construction permits shall be obtained from the CiD' Engineer's office in add on o an,.' odler permits required,
6. Street trees, a minimum of 15 - gallon size or larger shall be installed per City S~andards in accordance
with the City's street tree program.
7, Intersection line of sight designs shall be roy ev.'ed by the City Engineer for conforntance '.;'itl~ adopted
policy. On collector or larger street, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections. including
drive;,,'ays. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial drive,.vays may have lines of
sight plotted as required.
8. A Permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for an.v work :v h ~ e following right-of-;vay:
9. All pnblic improvenlents on the iblio;ving streets shall be operationally complctc prior to tile issuance of
building permits.
C. rublie Maintenance Areas
I. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Pub[ic Works Standards shah be submiRed
to the Ci~ Engineer for eerie,.;' and approva[ prior to flna[ parcel map approval. The following landscaped
parkways, medians, paseos, easements. trails, or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance
District:
2. A signed consent and waiver feint to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts
shah be flied with the City Engineer prior to final parcel map approval. Formation costs shall be borne by the
developer.
3. All required pub[ic landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maiotained by the developer
until accepted by tile City.
4. Parkway landscaping on tile follo',;'ing street(s) ~hall conform to the results of the respective Beautification
Master Plan:
D. Drainngc and Flood Control
I. The project (or portions thereof) is located within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood protection
measures shah be provided as certified by a registered Civ[[ Engineer and approved by the City Engineer.
'} It shall be the developer's responsibdity to have the current FIRM Zone designation removed from
the project area. The developer's engineershail prepare all necessary reports, plans. and hydrologic/hydraulic
calculations. A Conditional Letter of ,",lap Revision (CLOMR) shah be obtained from FEMA, prior to
final parcel map approval A Letter of Map Revision (LO~'IR.) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy
or improvement acceptance, ',,-hichever occurs first.
3. A final drainage stud>' shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final parcel
map approval. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
4. Adequate provisions shah be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the propert),
from adjacent areas,
__ j. A permit from the San Bemardino Couni),' Flood Control District is required for work ',;'ithin {t's right-of-
__ 6. Trees arc prohibited ,.vidlhl 5 fuet of die outside dianlcter of any pttb[ic storm drain pipe measured from
tile outer edge era mature tree trunk
7. Public storm drain casements sitall bu graded to convey o;'crfiows in die c;'cnt of blockage in a sunlp catch
basin on a public street.
E. improvement Completion
1. If the required public intprovements are not completed prior [o approval of the final parcel map, an
improvement security accompanied by an agreement executed by the Developer and the City :viii be required
for:
2. If the required public improvements are not completed prior to approval of the final parcel map, an
improvement certificate shall be placed upon the final parcel map, stating titat they will be completed upon
development for:
F. Utilities
1. Provide separate utilit).' services to each parcel i cud ng san ar.v sexverage svstem water. gas, electric
power, telephone and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall
be pro,.'ided as required.
2. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet reqt reineats of the Cucamonga Count}}}'
Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health
Department of the Count}}}' of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from CCWD is required prior to final
parcel map approval.
3. Approvals have not been secured front all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of
the final parcel map ',,,'ill be subject Io any requirements that may be received from them.
/xX" 4. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of exisling utilities as accessart..'.
G. General Requirements and .-\lH~rovals
/~ 1. The tentative map approval is valid for the 24 month period following the approval date. Time extensions
may be granted by the Planning Commission, if requested prior to the expiration date.
2. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any actiou brought against the Citv 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 en~plo}'ees, for an}' court costs and
attome.v's fees which the Cit?', 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 obligation under this condition.
3. Final grading plans for each parcel shall be as required by tile Building and Safer}, DF,ision prior to
issuance of grading penn its.
4. A copy of the Covenanis, Conditions. and Restrictions (C C & R's) approvcd b}' the City Attorney is
required prior to approval ofthe final parcel map.
5. An easement for a joint use drivev'ay shall be provided prior to final parcel map approval for:
6. Prior to approval of the final parcel map a deposit shall be posted with the Ci.ty covering the estimated co!
of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District , among the newly created parcel~~.
7. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs fo all ne
r
t f e
street liohts for the first 6 mon hs o op ration, prior to final parcel map approval.
8. Prior to ~nalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed beyond
the phase boundaries to assure secondarV access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map.
9. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional MainlLne, SecondaD, Regional, and Master Plan Drainage Fees shall
be paid prior to final parcel map approval.
I0. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way.
I 1. A signed consent and waiver form to join anc:Vo~ form the Law Enforcement Community Facilities District
shah be filed with the City Eno_ineer prior to final parcel map approval. Formation costs shah be borne by
developer. :
.
12. Prior to recordation of the final parcel map. the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the
estabhshment ofa ~ lello-Roos Commumtv Fa Iues District for the construction and maintenance of necessary
t'v . cd 31
school facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilitie~
D $tr c, the app can sha , n he a tema re, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of
.... '
h aft, c
such existing district prior to lhe recordalton of the final parcel map. Furl er. if the e ted school dtstnct ha~,
not formed a Mel[o-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of
the project and prior to the recordalton ofthe final parcel map for said project, this condition shall be deemed
null and void.
This condition shall be waived if Ihe 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.
13. Mel~R~sC~rnmunityFaci~itiesDistrictrequiremenuf~rtheRanch~Cucarn~ngaFirePr~te~ti~nDistrict
shall apply to this project.
14. Pursuant to provisions of C'alifomia Resources Code Section 21089(b), this application shall not bell
operative, vested or final, nor will building permits ibe issued or a map recorded. until (1) the Notice
Determination (NOD) regarding the associated environmental action in filed and posted with Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardtrio; and (2) any and all required handling charges. are paid to the
County Clerk of the County of'San Bernardtrio. The applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with
a stamped and copy of the NOD together with a receipt showing that all fees have been paid.
In the event this applicati6n is determined exempl from such filing fees pursuant to the provision
the California Code, or the guidelines promulgated thereunder, except for payment of any required handlin!
charge for filing a Certificate of Fee Exernption, this condition shall be deemed null and void.
Rev. 03712798 6
CITY OF ILANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 12, 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Cecilia Gallardo, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE
TRACT 14120 - PANDA DEVELOPMENT - A request for a time extension for an
approved residential subdivision of 68 single family lots on 53.05 acres of land in the
Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific
Plan, located north and south of Summit Avenue, approximately 1,300 feet west of
Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 225-111-22 and 225-171-02, 08, 11, and 16. Related file:
Tree Removal Permit 91-21.
BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract 14120 was approved by the Planning Commission on
June 26, 1991. Since that time, the State has granted automatic time extensions for several years
during the recession. This extended the expiration of the subject Tentative Tract to June 26, 1998.
Prior to expiration, the applicant filed an extension request.
ANALYSIS: According to Section 66452.6(e) of the Subdivision Map Act, the City may extend the
time for which a Tentative Map approval expires by up to three years. This is the last time extension
available to the applicant.
Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension and compared the subdivision proposal with current
development criteria outlined in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Based on this review, the Tentative
Tract meets the standards for the Very Low Residential District.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Part I of the Initial Study has been prepared by the applicant.
Staff has completed Part II, the Environmental Checklist. The property is located in an area
recently identified by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as a potential
habitat for endangered or threatened species. A portion of the site, Phase I, contains indicator
species of sage scrub habitat. As a result, habitat assessment and biological protocol surveys were
required to determine potential impacts, particularly to the federally threatened California
gnatcatcher and the federally endangered San Bemardino kangaroo rat. Habitat assessment and
protocol surveys were conducted by BonTerra Consulting biologists permitted by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. The property has been disturbed by grading in several areas and the vegetation
most closely resembles Riversidian sage scrub or California buckwheat on the northern portion of
the tract. The results of the surveys indicate that the site is marginally suitable for the gnatcatcher
and the kangaroo rat. In addition, none of the two endangered species were observed on the site
during surveys conducted according to USFWS protocol. Based on this information, the proposed
ITEM D
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
'IT 14120 - PANDA DEVELOPMENT
August 12, 1998
Page 2
development of the 53.05 acre site will not likely result in adverse affects to rare, sensitive, or
endangered animal species. Subsequent to the original noise study prepared for this project in
1990, the Route 30 Freeway design profile has changed significantly. The project was conditioned
to prepare a final acoustical analysis prior to the issuance of permits which will address appropriate
mitigation measures to attenuate freeway noise. Staff recommends adherence to the mitigation
measures for drainage, circulation, noise, school facilities, and tree preservation which were
included in the original project approval and the conditions of approval be modified to clearly identify
mitigation measures. No other potentially significant environmental impacts have been identified as
a result of this project. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration would be in order.
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.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant a one-year time
extension for the subdivision map and design review for Tentative Tract 14120 through adoption
of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
/ct submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:CG/jfs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter Requesting Extension
Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "C" - Tentative Tract Map
Exhibit "D" - Initial Study Part II
Exhibit "E" - Biological Habitat Assessment Survey
Resolution of Approval
Crouse/Beers & Associates. Inc.
· Surveying - Planning · Construction Management ~' ~" C: ~ / ~ ~' ,;~ ~
April 7, 1998
Dan Coleman ~.e~"~'" :<,c~-
Principal Planner ....... ~ &i?:~:""'~ ~a
City of Rancho C ucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Re: Request for Extension, Tentative Tract 14120
Dear Mr. Coleman:
In response to your correspondence dated March 12, 1998, we are formally requesting an
extension of Tentative Tract 14120 (Panda Development), which is scheduled to expire
on June 26, 1998. As the City is aware, a team of biological specialists is currently
conducting required Endangered Species studies on the property. As these survey results
may not be available prior to expiration of the subject Tract Map, we wish to conduct all
necessar)' due-diligence to ensure continued validity of the map.
Enclosed herewith please find a check for $194088 representing the filing fee of
$549.00, an Initia! Study fee of $225.00 plus S22.00 per 53.04 acres.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding this request or require additional
information please do not hesitate to contact Bob Beers or myself directly. Thank you for ,
your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
v n ~ ~l,Zning
Cc: B. Beers
K. Wuh
1700 HamnerAve.. Suite 104 ~t
(909) 736-20z0
FAX: (909) 756-5292
PLANNING-, DMSION ~ i~ =
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
. NITaAL STUDY PART II
=
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: Time Extension for Tentative Tract 14120
2. Related Files: Tree Removal Permit 91-21
3. Description of Project: A request for a time extension for an approved residential
subdivision of 68 single family lots on 53.05 acres of land in the Very Low Residential
District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located north and south
of Summit Avenue, approximately 1,300 feet west of Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 225-111-22
and 225-171-02, 08, 11 and 16 Related file: Tree Removal Permit 91-21.
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Panda Development Corporation
1028 Westminster Avenue
Alhambra. CA 91803
5. General Plan Designation: Very Low Residential (1-2 dwelling units per acre)
6. Zoning: Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda
Specific Plan
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The property to the south of the project site is
currently developed with single;family residences. The property to the west is vacant and
was rough graded for development of single family residences. The property to the east is
developed with one single family residence, and the remaining portion is vacant. The
property to the north of the project area is vacant.
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:
Cecilia Gallardo, Assistant Planner
(909) 477-2750
10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None
initial Study for C. ity of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 14120 - Panda Development Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services
( ) Population and Housing (X) Biological Resources (X) Utilities and Service Systems
(X) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (X) Aesthetics
(X) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources
( ) Air Quality (X) Noise ( ) Recreation
( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
( ) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
(×) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. or agreed to, by the applicant. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable Standards, and
2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signed:
Cecilia Gallardo
Associate Planner
July 16, 1998
Initial Study for ~_,ity of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 14120 - Panda Development Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation
is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to
mitigate the significant effects identified.
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.'
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) (X)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? ( ) (X)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ( ) (X)
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community? ( ) ( ) (X)
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposah
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)
Potentially
S~gni~cant
Issues and Supporling Information Sources: Impact Less
PolentiallyUnless Tt~an
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in
or expose people to potential impacts involving.'
a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 14120 - Panda Development Page 4
Potentially
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ) (×)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ) (×)
d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ) (X)
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ) (×)
f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) (X) ( )
g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) (×)
h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) (X)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) (×)
Comments:
f) The topography will be altered to accommodate the project. The design of the
project site and construction of the proposed grading will follow the
recommendations of the soils engineer and will comply with the current building
standards and codes at the time of construction. Grading of the site will be done
under supervision of a licensed Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor. The impact is not
considered significant.
Potentially
Sign~cant
Impac~ Less
PotentWily Unless Than
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 prope~y to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( ) (X)
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) (X)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ( ) (X)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ( ) (X)
Initial Study for C, ity of Rancho &ucamonga
Tentative Tract 14120 - Panda Development Page 5
Potentlaity
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations, or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ( ) ( ) (X)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise ,available for public water
supplies? ( ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) The proposed project will result in an increase in paved surface areas, which will
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
designed to handle the subject water flows. As mitigation, the developer will be
required to construct portions of the Etiwanda Master Plan System 5 Storm
Drains located in Summit and Etiwanda Avenues necessary to serve and
protect the development. In addition, sufficient catch basins at the sump in
Summit Avenue will be required to be constructed per the requirements of the
City's Engineering Division.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal.*
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected ~'ir quality violation? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) (×)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 14120 - Panda Development Page 6
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (×) ( )
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? (×)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative trans }ortation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( (X)
g) Rail or air traffic ~mpacts? ( (×)
Comments:
a) The project will not generate substantial additional vehicular movement. The
proposal is consistent with the General Plan and the Etiwanda Specific Plan for
which the street widths were evaluated at a build-out condition. The project will be
required to provide a primary and secondary access to the site and install street
frontage improvements in their ultimate configuration, per City Ordinance.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees,
eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) (X) ( ) ( )
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and
vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 14120 - Panda Development Page 7
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?' ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) The prope~y is located in an area identified as potential habitat for endangered or
threatened species. The subject site contains indicator species of sage scrub
habitat. As a result, habitat assessment and biological protocol su~eys were
required to determine potential impacts, pa~icularly to the federally-listed threatened
California gnatcatcher and the endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat. The
habitat assessment and protocol su~eys were conducted by BonTerra Consulting
biologists permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Se~ice. The results of the su~eys
indicate that the habitat on site is marginally suitable for the gnatcatcher and the
kangaroo rat. In addition, none of the two endangered species were obse~ed on
the site during the ~u~eys conducted according to USFWS protocol. Based on the
this information, th~ proposed subdivision and subsequent development of the 53.05
acre site will not likely result in adverse effects. There is no knowledge of other
unique, rare, sensitive, or endangered animal species potentially living on project
site. :
b) The project proposes the removal of the majority of on-site Eucalyptus windrows.
An arborist's repo~ was prepared (Chaney, November 7, 1990) to address the
condition of the trees. One of the windrows is located in direct conflict with right-of-
way improvements for Summit Avenue. Although the arborist's repo~ identifies that
several trees in this windrow are candidates for prese~ation, staff is recommending
that they be removed because of the necessa~ street alignment. The arborist's
repo~ indicates that only 9 percent of the trees within the projed area are wodhy of
prese~ation. As mitigation for the removal of the trees, the project will be
conditioned to replant the windrows per Etiwanda Specific Plan requirements
and the Ci~'s Tree Prese~ation Ordinance.
Potentiallf
Signdlcant
Impact Less
Potentally Unless Than
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: S~ nt ~ncM~;~:~tr~l~d ct
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposah
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 14120 - Panda Development Page 8
Potential3y
Signr~cent
Impac~ Less
PotentiallyUnless Than
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fiammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) (X) ( ) ( )
Comments:
b) The subject site is bounded on the south by the future Route 30 freeway. An
acoustical analysis was prepared (Colia, November 27, 1990) which concluded that
acoustical barriers up to 13 feet in height, balcony barriers, and special glazing are
required to reduce noise levels to meet City standards. Subsequent to the
preparation of this study, the freeway profile has been altered; therefore, a final
acoustical study will be necessary to determine noise attenuation measures. As
mitigation, the project shall construct attenuation barrier and other measures
subject to a final acoustical analysis.
Initial Study for Sity of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 14120 - Panda Development Page 9
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon or result in a need for Hew or altered
government seNices 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 seaices? ( ) ( ) ( (X)
Comments:
c) Both affected school districts would be impacted by this project. As a condition of
approval, the developer shall execute an agreement with the Etiwanda School
District, and the Chaffey Joint High School District to provide full mitigation.
Full mitigation may be accomplished by means of a requirement to form, or
to pa~icipate in an existing, Mello-Roos Communi~ facilities District for
school facilities.
Polentlally Unless Than
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantal 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 wa~r supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
e) The project will increase:demand upon storm drain systems due to increased runoff
from new paved surface area on the currently vacant site. With required mitigation,
initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 14120 - Panda Development Page 10
the impact is not considered significant. The developer will be required to
construct portions of the Etiwanda Master Plan System 5 Storm Drains located
in Summit and Etiwanda Avenues necessary to serve and protect the
development. In addition, sufficient catch basins at the sump in Summit
Avenue will be required to be constructed per the requirements of the City's
Engineering Division.
Potentially Unless Than
d
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( (X ( )
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
<x>
c) Create light or glare? ( ( ) (X)
,Comments:
a & b) The southern portion of the project site is adjacent to the future State Route 30. A
sound attenuation barrier is required to mitigate noise irn'pacts generated by the
freeway. Designs shall be prepared for Design Review Committee approval
which incorporates necessary sound attenuation, a decorative material, and
extensive landscaping to minimize negative aesthetic effects.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ) ( ) (X)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) (X)
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) (X)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
c>
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 14120 - Panda Development Page 11
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ) (X)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ) (X)
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have
the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal,
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ) (X)
b) Short term: Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term. environmental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one which occurs
in a relatively brief. definitive period of time.
Long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.) : ( ) ( ) ) (X)
c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited. but cumulatively
considerable? CCumulatively 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)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 14120 - Panda Development Page 12
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following
earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply):
(X) General Plan EIR
(Certified April 6, 1981)
(×)Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
(X) Etiwanda Specific Plan EIR
(SCH #82061801, certified July 8, 1983)
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. Furlher, I have revised the
project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the
mitigate the effects to a point where arly no significant environmental effects would
effects or
OCCUr.
Signature: ,- Date:
Print Name and Tit e:
h\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\ENVDOC\Tt14120,pt2.env
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 14120 Public Review Period Closes: August 12, 1998
Project Name: Project AppliCant: Panda Development
Project Location (also see attached map): Located north~ and south of Summit Avenue, approximately
1.300 feet west of Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 225-111-22 and 225-171-02, 08, 11 and 16.
Project Description: A request for a time extension for an approved residential subdivision of 68 single
family lots on 53.05 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the
Etiwanda Specific Plan, located north and south of Summit Avenue, approximately 1,300 feet west of
Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 225-111-22 and 225-171-02, 08.11 and 16. Related file: Tree Removal Permit
91-21.
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an
Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is
proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
[] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment.
[] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this
proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or
mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be
required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project
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.
Auqust 12, 1998
Date of Determination Adopted By
till Environnlental Planning/Resource Managentent Corporation
,June 16, lg98
Ken Wuh
F'anda Development Corporation
1028 Westminster Avenue
Alhambra, California g1803
Subject: Biological Constraints Study for Tract 14120-1 and Improvement of Summit Avenue in
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mr. Wuh:
This letter repo~ presents the findings of a bioloOical resources su~ey an~ habitat assessment on
Tract 14~20-q and for the improvement of unpave~ Summit Avenue from Eliwands Avenue to the
boundary of Tract 14120-1 (project site) in Rancho Cucamonga, California. The purpose of the '-
assessment was to identify whether onsite vegetation provides habitat for special interest or V
endangered species on the 12.9-acre site of Tract 14120-1 or in the currently unpaved alignment
of Summit Avenue. The site is noah of Highland Avenue and west of Etiwanda Avenue on the
Cucamonga U.S. Geological SuNey (USGS) quadrangle (see Exhibit 1).
METHODS
Habitat Assessment
BonTerra Consulting conducted a search of the literature to identify.~pecial interest plants, wildlife,
or habitats known to occur in the vicinity of the project site. The California Natural Diversity Data
Base (CNDDB 1997), California Native Plant Society's Invento~ of Rare and Endangered Vascular
Plants of California (CNPS 1998), and compendia of special status species published by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Seaice (USFWS), and California Depa~ment of Fish and Game (CDFG) were
reviewed. Attachment 1 lists the special interest plant and wildlife species known to occur in the
vicinity of the project with their status and occurrence probability for the site.
An initial suNey was conducted on March 12, 1998 by Sandra J. Leatherman, Senior Botanist at
BonTerra Consulting, to describe the vegetation and evaluate the potential of the habitat to suppo~
special interest plant and wildlife species. All plant and wildlife species obseNed were recorded
in field notes. Plant species were identified in the field or collected for future identification. Plants
were identified using keys in Hickman (1993), Munz (1974), or Abrams (1923). Taxonomy follows
Hickman (1993) for scientific and common names. Robe~s (1998) was used for common names
when none were listed in Hickman (1993).
The assessment suNey determined that there was potential habitat on the Tract 14120-1 site for
the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica califomica) and the
federally endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys memami pa~us). The unpaved
alignment of Summit Avenue did not contain suitable habitat for either of these sensitive species.
Focused su~eys following applicable USFWS and CDFG protocols were conducted on the Tract
14120-1 site for these species, as discussed bebw.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,....,.,,.,,,,,
NORTH
Scale: 1" = 2000'
Project Location Map EXHIBIT1
Panda Development Site - Tract No. 14120-1 /,'/j/17~'rr;I Cottv,lti,
Ken Wuh
June 16, 1998
Page 2
Focused Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys
USFWS permitted biologist Mike San Miguel (PMT 831910) conducted the focused surveys for the
coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN). Surveys were conducted, as required by the USFWS
protocol, on six separate visits to habitat on the sites on the following dates: March 19 and 26, and
April 2, 11, 18, and 25, 1998. Attachment 2 is a letter to the USFWS that documents the methods
used in compliance with CAGN permit requirements.
Focused San Bernardino Kanqaroo Rat Surveys
USFWS and CDFG permitted biologists Karen Kirtland and Phillippe Vergne conducted initial
walkover surveys of the site on March 12 and May 5. 1998 to determine suitable locations for the
focused trapping surveys for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR). Trapping was conducted
in accordance with applicable USFWS and CDFG protocols which require five nights of trapping,
conducted when the animal is active above-ground at night, and preferably during a new moon
phase. Initial trapping began on May 7, 1998, but was suspended due to inclement weather
conditions (night-time temperatures in the high forties and occasional rain). The final days of
trapping were May 15 through May 19. 1998. Atotal of 17 traps were placed within the site.
SURVEY RESULTS
Vegetation
The vegetation on the Tract 14120-1 site has been disturbed by grading in several areas
approximately seven years ago. The dominant species on the-site include California buckwheat
(Eriogonum fasciculatum), white sage (Salvia apiana), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica),
deerweed (Lotus scoparius), Ioco-weed (Astragalus sp.), and gold,enbush (Encameria sp.). The
disturbed areas that have been graded contain similar species bijt are smaller in stature. The
vegetation most closely resembles Riversidian sage scrub(Holland 1986) or California buckwheat
series (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). Exhibit 2 depicts the onsite vegetation.
The vegetation along and within the existing unpaved Summit Road alignment has been disturbed
by vehicular use of the road. The existing Summit Road provides access to the existing homes and
is approximately 25 feet wide and bounded by a gum tree (Eucalyptus sp.) windrow to the south.
The vegetation adjacent to the road consists of a few remnant native species, ornamental species,
and non-native grasses. These species include gum tree, lemon tree (Citrus sp.), avocado tree,
bottlebrush (Callistemon sp.), holly-leaved cherry (Rhamnus ilicifolia), common ripgut grass
(Bromus diandrus), foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum), red brome (Bromus
madritensis ssp. rubens), slender wild oat (Avena barbara), common sow-thistle (Sonchus
oleraceus), and wild radish (Raphanus sativus). The vegetation most closely resembles non-native
grassland (Holland 1986).
Special Interest Plant and Wildlife Species
Plants or animals may be considered "special interest" due to declining populations, vulnerability
to habitat change, or restricted distributions. The special interest species known to occur in the
vicinity of the project and their potential to occur onsite are listed in Attachment 1.
I)lslml~cd P, ivcrsldim~ Sa~c Scrub
Tract ~4~ 20d and Summit Avenue Extension "'
V~getative Communities EXHIBIT2
Ken Wuh
June 16, 1998
Page 3
Plant Species
Six special interest plant species are known to occur in the vicinity of the Tract 14120-1 site and
the Summit Avenue improvement project. One special interest plant species could potentially occur
on the project site: the plummer's mariposa lily (Calochortus plummerae). This species generally
occurs scattered in grassy openings in sage scrub or chaparral. plummer's mariposa lily is not
expected to occur in large numbers because of the disturbed condition of the project site.
Therefore, the project will not result in any significant impacts on this species. The remaining five
special interest plant species are not expected to occur on the project site because of lack of
suitable habitat. Mitigation measures are not recommended or required.
Development of the project site would not impact any unique vegetative habitats. Mitigation
measures are not recommended or required.
Wildlife Species
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
The CAGN was not observed on the Tract 14120-1 site during the six weeks of surveys conducted
according to USFWS protocol. Based on these survey results, the project will not result in any
impacts on the CAGN. Mitigation measures are therefore not recommended or required.
San Bernardino Kanqaroo Ra.t
No individuals of SBKR were trapped on the Tract 14120-1 site.- Based on these survey results,
the project will not result in any impacts on the SBKR. Mitigation measures are therefore not
recommended or required for this species.
BonTerra Consulting has appreciated the opportunity to assist Panda Development on this project.
If you have any comments or questions, please call Tom Smith or Ann Johnston at (714)475-9520.
Sincerely,
BONTERRA CONSULTING
Thomas E. Sm,,h.
Principal
RIprojec/s\Pandai~j001~51598
Attachments
Attachment 1: Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species That May Occur in the Vicinity of Tract 14120-1.
Attachment 2: Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding Results of Coastal California
Gnatcatcher Surveys for Tract 13812 and Tract 14120-1, Dated June 3, 1998.
Ken Wuh
June 16, 1998
Page 4
Attachment 3: Presence/Absence Trapping Studies for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat for
Panda Development Property in Rancho Cucamonga, California. Prepared for
BonTerra Consulting by Kirtland Biological Services, May 26, 1998.
REFERENCES
Abrams, L. 1923. illustrated Flora of the Pacific States, Volumes. I, II, and Ill. Stanford University
Press, Stanford, California.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1997. Rarefind Database. California Department of Fish
and Game, Natural Heritage Division, Sacramento, California.
California Native Plant Society 1998. Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endanqered Vascular Plants
.of California. Sacramento, California.
Hickman, J. C. Editor 1993. The Jepson Manual Hiqher Plants of California. University of
California Press, Berkeley, California.
Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.
Non-game Heritage Program, State of California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento,
California.
Munz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley,
California.
Roberts, F.M. 1998. A Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Oranqe County, California. F.M.
Roberts Publications, Encinitas, California. '
Sawyer, J.O. and Keeler-Wolf, T. 1995. A Manual of California Vec~etation. California Native Plant
Society, Sacramento, CA.
ATTACHMENT 1
SPECIAL STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES
THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF TRACT 14120-1
Species CNPS State Federal Potential Oneire
Rummer's mariposa lily
2,alochortus plummerae 1B I None SOC Limited Potential
Peirson's sprin9 beauty
Claytonia lanceolata vat. peirsonii 1B None SOC No Suitable Habitat
slender-horned spineflower
Dodecahema leptoceras 1B CE FE No Suitable Habitat
~ious daisy
_=fi~eron breweri vat. bisanctus I 1B I None None No Suitable Habitat
JohnstoWs buckwheat
Erio~lonum mlcrothecum var. johnstonii I 1B I None SOC No Suitable Habitat
Laguna Mtns. jewel-flower
Streptanthus bemardinus 1B None None No Suitable Habitat
WILDLIFE
3alifornia mastiff bat
_cumops perotis califomlcus NA SC SOC No Suitable Habitat
San Bernardinn kangaroo rat
Oipodom}/s mer~ami pan/us NA None FE Marginally Suitable Habitat
Nelson's Bighorn Sheep
Ovis canadensis nelsoni NA None None NO Suitable Habitat
San Diego Horned Lizard
phOlnosoma coronaturn blainvillei NA SC SOC Marginally Suitable Habitat
2. alifornia gnatcatcher
c>olioptila cafifomica califomica NA SC FT Marginall), Suitable Habitat
LEGEND
FEDERAL (USFWS)
FE Federally Listed as Endangered
FT Federally Listed as Threatened
FPE Federalty Proposed for Endangered
FPT FederaIly Proposed for Threatened
SOC Species of Concern
~TATE (CDFG)
,%E State Listed as Endangered
ST State Listed as Threatened
CNPS
1A Plants Presumed Extinct in California
1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and E~sewhere
2 Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California But More Common Elsewhere
3 Plants About Which We Need More - A Reviev; List
4 plants of { imited Distribution - A Watch L st
r'--,.~.,,~"
Attachment 2
Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding Results of Coastal California
Gnatcatcher Surveys for Tract 13812, Dated June 3, 1998.
June 3,1998
Doug Krofta
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2730 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Results of Coastal California Gnatcatcher Survey on Tract No. 13812 and Tract No.
14120-1 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California
Dear Mr. Krofta:
This letter report presents the results of focused surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher
(Polioptila californ/ca californica) on Tract No. 13812 and Tract No. 14120-1 (project site) in Rancho
Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. The combined area of the two tracts is
approximately 80 acres. The purpose of the survey was to de[ermine the presence or absence of
the coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN) on the project site. The surveys were conducted
according to guidelines established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), under Permit
No. PMT-831910 issued to Consulting Ornithologist Mike Sa0. Miguel in accordance with the
Endangered Species Act (ESA).
PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION ~
The project site is a vacant parcel of land adjacent to and north of Highland Avenue, about ¼ mile
west of Etiwanda Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California
(Exhibit 1). The site occupies approximately 80 acres and consists of Tract 13812 and Tract
14120-1.
Within Tract 13812, there are two residences on the west, and a Cucamonga Water Company well
and pump facility occupies a small portion of the northern sector of the site. All of Tract 13812 was
previously graded to establish roads and residential pads in late 1991/early 1992; the project did
not proceed and vegetation has regrown and now covers all of the site. Concrete block walls were
found throughout the northerly portion of Tract 13812. Otherwise, the property on the east, north
and west is vacant undeveloped land. A rough dirt road from Highland Avenue runs north and
bisects Tract 13812.
Tract No. 14120-1 is a vacant parcel of land bordered to the south by a rough graded dirt road
which is the westerly extension of Summit Avenue from Etiwanda Avenue; this dirt road provides
access to the site. There is a wood pole electrical line and dirt road to the west and vacant land
to the north and east. This site appears to have been previously graded and a system of grid-like
roads traverse the site.
:
Doug Krofta
June 3.1998
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The CAGN was designated a threatened species by the USFWS on March 25, 1993. A special rule
was issued in conjunction with this designation that would allow incidental take of CAGNs under
Section 9 of the federal ESA, if the take results from activities conducted in accordance with the
state's Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) (USFWS 1993). For those not participating
in the state's NCCP. any activity that may result in the take of CAGNs would require formal
consultation with the USFWS either under Section 7 or Section 10 of the federal ESA.
The CAGN is the northern most of three subspecies currently recognized for species status
(Atwood 1991 ). It is restricted to arid, lowland areas and: has a range from southwestern California
to northwestern Baja California. The remaining two subspecies occur within central and southern
Baja California, Mexico. Within the U.S., their current range is generally withi~ San Diego,
Orange, Los Angeles, and western Riverside counties. Habitat for this non-migratory species is
generally limited to coastal and inland sage scrub plant communities. The CAGN is typically found
at elevations below 820 feet along the coast and below 1,640 feet inland (Atwood and Bolsinger
1992). The USFWS estimates that approximately 2,562 pairs remain in the U.S. (USFWS 1993).
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The surveys for the CAGN were conducted on March 19 and 26, and on April 2, 11, 18, and 25,
1998 according to the guidelines issued by the USFWS on Februar7 28, 1997 and revised on July
28,1997. These guidelines stipulate that the site be surveyed at least six times at intervals of 7
days or more during the breeding season. Field notes and ~' sketch of the site detailing the
dominant plants encountered and other bird species observed were prepared during the survey.
The entire habitat was thoroughly covered by Mr. San Miguel during the morning hours when
CAGN's are generally most active and when they are most likely to be encountered. Mr. San
Miguel systematically surveyed the entire site by walking slowly while playing vocalizations of the
CAGN. The vocafizations were played for brief periods at intervals of 200 feet or less. Routes
were randomly selected during each of the six surveys and no two routes were repeated in order
to maximize coverage and increase the chance of encountering CAGN potentially present on the
site.
Weather conditions during all surveys were generally cool to warm with cloud cover on some of the
survey days. Light winds were blowing on most survey days. All days were considered by the
observer to be conducive to bird activity. Surveys were started after 7:00 a.m. and were concluded
before noon on all days.
SURVEY RESULTS
No coastal California Gnatcatchers were seen or heard during any of the six days the site was
surveyed.
The dominant plant species found on Tract 13812 was California buckwheat which in some
locations constituted nearly 100% of the vegetation. Relatively young ceanothus (Erio9onum
fasiculatum) and bush mallow (Malcothammus fasciculatus) were sparsely scattered throughout
most of the site. A small stand of white sage (Salvia apiana) and deer weed (Lotus scoparius)
were also found. Pockets of hairy yerba santa (Eriodictyon trichocalyx ssp. Trichocalyx)and scale
broom Lep,dospa..m q.a .at.m we.efeun eu,hpo.,ono'thesi,e. A.owo, mature
Doug Krofta
June 3,1998
Page 3
eucalyptus borders the northeast portion of the site where a Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperij] and
barn owl (Tyto alba) were occupying nests.
Tract 14120 has been previously graded, but vegetation has regrown and covers most of the site.
Some areas of the site are covered with ruderal plant species, The dominant species on most of
the site was California buckwheat and white sage; a small stand of coyote bush (Baccharis
pfiularis) was found in the southeast corner of the site. Other plant species in the more disturbed
areas included phacelia (Phace~a sp.), deer weed, and several varieties of non-native grasses and
annuals.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions Or comments.
Respectfully submitted,
BONTERRA CONSULTING
Literature Cited: "
Atwood, J. L. 1990..Status Review of the California Gnatcatcher (Pol~ioptila cafifornica). Manomet
Bird Observatory, Manomet. Massachusetts.
Atwood, J. L.. 1991. Subspecies Limits and Geographic Patterns of Morphological Variation in
California Gnatcatchers (Polioptila califomica). Bull. Southern California Acad. Sci.
90(3):118-133.
Atwood, J. L., and J. S. Bolsinger. 1992. Elevational Distribution of the California Gnatcatchers
in the United States. Journal of Field Ornithology 64(2):159-168.
.. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Threatened Coastal California Gnatcatcher; Final Rule and Proposed Special Rule.
Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17, Vol. 58, No. 59: 16742-16759.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. February 28, 1997. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Po~optila
califomica californica) presence/Absence Survey GuideIines.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. July 28, 1997. Coastal Cafifornia Gnatcatcher (Polioptila califomica
ca~fornica) presence/Absence Survey Protocol.
!i." .. - " ,~ .........:' ....."1:,. .......'/
.._... , '.. · .. .. ......~_'..]~'=-~ ·~a~'
"- ...TL~"' ." '
. ~.- .... ' "ii "· , ..."' ~ ...--",:'
, · ~{ __ - . ., - ........... ~. / -' .-' ]
~ - .......~.. _ .:'. .... ; , '
- ....7" .~ ..... ' ""' i~" ,~
" ---' ~}.-.i':,;-.~,,= .:.~.~..- ,- .....E"~:.
""' ~ ....~" '~c~ ~ --2 ' ' ' "'
- -=' '%, ~. , i'~,~.~2 .~---..._: ...--""-¥'-:--..,,-~
.,:,% .. ~j-.-"-'~, ,'~. ..<.,' ~,-...,~=~.
32 ,. ," ~,PACIFI
.... · - --_ , "E ~ --- ,.
~: T ~~:~--~ "' ~t" '~': ' '" " '
NORTH
Scale: 1" = 2000'
Project Location Map EXHIBIT1
Pan da Development Site - Tract Nos. 13812 and 14120-1
L)3b
Attachment 3
Presence/Absence Trapping Studies for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat for Panda
Development Property in Rancho Cucamonga, California. Prepared for BonTerra
Consulting by Kiltland Biological Services, May 26, 1998.
Kirtland
Biological
Services
Presence/Absence Trapping Studies
for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
Panda Development
Rancho Cucamonga, California
prepared for:
BonTerra Consulting
20321 Birch Street, Suite 201
Newport Beach, CA 92660
May 26, 1998
Project Number: BTE98-103
3415 Valencia Hill Drive Phone/Fax: 909 686 1141
Riverside, CA 92507 E22) ~ E-mail: kkirtland@aol.com
Kirtland Biological Services
Table of Contents Page
Introd uction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Project Description ................................................................................................................... 1
Methods ...................................................................................................................................................1
Research .....................................................................................................................................3
Habitat Evaluation Surveys ....................................................................................................1
Trapping Studies ......................................................................................................................4
Findings ....................................................................................................................................................4
'Fopography and Soils ..............................................................................................................4
Plant Communities ..................................................................................................................4
Wildlife .....................................................................................................................................:5
San Bernardino Kaugaroo Rat ................................................................................................5
Sun~ma~ ..................................................................................................................................................9
References ..............................................................................................................................................] 0
List of Figures
I Regional Location .....................................................................................................................2
2 Project Vicinity ..........................................................................................: ...............................3
3 Trap Sites ...................................................................................................................................7
List of Tables
I Parida Development Trapping Results - Buckv,'l'~eat Scrub ............................................... 8
2 Panda Development TrapF. ing Results - White Sage Scrub ............................................... 8
Appendices
Appendix A - Plant Species Observed
Appendix B - Anisnal Species Observed
Kirtland Biological Services
INTRODUCTION
Kirtland Biological Services (KBS) was contacted by BonTerra Consulting to conduct trapping studies for
the proposed 120 acre development projecl located in the City of Ranclio Cucamonga in San Bernardtrio
County, California (Figure l). The trapping studies were required due to the potential presence on the
property of the San Bernardtrio kangaroo rat (DiFodomys ,letritual parmls).
Project Description
The project is a proposed residential development on 120 acres of private property in I~ancho Cucamonga
(Figure 2). The property is located north of Highland Avenue and west of Etiwanda Avenue. It is
bounded by Highland Avenue on the south and open space/mixed rura[ residential ell the east, west and
north. The properly occurs in Section 29, Township 1 North, Range 6 Wesl, Cucamqnga Peak 7.5
topographic quadrangle, San Bernardtrio base and meridian.
METHODS
Research
Prior to beginning the field surveys and trapping studies, KBS reviewed tile available literature on tile
San Bernardtrio kangaroo rat to determine habitat requirements and activity periods, TIle documents
reviewed by KBS included the following:
· The Stains und Known DistHbntion qf the San Beruttrdhto Ktttt,~tlroo Rat (Dipodontys merriunii tawotis):
Ficld stnve.Vs conducted brlTtlt'en 1987tuld '1996. McKernan, '1997.
· Entt'r,qt'ncy Rttle lo List the Stilt Berntn'dino Kstttgttroo [~tlt, Still Bt'rnurdino and Riverside Cotnttit's
Sottthern GdiJbrniu, us Endtutgl'red.. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998a
· Endangered and Threatened Wildlift, .'lad Phmts; Ptvtlost'd Ruh' to List the San Bl'rntn'dino Kungaroo Rut
as Endangered; and Notice of Public Hearing. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ] 998b.
· Mantotals of the Pacific Slules, lngles, 1965.
KBS also reviewed other available lechnicaI information on this species, and discussed recent findings
with researchers in the field. We used the information to focus our trapping efforts in tile field.
Habitat Evaluation Surveys
Karen Kirtland of KBS and I~hilippe Vergne of Eovira conducted a preliminary walkover survey of tile
site on March 12 and May 5, 1998, to determine suitable sites for trapping of Ihe SBKR. During tile
reconnaissance surveys, KBS recorded the various plant communities and condition of the habitats on
site. Based on the survey findings, KBS selected two sites for trapping.
May 26, 1998 BTEgS-III3 ! 1
Kirtland Biological Services
A," ,/ " ' ":L''~x'~' . ,,. ,: L
' z. ~':Jq: . "' ",".,, ::,,. :.~ 544 ~"
;'~ ~-;':'~ ~5~5};.; %,'~
Source: Thomas gros. Guide, 1998 Figure 1 Regional Location
N
Miles
t I~:-:::"'l I:'' ......... I Panda Development Site
O 2.25 4.5
May 28, 1998 BTES8-103
N
t Feet Panda Development Site
t"-:=-=::l l:- .............I
t) IO0II 2()()t)
Kirtland Biologlcal Sen, ices
Trapping Studies
KBS conducted [rapping according to protocols established for tile SBKR. Tile protocol calls for five
nights of trapping, conducted when tile animal is active above-ground at night and preferably during.a
new moon phase. Our initial trapping v,'as was begun on May 7, ]998 during the last quatier of the
waxing moon. Inclement weather conditions (nighttime temperatures in tile high forlies and occasional
rain), delayed completion of the trapping unit[ tile following week. TIle final days of [rapping
conducted May 15 through May 19, 1998.
We placed the traps in suitable habitat areas on the project, concentrating on locating traps in areas
conlain[rig burrows suilable for tile SBKR. All [rap Iocatioos were flagged Io ensure lhe same [rap sites
were Irapped each night.
Each trap v.'as baited with a mixture of bird seed, rolled oats and peanut Miter, placed at (he back of the
Iraps. Due to tile abundance of available native seed, KBS added the peanu[ butter [o increase file
alltact[on of the bait. The traps were placed at dusk each night and inspected at dawn each morning. All
animals were ideal[fled and released at tile point of capture.
KBS took notes on the habitats wl~ere the traps ,.','ere placed, and recorded soil and other relevant
characteristics. We also noted the weather conditions at the time of tile trapping studies.
FINDINGS
Topography and Soils
TIle site is located on the floodplain of tile coastal side of tile San Gabriel N'iountains. Slope angles did not
exceed five percent over the entire site.
The soils are a uniform mix of cobbles and loamy coarse sand. There are two soil types oil site (Soil
Conservation Service 1980). Soboba stony Ioarny sand, an excessively drained soil forming on alluvial
fans in granttic alluvium, is found primarily in tile extrerne v,,estern section of the property. Tujunga
gravelly loamy sand is a somewhat excessively drained soil that forms on alluvial fans in granitic
alluvium. Tujunga gravelly loamy sand forms the majority of tile sol[ oil site, extending throughout the
northern and eastern sections.
Plant Communities
Tile site contains three separate plant conu'ounities. The majority of tile '.,.'esterr~ half of tile site is
occupied by buckwheat scrub. Annual grassland occupies the eastern half, intermixed with eucalyptus
rows. White sage scrub is found in tile norlbern section of tile parcel, above the extension of Sununil
Avenue.
BuckTNteal Scrub
Buckwheat scrub is dominated by flat-topped buckwheat (Erio;~outmtjascicuhtlttm) Other less dominant
scrub species in this plant community include yerba santa (Eriudu'lyou t~ichocal~x), deerweed (~ttts
Kirtland Biological Services
scollarins) and occasional individuals of California sagebrush (Aril'misia calqbrnicu). Annual species
include popcorn flower (Cr~/phullhu inh'rnledia), fiddleneck (Amsinck,:a inh'rnwdfil), suncup (Guuisson~l
bislorla), illago (Fila,~ogallica) and horchound (A,Mrrubinm ?nd,~are). Non-native annual grasses include red
brome (Bromus nudrih,nsis ), slender wild oals (Arena barburn) and foxtail (Vtdpismtqm'os).
Atllllttll Grasshind
The annual grassland community is domb~aled by dense stands of slender wild oats and red brome, as
well as stands of short-podded mustard. (Hirsch~'ldia incumO and abu-mashi (SchisnHts barluatts). A
dominant visual feature of this community is the blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalj/ptus globuhts) stands that
form rows running east lo west in this section of the properly.
Whih' Sage &:rub
White sage scrub is dominated by white sage (Saltsfit ttphuut), but includes flabtopped buckwheat, and
California sagebrush. Other species include deerweed and desert brittlebush (Encelh~ fin'inosa) . Red
brome and slender wild oats are the dominant grasses in this habitat.
A complete list of plant species observed in included in Appendix A.
Wildlife
Wildlife was moderate on site, dominated by mammals and birds. Sign observed included scat, tracks,
burrows, calls, remains and actual sightlags. Species observed included mourning dove, California quail,
bushtit, California thrasheC northern mockingbird, white-crowned spprrow, scrub jay, black-tailed
jackrabbil, Audubon's cottontail, and coyote.
A complete list of wildlife species observed in included in Appendix B.
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
Species Descriplion
The San Beroardino kangaroo rat is one of lhree kangaroo rat species in its range. Both the Pacific
kangaroo rat (Dittodomes agilis) and the Stephens kangaroo rat (DO~odomjis slet~hensi) occur in areas
occupied by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, but these other two species have a wider habitat range.
The habilat of lhe San Bernardino kangaroo rat is described as being confined to prima~ and seconda~
alluvial fan scrub habitats, with sandy soils deposited by fluvial (water) rather than aeolian (wind)
processes.
Like all kangaroo rats, the San Bernardbin kangaroo rat is primarily a seed eater, feeding on the seeds of
both annual and shrub species. It also feeds on green vegelation and insects when these are available.
Being primarily a desert species (like all kangaroo rats), the San Bernardino kangaroo rat obtaius nearly
all of its water from tim food it eats, and can subsist indefinitely on water exlracled from d~ seeds. It
forages in open ground and underneath shrubs. Burrows are dug in loose soil, usually near or beneath
shrubs.
Kirtland Biological Services
Tile breeding season extends prin~arily from January tllrough late Novenlber, with peak reproduction
occurring in late June. Usually, only one litter is produced per year with an average of only two to three
young.
The Sail Bernardino kaogaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami patvus) is one of three subspecies of tile Merriam's
kangaroo rat. TIle Merriam's kangaroo ral is a widespread species Illat can be found from the inland
valleys to tile deserts. TIle subspecies koo,.vo as tile San Bernardtrio kangaroo, however, is conf toed to
roland valley scrub conununities, and Illore parlicularly, to scrub communities occurring along rivers,
streams and drainages. Most of these drainages have been historically altered as a result of flood control
efforts and tile resulting increased use of river resources, including mining, off-road vehicle use and road
and housh'~g development. This increased use of river resources has resulted in a reduction in both the
amount and quality of habitat available for tile San Bernardtoo kangaroo rat. TIle past habi!al losses and
potential future losses prompted tile recent emergency Itsling of tile Sail 13ernardiuo kangaroo rat as an
endangered species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998a).
TIle estimated historical distribution of this species included all of this part of Rancho Cucarnor~ga. TIle
nearest recent Iocalily [o tile project site is m Lyfie Creek Io tile norrheas[ (McKeruan, 1997).
Tmppil~g Loculious
Two sites were selected by KBS as suitable for trapping (Figure 3). The first site (Site A) was located in
the eastcro portion of tile buck:vheat scrub plant commundy, a',vay from adjacent housing and roads. V",'e
placed 44 traps m this area.
.Site B is located in file northern section of tile property, m tile white sage scrub connnunity. This site has
undergone some significant disturbance in tile past. The routes of old roads were visible as areas of tess
dense scrub cover. We placed 17 traps m this area.
~¼'ather Gmditions
Weather conditions changed little during tile course of the trapping studies. Early morning temperatures
were in tile low sixties throughout tile survey. Light fog occurred oll May 7, when tile traps were pulled.
No rain or fog occurred during tile remainder of the survey.
The trapping on May 7 took place four days before II~e full moon. The remaining trapping sludics were
conducted when tile moon ,.v..~s m a wantog phase, starting four days past tile full moon oil May 11.
Trap Rrsults
KBS did not trap any individuals of San Bernardtrio kangaroo rat. Trapping success was high over the
entire trapping period. Tables 1 aud 2 provide iilforn~ation on file species trapped per site and per night.
Kirtland Biological Services
' ' :!i ' . , .- . , ',., '.
:~ "::
--- ' ~:: -'.Bo,o~, Pd = . ran~ !;. ' 'F"" .......
..- :~C:' ' ' .~" -~',{""~ ..-:- "--
':::'.::: · '~ ;:: ~ __ ~, __, . ",, ," ......
_--- · ~:,~.
:,-~ Z~;~;- ~j,,: ~
; :~ . -'- nL~ ~F"~'. t~'"
. ,: . ~'.~ F~ ,,~).~"----~.-77.':::-:'r~. :.:...;3-~ '~
: ;~ .... ~ ~ '~, .= ~ - . . .
...... . .,.,, :,. ?_._c~ .~,l~ ;%: .... ~.~.., '. / ";
."~; ,/ SOUTHERN
...... r "' . ~ ROAD
Source: Cucam,,nga Peak 7.5' Figure 3 San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Trapping Locations
A -- Trapline localion
N
Feet
I: :" I F:: :::'~: .............
I, mo, I 2¢11u 4t~/ll E) "~/3 PandaDevelopmen~Site
Kirtland Biological Services
Table 1. Panda Development Trapping Results - Buckwheat Scrub 44 Traps
Trap Nights
Sp_eFies ....................... 5/%8 _5/15-16 sI16,-JT.,5./L7z!.S~SZI~S-j9~_T~oLaLs'
Perogualhus Ionginu'mbris brcviuasus 3 1 2 3 9
Los Angeles pocket mouse
Chaelodippus~dlax 3 9 6 5 5 2S
San Diego pocket mouse
Dipodomys agilis 3 3 2 2 3 13
Pacific kangaroo rat
Perouzysctts uzmtictthtltts 20 18 24 27 29 .118
Deer mouse
Pt'rontyscus boyIll 4 5 3 2 14
Brush mouse
Neotoma h'pida 1 1
Desert woodrat
Totals 30 35 39 40 39 183
Trapping success 68% 80% 89% 91% 89% 83%
Table 2. Panda Development Trapping Results - White Sage Scrub 17Traps ~
Trap Nights
S_p. Ffies' ............... 5/7-8_ 5/15-36_~/16_;J'(, ~IW~-!$__S_/LS:ID Tot_a3J?_'
Perogualhtts longimembris ln'cviuasus 3 4 2 1 1 11
Los Angeles pocket mouse
Dipodomys agilis 4 4 4 1 13
Pacific kangaroo rat
PC'l'OlltySCltS cttliforttictt5 1 1 1 3
California mouse
Peromyscus manictdalus 8 3 4 3 5 23
Deer mouse
Perontyscus boyill 3 I 3 7
Brush mouse
Neolomtt h'pida 1 1
Desert woodrat
Totals 12 14 12 9 ] 1 58
Trapping success 71% 82% 71% 53% 65%
Kirtland Biological Services
SUMhdARY
Based on tile available information aud site conditions, there ,.,.as a low probabi[ity that the SBKR may
occur on the project site. The site was trapped according to standard protocols developed for the SBKR
No SBKR were caught during tile trapping studies, and therefore this species is not present on site.
May 26, 1998 BTEgS-I(13 9
Kirtland Biological Services
References
Burr, W. H., 1986. A Field Gttilte to tlzt' ix.'lttmntttls itt Nortlz ,'Dtzfficutz Nortit of ix/lexico. Houghton Mifflin
Company, Boston, N'lassachuselts.
Flail, E.R., 1981. TIre A~htntnuzls ofNortll Aim'rictt, Voltunes I and II. Jol'~n Wiley and Sons, New York, Ne~v
York.
Flickman, J.C., ed. 1993. T/w Ii'l~sott A'latltull: t-li,~ltt'l' PlaitIs ofCalifin'lthL Ul~iversity of California Press.
Ingles, L.G., 1965. A'hHnlttttls oJ'tl~e Pacific States. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Laudenslayer, Jr., W.F., W.E. Grenfell, Jr., and D.C. Zeiner, 1991. A Clwcl~'-list oftltl' Antl~lffib~lns, Rt'tltiles,
Birds uttd A,hnunutls ofCalifor~titl. California Fish and Came 77:]09-141.
McKernan, ILL., ]997. TIle 5tlltns altd Kno~l,~t Distriimtiott of the Satt Berttarditto ~tzl,qaroo Rat (DillodomtJs
nterrh~nti tntlvlts ): Field sttlve3/s cottdttcted bl't~llel'lt ~g87 and 1996. l~eport prepared for the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Field Office.
Munz, P.A., 1974. A l-'lorlz ofSo,tlwrn C~tliforltitt. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Soil Conservation Service, 1980. Soil Survey of San Bernardino County, Southwestern Part, California.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ]998a. Eml'rgcttc!l Rtdl' to List tltl' Salt Bcrtlardino Kattgaroo Rat, Satt
BersmrdittoaltdRiversideCott~ttiesi. Soutlwr~lCltlifol'~lht, lzsEndtmg!lred.. Vo[.63, No. 17, pp. 3835 -
3843.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998b. Eitdtot.~l'rl'll nml Tltrt'ntetll'd Wildli]~' uzld Plants; Prol~osed R.Ie to List
tire Salt Berllardilto KtlnSttroo Rat its Eitda~lgcrl'd; attd Nottel! o]'Pltblic Hl'ltl'itt,q. Vol. 63, No. ]7, pp.
3877- 3878.
May 26, 19~8 BTEgS-103 lt)
Kirtland Biological Services
Appendix A - Plant Species Observed
* denrues fioll-Ila|jve species
ANG1OSPERMAE: DICOTYLEDONES D1COT FLOWERING PLANTS
Asteraceae Sunflower family
Arh'ndsia ndiforuiat California sagebrush
Baccharis salicifolia M u le fa I
Ccntauzx,a uzelih,ttsis Tocalote
Em'elh~uqnosa Desert brittlebash
Filago galllea Fi lago
Fhtzm'dia sqtun'rosa Saw-toothed goldenbush
Boraginaceae Borage family
Amsint'kitt inh,rmedia Fiddleneck
CrFphlltlhtl ilttertlteditt Popcorn flower
Brassicaceae Mustard family
Hirsch~'ldia illt'tltttl Short-podded muslard
Euphorbiaceae Spurge family
CroloH caltforttica Croton
Fabaceae Pea family
Astragahts pou,,onensis Locoweed ~
Lol lts scoFtlrilts Deer weeci
L.pim ts bicolor Mini a t u re I u pme
Geraniaceae Geranium family
Erodium ch:tthu'ium Red-sternmed filaree
Hydrophyllaceae Waterleaf family
Eriodh:tyon lrichocul~x Ye rba san ta
Phacelit~ rantosissinm Branching phacelia
Lamiaceae ~lint.family
Marrtddum ridRare Florehound
Stdvitl ttpitltta I,V hite sage
Malvaceae Mallow family
A'tldacothanuttts~tscicuhlltts Chaparral mallow
A'hdvtt paledriot'it Cheeseweed
Myrtaceae Myrffe family
Ettadyptus glollulus Blue gum
05"4 ,,_,
Kh'tland Biological Services
Onagraceae Evening primrose family
Cmuissonht Idstorta California suncup
Polygonaceae Buck:vheat family
Erio,~onumfilscicuhtttmt California buckwheat
Solanaceae Nightshade family
Solan tlln ,rant i Deadly nightshade
ANGIOSPERMAE: MONOCOTYLEDONAE MONOCOT FLOWERING PLANTS
Poaceae Grass family
Aventl btn'bnht Slender wild oats
Brotnus nuuh'ih'nsis Red brome
Schismus barbtlltts Abu-mashi
Vttlt~ht tltylll'OS Foxtail
Taxonomy and nomenclature follow Flickman 1993 and Munz 1974.
May 20, 1998 BTEg8-103 A-2
Kirtland Biological Services
Appendix B - Animal Species Observed
REPTILIA REPTILES~
lguanidae Iguanas and their allies
Uht stanslnu'iana Side-blotched lizard
AVES BIRDS
Acclpitridae Kites, hawks and eagles
Buteo jamaicensis Reddai[ed ha~vk
Phasianidae QuaiIs and pheasants
Callipephi califorldca California quail
Columbidae Pigeons and doves
Ze#udda IIIIRTOIII'II Mourning dove
Trochlidae Hummingbirds
GIlyplemnm Anna's hun~mingbird
Corvldae Crows and ravens
Aplll'lOCOlltll coerllh'scells Scrub jay2
Coz~us bradlyl4lynchos American crow
Aegithalidae Bushtits
Psallritnu'us minhuus BushIll
Mimidae Mimic thrushes
Mimus polygloltos Northern mockingbird
TOXOSIOIIIa rt'divivmn California tlwasher
Emberizidae Warblers, sparrows, blackbirds and relatives
Pipilo crissalis California to'.vl'~ee
A'Ielostliz. tt tneloditl Song sparrow
Zonoh'ichia leucophyrs While-crowned sparrow
MAMMALIA MAMMALS
Leporidae Rabbits and hares
Syhdhtgusaudnbonii Audubon's cottontail
L,7,its califormctts D "H b Black-tailed jackrabbit
May 26, lq98 BTE~B-lt}3 g-1
Kirtlaod Biological Services
Heteromyidae Pocket mice and kangaroo rats
Pero,~nalhlts lon,,dnn'mbHs brezfiuastts Los Angeles pocket mouse
Chln'lodit~tnts~llhlx San Diego pocket mouse
Dillodontys a$ilis Pacific kangaroo rat
Crlcetidae Cricetinc mice and rats
Pl,ront,Vscus caliJbrnictts California mouse
Peronq/scus hotjilt Brush mouse
Nt'olouttl h'tfida Desert woodrat
Canidae Foxes, wolves and relatives
Gutis lalrtttls Coyote
Nomenclature follows Garth & Tilden 1986, Hall 1981, Laudensiayer ctal. 1991, and Stebbins 1966.
May 26, 1998 BTE98-103
An Em, ironmenta! Plamu'ng/Resource l~[anagc, mc'nl Cot~oratio~l
June 16, 1998
Ken Wuh
Panda Development Corporation
1028 Westminster Avenue
Alhambra, California 91803
Subject: BiolOgical Constraints Study for Tracts 14120, 14120-2, and 14120-3, and Storm Drain
and Sewer Crossings of Highway 30 (project sites) in Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mr. Wuh:
This letter report presents the findings of a biological resources survey and habitat assessment on
Tracts 14120, 14120-2, 14120- 3 and storm drain and sewer crossings of Highway 30 in Rancho
Cucamonga, California. The purpose of the assessment was to identify whether onsite vegetation
provides habitat for special interest or endangered species on the approximately 34.8 acres that
comprise the project sites. The project sites are north of Highland Avenue and west of Etiwanda
Avenue on the Cucamonga U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle (see Exhibit 1)
METHODS
Habitat Assessment
BonTerra Consulting conducted a search of the literature to identify.'special interest plants, wildlife,
or habitats known to occur in the vicinity of the project site. The California Natural Diversity Data
Base (CNDDB 1997), California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular
Plants of California (CNPS 1998), and compendia of special status species published by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) were
reviewed. Attachment 1 lists the special interest plant and wildlife species known to occur in the
vicinity of the project with their status and occurrence probability for the site.
An initial survey was conducted on March 12, 1998 by Sandra J. Leatherman, Senior Botanist at
BonTerra Consulting, to describe the vegetation and evaluate the potential of the habitat to support
special interest plant and wildlife species. All plant and wildlife species observed were recorded
in field notes. Plant species were identified in the field or collected for future identification. Plants
were identified using keys in Hickman(1993), Munz (1974), or Abrams (1923). Taxonomy follows
Hickman (1993) for scientific and common names. Roberts (1998) was used for common names
when none were listed in Hickman (1993).
The assessment survey determined that there was no potential habitat on the sites for the federally
threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica califomica or the federally
endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merr,'?mi parvus).
... ./ \ · \.,
. .i! ;.... '::..t~"~-/ ..."' ...
· -'--.- .'-',ii ..... .............,--' """~.-""'~:.-.----"" 'X '
" ~'
,, .~i! ,,.,-"' ....,." ..-
.. ~- ~i .'. ' . -- _... ~, ~.~ ........ 22-
.. .....~i .---.,,.---,~ ......~-- .
--- --' ,~----.-' "~ . --- .s"'~: · -" ' .....
~ ~ "~~',coo~ ~ i'~ ~ .', A,',
~ _.-' .....' 7 ....'- j:-=j-L~;', '~ -
j~o ~: ......:=..· "'C .... .~,-
~ -" _ ....
:: L. -"' .~'~=":"
... -: '~>. ~, _ ._~ ......-:
~ ' ' ': ~ s:~;;~," " : .....
: ::... e~}[~ '.. ,
-i "i~ :~:~2.~: '~ '
NORTH
Scale: 1" = 2000'
Project Location Map EXHIBIT1
Panda Development Site - Tract Nos. 14120, 14120-2 and 14t20-3 //olll~rr;Ico
Ken Wuh
June 16, 1998
Page 2
SURVEY RESULTS
Vegetation
The vegetation on the Tract 14120, 14120-2, and 14120;3 sites has been disturbed and contains
old building foundations and dumped trash. Gum tree (Eucalyptus sp.) windrows surround and
cross the parcels in several areas as shown on Exhibit 2. The dominant plants on the site are non-
native invasive species, which include common ripgut: grass (Bromus diandrus), foxtail barley
(Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum), red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), slender wild oat
(Avena barbata), common sow-thistle ( Sonchus oleraceus), and wild radish (Raphanus sativus).
The vegetation most closely resembles non-native grassland (Holland 1986). The vegetation along
the stormdrain and sewer crossings of Highway 30 alignment has been disturbed by previous
grading. Exhibit 2 depicts the onsite vegetation.
Special Interest Plant and Wildlife Species
Plants or animals may be considered "special interest" due to declining populations, vulnerabifity
to habitat change, or restricted distributions. The special interest species known to occur in the
vicinity of the project sites and their potential to occur onsite are listed in Attachment 1.
Plant Species
Six special status plant species are known to occur in the vicinity of the project sites. These species
are not expected to occur on the project sites because of lack of suitable habitat. Mitigation
measures are not recommended or required.
Development of the sites would not impact any unique vegetative F~abitats. Mitigation measures
are not recommended or required.
Wildlife Species
There are five special status wildlife species that are known to occur in the vicinity of the project
sites. These species are not expected to occur on the project sites due to lack of suitable habitat.
BonTerra Consulting has appreciated the opportunity to assist Panda Development on this project.
If you have any comments or questions, please call Tom Smith or Ann Johnston at (714)444-9199.
Sincerely,
BONTERRA CONSULTING ~f,.~Vj/Z)' ~
Princ,pa, o,og,st
Attachment 1: Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species That May Occur in the Vicinity of Tracts
14120, 14120-2, and 14120-3. E:) ,a
~.'~ .?' ! ~; . ,, .
Trac[s '14'120, '~ 4'120-2, '14'120-3 and Storm Drain + Sewer Improvemen[ .-,..,
V~j~cte[a[ive Communi[ies EXHIBIT2
Ken
June 16, 1998
Page 3
REFERENCES
Abrams, L. 1923. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States, Volumes. I, fi, and Ill. Stanford University
Press, Stanford, California.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1997. Rarefind Database. California Department of Fish
and Game, Natural Heritage Division, Sacramento, California.
California Native Plant Society 1998. Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endanqered Vascular Plants
pf California. Sacramento, California.
Hickman, J. C. Editor 1993. The Jepson Manual Hiqher Plants of California. University of
California Press, Berkeley, California.
Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.
Non-game Heritage Program, State of California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento,
California.
Munz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley,
California.
Roberts, F.M. 1998. A Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Oranqe County, California. F. M
Roberts Publications, Encinitas, California.
Sawyer, J.O. and Keeler-Wolf, T. 1995. A Manual of California Veqetation. California Native Plant
Society. Sacramento, CA.
ATTACHMENT 1
SPECIAL STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES
THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF TRACTS 14120, 14120-2, and 14120-3
Species CNPS State Federal Potential Oneire
~lummer's mariposa lily
Calochortusplummerae 1B None SOC No Suitable Habitat
Pe rson's sprin,g beauty
Claytonia lanceolata var, peirsonii 1B None SOC No Suitable Habitat
slender-horned spineflower
Dodecahema leptoceras 1B CE FE No Suitable Habitat
}ious daisy
Eri~eron breweft vat. bisanctus 1B None None No Suitable Habitat
ohnston's buckwheat
5rfo~onum microthecum var. johnstonii 1B None SOC No Suitable Habitat
,a,guna Mtns, jewel-flower
Streptanthus bemardinus 1B None None No Suitable Habitat
WILDLIFE
California mastiff bat
Eumops perotis califomicus NA SC SOC - No Suitable Habitat
San Bernardino kangaroo rat ~
Dipodomys merriami paNus NA None FE No Suitable Habitat
Nelson's Bighorn Sheep
Ovis canadensis nelsoni NA None None No Suitable Habitat
San Diego Horned Lizard
Phr~nosoma coronarum blainvillei NA SC SOC No Suitable Habitat
California c3natcatcher
aolioptila califomica califomica NA SC FT No Suitable Habitat
_EGEND
:EDERAL (USFWS)
:E Federally Listed as Endangered
=T Federally Listed as Threatened
=PE Federaiiy Proposed for Endangered
=PT Federally Proposed for Threatened
SOC Species of Concern
STATE (CDFG)
DE State Listed as Endangered
ST State Listed as Threatened
CNPS
1A Plants Presumed Extinct in California
1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere
2 Plants Rare, Threa ened. or Endangered in California But More Common Elsewhere
3 Plants About Which We Need More - A Review List
4 Plants o~ Limited Distribution - A Watch List
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR
AN EXTENSION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP, AND MODIFYING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THEREOF,
FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 68 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 53.05 ACRES
OF LAND IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (1-2 DWELLING
UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED
NORTH AND SOUTH OF SUMMIT AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 1,300
FEET WEST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 225-111-22 AND 225-171-02, 08, 11, AND 16.
A. Recitals.
1. Panda Development has filed an application for the extension of the approval of
Tentative Tract Map No. 14120, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map Time Extension request is referred to as "the
application."
2. Qn June 26, 199'1, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 91-83, thereby
approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Tentative Tract No. 14120.
3. On August 12, 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.
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:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on August 12, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The previously approved Tentative Tract Map is in substantial compliance with the
City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and
b. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map approval will not cause significant
inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies;
and
c. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map 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.
0 5"V
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 14120 - PANDA DEVELOPMENT
August 12, 1998
Page 2
3. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed mitigated Negative
Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment
for the application, the Planning Commission finds that: there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a mitigated Negative
Declaration based upon the findings as follows:
a. That the mitigated Negative Declarationi has been prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines
promulgated thereunder; that said mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared
therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this
Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said mitigated Negative
Declaration with regard to the application.
b. 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 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the
Initial Study and mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the
proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat
upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the
mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the
Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the
presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1 -d) of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby grants a time extension for:
Desiqn Review Applicant Expiration
Tentative Tract 14120 Panda Development June 26, 1999
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby modifies the conditions of approval to read as follows and in the Standard
Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by' this reference.
Planninq Division
1 ) The block wall proposed along Vintage Drive and Summit Avenue shall
be designed to be compatible with Tract 13812 directly to the west.
The wall shall include native stone pilasters with a pre-cast concrete
cap and a split-face block wall with a split-face block cap. The mortar
color shall match the block color and shall be flush with the block face.
Pilasters shall be designed 24 inches square and shall be spaced a
maximum of 40 feet on center. The wall shall be provided on both
sides of Summit Avenue and both sides of Vintage Drive. The design
of the wall shall be shown on the Landscape and Irrigation Plan and
shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance
of building permits.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
'F1'14120- PANDA DEVELOPMENT
August12,1998
Page 3
2) Material samples for the block wall shall be submitted for City Planner
review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
3) Tree Removal Permit No. 91-21 is hereby approved for the removal of
all trees, including stumps, on the project site except for those trees
descried below:
Tree No. in Tract
Arborist Report Lot No.
A2 54
A16 52
B21 49
B78 61
C32, C34, C60 43
C51 63
D5 39
D7, D8 38
D18 36
E3 68
F30 23
F32 24
F33 25
G101 21
G102, G104, G106 27
G107 28
4) Care shall be exercised by all individuals, developers, and contractors
working near preserved trees so that no damage occurs to such trees.
In accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section
19.08, all construction shall preserve and protect the health of the trees
to remain, and new trees planted to replace those removed.
5) Tree Removal Permit No. 91-21 shall be valid for a period of 90 days,
subject to extension by the City Planner. The 90 days shall start from
the date of issuance of rough grading permits.
6) Priorto accepting a deposit on the property, the developer shall require
each prospective buyer to sign a written notice of any existing
windrows or trees required by these conditions to be preserved in
place. Said disclosure shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Planner prior to recordation.
7) NO construction, including utilities, that disrupts the root system shall
be permitted. As a guideline, no trenching or other construction activity
should occur within 15 feet of the tree trunk.
8) The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations
regarding preservation, including but not limited to, monthly watering.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 14120 - PANDA DEVELOPMENT =
August 12, 1998
Page 4
9) The two north/south Local Feeder trails' south of Summit Avenue shall
be connected to the Community trail along Summit Avenue per City
Standard Drawing No. 1007.
10) Trail fencing shall not be installed at the outside portion of trails
abutting existing or proposed trails in order to prevent "split trails," such
as along the westerly tract boundary.
11 ) Local Feeder trails shall be left open at connections with streets and
constructed with drive approaches for ~questrian service access.
12) Houses shall be set back a minimum distance of 10 feet from trails
occurring at side yards.
13) All Community and Local Feeder trails shall be constructed
concurrently with the Street improvements.
14) Heavy broom finish concrete crossings shall be provided where trails
cross public streets. The crossings shall be shown on the street
improvement plans and shall be approved by the City Engineer and
City Planner prior to approval of the Final Map.
Enqineerinq Division
1 ) The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical) on
the project side of Highland Avenue shall be undergrounded from the
first pole off-site east of the east project boundary to the first pole off-
site west of the west project boundary. The developer may request a
reimbursement agreement to recover one-half of the City-adopted cost
for undergrounding from future redevelopment as it occurs on the
opposite side of Highland Avenue.
2) Summit Avenue shall be constructed full width, including street lights
but excluding off-site parkway improvements, from the intersection with
Bluegrass (Hanley) Avenue easterly to the intersection with Etiwanda
Avenue with Phase I development. The developer of Tract 13812 is
preparing to construct these street improvements subject to a
reimbursement agreement to be established upon completion of the
improvements. Therefore, the following shall apply:
a) A written release shall be obtained from Watt Inland Empire
indicating that, all developer-to-developer reimbursement
obligations have been met prior to Final Map approval or
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first; and
b) The developer shall duplicate the bonding for Summit Avenue.
with the addition of parkway improvements across the project
frontage; and
c) Summit Avenue shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer prior to the release of any project occupancies; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT14120- PANDA DEVELOPMENT
August12,1998
Page 5
d) If this developer completes the improvements of Summit Avenue,
he may request a reimbursement agreement from adjacent
development.
3) Construct sufficient portions of the approved street system within Tract
13812 to provide two means of access to all portions of the Tentative
Tract, including but not limited to, Colt Drive, Golden Trails Avenue,
vintage Drive, Show Horse Way. Rodeo Drive, and the temporary
access across the Route 30 Freeway right-of-way. Streets shall be
constructed full width, including street lights. Off-site parkway
improvements may be deferred until development of the adjacent
property. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement
from future development for all off-site improvements.
4) Bluegrass (Hanley) Avenue and "F' Street shall be constructed full
width, including street lights. Bluegrass Avenue shall be constructed
to collector street standards (44 feet wide). Off-site parkway
improvements may be deferred until development (redevelopment) of
the adjacent properties. The developer may request reimbursement
agreements, from future development, for improvements on the off-site
side of the respective centerlines.
5) An easement for Bluegrass Avenue over the Metropolitan Water
District (MWD) fee property shall be obtained prior to Final Map
approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The
MWD fee property shall be identified to their satisfaction on the Final
Map and the improvement plans shall conform to MWD guidelines.
6) All local trail crossings of collector streets shall occur at intersections,
as follows:
a) On Summit Avenue, trail crossings shall occur at the
intersections on the south side only, aligned with breaks in the
Community Trail; and
b) On Vintage Drive, the only crossing shall occur at the intersection
with "B" Street.
7) Provide special coverings (bolted on neoprene, plywood, etc.) for all
storm drain manholes located in local trails, as approved by the City
Engineer and Trails Committee.
8) A certificate shall be placed on the Final Map indicating that Lots 5, 6,
15, and 16 shall remain undeveloped until such time as the desilting
facilities for Streets "G" and "H" are no longer required, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
9) The dimensions of Lot "A" shall be approved by Caltrans prior to Final
Map approval. If Lot "A" is reduced in width, Lots 55 through 58 shall
be lengthened by the same amount.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 14120 - PANDA DEVELOPMENT
August 12, 1998
Page 6
10) BuildingpermitsforLots55through58shallbewithhelduntilsuchtime
as a final determination is made by Caltrans for the north property line
of the freeway right-of-way.
Environmental Mitiqation Measures ~
1 ) An acoustical barrier, as required by the acoustical analysis shall be
installed along the south tract boundary and shall be designed
consistent with the sound attenuation wall to be provided with Tract
13812. The final design and location :of this wall shall be subject to
Design Review Committee review and approval prior to the issuance
of building permits.
2) A final acoustical analysis shall be required to identify necessary
mitigation measures to reduce noise levels within the residences below
45 CNEL. The report shall be subject to City Planner review and
approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
3) New on-site windrow iplanting shall be provided at a rate of 50 lineal
feet per acre. Based on a project of 53.05 acres, a minimum of 2,653
lineal feet of on-site Eucalyptus windrow shall be provided. The
location of required on-site windrows shall be in accordance with
Exhibit "F" of the June 26, 1991, Planning Commission Staff Report.
On-site windrow planrings shall consist of Eucalyptus maculata in 5-
gallon size planted 8 feet on center. On-site windrows shall be shown
on the Landscape and Irrigation Plan and shall be subject to Design
Review Consent Calendar review and approval prior to building permit
issuance. New planting shall be completed prior to occupancy.
4) Construct portions ofthe Etiwanda Master Plan System 5 Storm Drains
located in Summit and Etiwanda Avenues and install concrete lining in
the existing did channel north of Highland Avenue, as justified by the
final drainage study and approved by the City Engineer. Applicable
standard drainage fees for portions of the site within Area 5 shall be
credited to the cost of.the facility and the developer shall be eligible for
reimbursement of costs in excess of the fees in accordance with City
policy.
5) Provide sufficient catch basins at the sump in Summit Avenue, near
the "F" Street intersection, to minimize the possibility of overflows due
to catch basin blockage, or relocate the; sump, to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
6) 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
'I'I' 14120 - PANDA DEVELOPMENT
August 12, 1998
Page 7
approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for
forfeit.
In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e., beyond final
Cerfificate of Occupancy), the applicant shall provide a written
monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior to issuance
of building permits. Said program shall identify the reporter as an
individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure
has been implemented.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THiS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 1998.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
A'FI'EST:
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 12th day of August 1998, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
D
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: Tentative Tract 14120
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT: Etiwanda Heights Development Company
LOCATION: North & South Sides of Summit, W/o Etiwanda
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
A. General Requirements CompletionD te
1. The developer shall commence, participate in. and consummate or cause to be commenced, / /
participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of
a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to
all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the
Districrs 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.
2. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes /
first, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school
facilities. However. if any school district has previously established such a Community
Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexatior~ 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. ,
sc- ~,,:~!,~s 1
Project No, TFI4t20
Completion Date
3. Prior to recordation of the fina~ map or prior to the issuance of building permits when no map
is involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water
facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the
Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water
district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the
issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects.
B, 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, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and
grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code
regulations. and the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions
of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
3. 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 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 prior to approval of the final map.
8. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and weed
control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City Planner review
and approval prior to approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior to approval of
streetimprovementand grading plans. Developershall upgradeand constructalltrails, including
fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements.
a. Local Feeder Trails (i.e., private equestrian easements) shall, at a minimum, be fenced
with two-rail, 4-inch lodgepole "peeler" logs to define both sides of the easement; however,
developer may upgrade to an alternate fence material.
b. Local Feeder Trail entrances shall also provide access for service vehicles, such as
veterinarians or hay deliveries, including a 12-foot minimum drive approach. Entrance may
be gated provided that equestrian access is maintained through step-throughs,
c. Local Feeder Trail grades shall not exceed 0.5% '~t the downstream end of a trail for a __ __/]i
distance of 25 feet behind the public right-of-way line to prohibit trail debris from reaching
the street. Drainage devices may be required by the Building Official.
d. Provide a 24-foot by 24-foot corral area in the rear yard. Grade access from corral to trail
with a maximum slope of 5:1 and a minimum width of 10 feet.
9. The Covenants, Conditions. and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall not prohibit the keeping the equine
animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual
lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keepingl said animals without the necessity of
appealing to boards of directors of homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&R's.
10. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) and Articles of Incorporation of the
Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions
and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the
City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the
name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever
said information changes.
11. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or dwelling
unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of a solar energy
system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for the subdivision
which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the final map or issuance of permits,
whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of shadows by vegetation,
structures, fixtures, or any other object, except for utility wires and similar objects, pursuant to
Development Code Section 17.08.060-G-2.
D. Building Design
1. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowner's Association shall be submitted for City
Planner and Building Official 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 tothe satisfaction ofthe City Planner. Details shall be
included in building plans.
3, For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main
building colors.
E. Landscaping
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting ar'd 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.
I~roject No ~I' 14120
Completion Dale
b. Local Feeder Trail entrances shall also provide access for service vehicles, such as
veterinarians or hay deliveries, including a 12-foot minimum drive approach. Entrance may
be gated provided that equestrian access is maintained through step-throughs.
c. Local Feeder Trail grades shall not exceed 0.5% at the downstream end of a trail for a
distance of 25 feet behind the public right-of-way line to prohibit trail debris from reaching
the street. Drainage devices may be required by the Building Offficial.
d. Provide a 24-foot by 24-foot corral area in the rear yard. Grade access from corral to trail
with a maximum slope of 5:1 and a minimum width of 10 feet.
9. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall not prohibit the keeping the equine
animals where zoning requirements forthe keeping of said animals have been met. Individual
lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of
appealing to boards of directors of homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&R's.
10. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R"s) and Articles of Incorporation of the
Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions
and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the
City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the
name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever
said information changes.
11. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or dwelling
unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of a solar energy
system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for the subdivision
which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the final map or issuance of permits,
whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of shadows by vegetation,
structures, fixtures, or any other object, except for utility wires and similar objects, pursuant to
Development Code Section 17.08.060-G-2.
D. Building Design
1. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowner's Association shall be submitted for City
Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
2. All roof appurtenances, including air condifioners 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 ofthe City Planner. Details shall be
included in building plans.
3. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main
building colors.
E. Landscaping
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping
in the case of residential development, shah 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,
3. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway project
in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any
property.
4. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits. The final report shah 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. The building plans will be checked
for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report.
5. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of
implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicantshall 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
shall be considered grounds for forfeit.
In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final certificate of occupancy), the
applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior to
issuance of building permits. Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified
to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented.
G. Other Agencies
1. Theapplicantsha~~c~ntacttheU~S~P~sta~Servicet~determinetheappr~priatetypeand~~cati~n
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 relative
permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption
Ordinance and applicable handouts.
2, Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition
to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate.
Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee.
School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees.
3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and
prior to issuance of building permits. '
Project No. ~1' 14120
Completion Date
h Grading
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved grading plan.
2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to
perform such work.
3. The development is located within the soil erosion control boundaries; a Soil Disturbance Permit
is required. Please contact the San Bernardino County Department of Agriculture at (909)
387-2111 for permit application. Documentation of such permit shall be submitted to the City
prior to the issuance of rough grading permit.
4. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the /
time of application for grading plan check.
5. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. /
6, As a custom-lot subdivision, the following requirements shall be met:
a. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all on-site __ __/__
drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building
and Safety Division prior to final map approval and prior to the issuance of g fading permits.
b. Appropriateeasementsforsafedisposalofdrainagewaterthatareconductedontoorover __~/__
adjacent parcels. are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the Building and
Safety Division prior to issuance of grading and building permits.
c. On-site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatering and protecting the subdivided __ __/~
properties, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon
any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcel
relative to which a building permit is requested.
d. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division __ __/__
for approval prior to issuance of building and grading permits. (This may be on an
incremental or composite basis).
e. All slope banks in excess of 5 feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses __ __/__
or planted with ground cover for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other
alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building
Official. In addition a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. This requirement
does not release the applicant/developer from compliance with the slope planting
requirements of Section 17.08.040 I of the Development Code.
7. In hillside areas, residential developments shall be graded and constructed consistent with the ~ ~ /
standards contained in the Hillside Development Regulations Section 17.24.070.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACTTHE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-27401 FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
Dedication and Vehicular Access
1. Rights-of-way and easements sha}{ be dedicated to the City for al{ 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 of the following rights-of-way on !he perimeter streets (measured from
street centerline):
38 total feet on Summit, south side
33 total feet on Summit, north side
33 total feet on Blueqrass/Hanley
3. Non-vehicularaccessshallbededicatedtotheCtyforthefollowingstreets: SummitAvenueand
Blueqrass (Hanley) Avenue.
4. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or
noted on the final map.
5. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the
final map.
6. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall
be dedicated to the City.
7. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests
necessary to construct the required public improvements, 'and if he/she should fail to do so, the
developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the; final map for approval, enter into an
agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such
time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement
shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site
property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these
costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained
by the developer, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior
to commencement of the appraisal.
K. Street Improvements
1. All public improvements (interior streets. drainage facilities, Community trails, paseos. landscaped
areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards.
interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter. AC pavement,
drive approaches, sidewalks. street lights, and street treeS.
2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
Summit X X N/S X X SIS
Bluegrass X X X X X
Pro~ect No. TT I4120
Completion Date
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, sidewaik
shall be curvilinear per STD. 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shah be
provided for this item.
3. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety /
lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be
posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City
Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior
to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a /__
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any
other permits required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and /__
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction /
project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and
interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside
of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer.
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 3oinch (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 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: Hiqhland
Avenue and/or Route 30 (Lot A).
L. Public Maintenance Areas
1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall
be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance
of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, trails or other
areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: Vintage Drive, south side of
Summit Avenue and Bluegrass (Hanley).
2. A signed consent and waiver form to jo!n and/or form the, appropriate Landscape and Lighting
Districts shaft 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.
M. Drainage and Flood Control
1. Afina~drainagestudysha~~besubmittedt~andappr~vedbytheCityEngineerpri~rt~fina~map
approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall
be installed as required by the City Engineer.
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 aublic street.
N. Utilities
1, Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas,
electric power, telephone, and cable 'IV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
2. The developer shall be responsible for!the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.
3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from
the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first.
O. General Requirements and Approvals
1. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan Drainage
Fees shall be paid prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is
involved for portion of map north of Summit Avenue.
2. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way:
Metropolitan Water District.
3. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the Law Enforcement Community Facilities
District shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of building
permits, whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the Developer.
4. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed
beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the
approved tentative map.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS;
P, General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Emergency secondary access shall be provided in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire
Protection District standards.
2. Emergency access, a minimum of 26 feet wide, shall be provided, and maintained free and clear
of obstructions at all times, during construction in accordance with Fire District requirements.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted
to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District that temporary water supply for fire protection
is available, pending completion of required fire protection system.
4. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all
supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bernardino County Department of
Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic Tank
Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits.
sc- ~ :~,~s 10
CI'FY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '
STA.FF REPORT
DATE: August 12, 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Cecilia Gallardo, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE
TRACT 15711 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES - A request for a time extension
for an approved residential subdivision of 283 lots on 80.39 acres of land in the Low-
Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific
Plan, generally located nodh of Foothill Boulevard, east of Etiwanda Avenue, south
of the Interstate 15 Freeway, and west of East Avenue - APN: 1100-141-01 and 02,
1100-171-01 and 13, 1100-181-01 and 04, and 1100-201-01. Related
files: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 96-01 and Tree Removal Permit 96-17.
BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract 15711 was approved by the Planning Commission on August 14,
1996. The expiration of the subject Tentative Tract is August 14, 1998. Prior to expiration, the
applicant filed an extension request.
ANALYSIS: According to Section 66452.6(e) of the Subdivision Map Act, the City may extend the
time at which a Tentative Map approval expires by up to three years. There are up to three one-
year time extensions available that may be granted by the City.
Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension and compared the proposed subdivision with
current development criteria outlined in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Based upon this review, the
Tentative Tract meets the development standards for the Low-Medium Residential District and the
Etiwanda South Overlay District.
CONDITION MODIFICATION: The attorney for Diversified Pacific Homes questioned a condition
of approval for the tentative tract application regarding park dedication and improvements. He
discussed the Quimby Act and certain government code sections as they relate to this condition with
the City Attorney. The condition reads:
"A 5-acre neighborhood park shall be constructed in accordance with the
recommendations of the Park and Recreation Commission within the boundaries of
the subdivision, in-lieu of payment of park fees. The park shall be completed upon
completion of one-half of the units (141) within the project."
TheCityAttorneyandstaffhavediscussedthedeveloper'sconcernsatgreatlength. Providing the
dedication of land for the 5-acre park site would mitigate impacts on open space and recreational
services. With the concurrence of the City Attorney, staff recommends modifying the condition to
ITEN E
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT :
TE FOR TT 14120 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES
August12,1998
Page 2
require dedication of the land for the 5-acre park. However, the developer will not be required to
construct the improvements. The developer is aware of this recommendation and concurs with the
modification.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Part l of the Initial Study has been prepared by the applicant.
Staff has completed Pad II of the Environmental Checklist and found that conditions in the area
have not changed appreciably since the Tentative Tract received approval on August 14, 1996.
Staff recommends adherence to the mitigation measures for drainage, circulation, noise, and tree
preservation which were adopted by Planning Commission Resolution No. 96-50 for the original
approval (see Exhibit "E").
CORRESPONDENCE: This item wa~ 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 that the Planning Commission grant a one-year time
extension for the subdivision map for Tentative Tract 15711 and modification to the conditions of
approval through adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a mitigated Negative
Declaration.
R~ll~.b,.mitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:GG/jfs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant
Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "C" - Tentative Tract Map
Exhibit "D" - Initial Study Part II
Exhibit "E" - Excerpt from Planning Commission Resolution No. 96-50
Resolution of Approval
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC''I
RECEIVED
May 21, I998
Mr. Brad Buller p~itnn gg '
Ci,~, P!=mer
The Ci~ of R~cho Cuc~onga
10500 Civic Center Drive
P.O. Box 807
R~cho Cuc~onga, CA 91729
E: Map extension fee for Tract ~15711, "Foothill Meadows", R~cho Cucmonga, CA
De~ Brad: ~-;r
The above referenced map expires in August of 1998. We expect to have the map
recorded by then, but as a precautiona~ measure, we ~e requesting ~ extension of the
approval of the tentative tract map (~ 15711 ).
Enclosed please find a check in the mount of $1,224.00 to cover all fees required for the
map extension including ~y additional fees that may be required for the extension.
We have moved our offices, so please direct any co~espondence to the following '
address: "
Diversified Pacific Homes, Ltd.
Atfn.~ ~drew B. Wright
8300 Utica Avenue
8uite 273
R~cho Cucmonga, CA 91730
Sin erely, '-'
r~Z~C HOMES Ltd
z . ,. .
d
, ,
-~. 7~ ., ....
,~ ~ .' /
/~ ' ~ ~' ~ '/ / ~.. '
/.L=' ~ ~, ~ / - ~
,/ ~/ :E ~ =--
'
/ ·
~) , ~ -.- o~c
" i:'
~ ; ~ ; ..
"' '
~-:.~ -~ -,,_ ~,,. ,. ,, :. ':.,,,. ~'.:-
' .-~ ~ ..... · ......~,~' ' ~ ~ v ,Z ' ; '
~ :.=" ~-' ~ "'-'~', ',,~ .~ 7 ' I" ' ~ 7'
~ N...,...:,.,~.~ / ..... fi ~,- . z. ~ :'
,~:..:"'t' ...... ~'..-.- . ,. 5~-,,',; '
· 2 z~ ~4~' ~'
. ~ ~ _~.~ ,.:
.~ .... .~:..~,~.
] :"v.,F ',~
Site Utilization Map E'ff
Foothill Meadows
_.. ,, ,,,.:.j-..
o,~,,~,~,,~,~.~ Foothill Meadows
~ff~ ....Tentative Tract No. 15711 ~
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: Environmental Assessment and Time Extension for Tentative Tract 15711 -
Diversified Pacific Homes
2. Related Files: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 96-01 and Tree Removal Permit 96-17
3. Description of Project: A request for a time extension for an approved residential
subdivision of 283 lots on 80.39 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8
dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, generally located north of Foothill
Boulevard, east of Etiwanda Avenue, south of the Interstate 15 Freeway and west of East
Avenue - APN: 1100-141-01 and 02, 1100-171-01 and 13, 1100-181-01and 04, and
1100-201-01. Related Files: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 96-01 and Tree Removal
Permit 96-17.
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Diversified Pacific Homes
10390 Commerce Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
5~ General Plan Designation: Low-Medium Residential
6. Zoning: Low-Medium Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan
7. Surrounding Land Uses and ~Setting:
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:
Cecilia Gallardo, Associate Planner
(909) 477-2750
10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
TT 15711 - Diversified Pacific Homes Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Transportation/Circulation (X) Public Ser,,ices
( ) Population and Housing (X) Biological Resources (X) Utilities and Service Systems
(X) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics
(X) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources
( ) Air Quality (X) Noise (X) Recreation
( ) Mandator,/Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
( ) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
(X) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
( ) 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
1 ) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signed:
Cecilia Gallardo
Assistant Planner
July 20, 1998
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
'R' 15711 - Diversified Pacific Homes Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California En .~nmemal 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.
Potentially
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? ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community.'? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Potentially
SignrFt, ant
Impact Less
Potenlially Unless Than
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the pmposah
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ) ( ) (X)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ) ( ) (X)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ) ( ) (X)
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in
or expose people to potential impacts involving.'
a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
TT 15711 - Diversified Pacific Homes Page 4
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) (X)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) (X)
d) Seiche hazards? ( ) (X)
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) (X)
f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (X) ( )
g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) (X)
h) Expansive soils? ( ) (X)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
f) The topography of the site 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.
Potentially
Signfficant
Impact Less
PotentiallyUnless Than
, ........ s..=,.g ...... ,.'J3:::%
4. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) (X) 0 ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ) ( ) (X)
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) (X)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ( ) (X)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ( ) (X)
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations, or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? ( ) (X)
Initial Study for ~
~ City of Rancho Cucamonga
TT 15711 - Diversified Pacific Homes Page 5
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Silgmn~ia~ntI :' Silgmn~ia~"t Im%oa
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
i) Substantial reduction in, the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) The absorption rate will be altered because of the paving and hardscape proposed.
All waters will be conveyed to approved drainage facilities which have been
designed to handle the flows. A drainage. study was prepared for the project and an
on-site detention basin will be constructed until such time that all permanent
drainage facilities are completed in the immediate area in conformance with the
Etiwanda drainage policies. As mitigation, construct those portions of the
Etiwanda/San Sevaine master plan of storm drains necessary to sere and
protect the development and construct interim detention basin.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal.'
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) (X)
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in.'
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
q'l' 15711 ~ Diversified Pacific Homes Page 6
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? ( ) ( ) (×)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) (X)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) The project will generate new trips because of the new construction. The number
of trips is consistent with the Etiwanda Specific Plan EIR and is accommodated by
the existing and required infrastructure. 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 configuration,
per ordinance, and to pay associated Transportation Development Fees.
Potentially
SignScant
Impact Less
P0tential~yUnless Than
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees,
eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) (X) ( )
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and
vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for ; City of Rancho Cucamonga
'IF 15711 - Diversified Pacific Homes ~ Page 7
Comments
b) There are a large number of trees on site, predominantly eucalyptus. that will have
to be removed to accommodate the development of the site. As mitigation for the
removal of the trees, replacement planting per the City's Tree Preservation
Ordinance will be required. The removed trees will be replaced at a minimum
one-to-one ratio with minimum 15-gallon size trees. These trees shall be of
the Spotted Gum Eucalyptus variety and provided in windrows
perimeter property lines, in accordance with the Etiwanda Specifi
requirements.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal.'
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region ana the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) (X)
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental exp!osion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides. chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fiammable
brush. grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
'FF 15711 - Diversified Pacific Homes Page 8
10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) (X) ( ) ( )
Comments:
a) The project will 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
significant.
b) The subject site is bounded on the northwest by the Interstate 15 Freeway. A noise
study was prepared (Gordon Bricken and Associates, September 15, 1995) and
assessed the impacts associated with constructing this development in close
proximity to the freeway. The study recommended that a screen wall be
constructed along the freeway and that certain construction elements be
provided to mitigate the freeway noise to safe levels.
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 and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District
submitted correspondence that indicates the existing schools that would serve this
project are already at or above capacity and that the Districts will not be able to
accommodate all of the students expected to be generated from the project. Both
Districts state that mitigation beyond the state statutory fees will be needed. As a
condition of approval, the developer shall execute an agreement with the Etiwanda
School District and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District to provide full
mitigation. Full mitigation may be accomplished by means of a requirement to form,
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
'FF 15711 - Diversified Pacific Homes ~ Page 9
or to participate in an existing, Mello-Ro0s Community Facilities District for school
facilities.
Potent~lly
SignScant
Impact Less
Potemially Unless Than
d ct
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ( ( ) (X)
b) Communication systems? ( ( ) (X)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( ( ) (X)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) (×)
e) Storm water drainage? (X) ( ) ( )
0 Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Local or regional water Supplies? ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
e) The project will increase demand upon storm drain systems due to increased runoff
from new hardscape and roof tops proposed on the currently vacant site. With
required mitigation, the impact is not considered significant. The developer will be
required to construct those portions of the Etiwanda/San Savaine Area Master
Plan of storm drains necessary to serve and protect the development. In
addition, the construction of an interim detention basin will be required to be
constructed per the City's Engineering Division.
Potentially
Signrfic~nt
Potent~llly Unleis Than
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)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
'I'I' 15711 - Diversified Pacific Homes Page 10
14. CULTU~L RESOURCES. Would the proposah
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
b) Affect existing recreational opporLunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) The project design includes a future 5-acre neighborhood park in conformance with
the City's General Plan.
Potentsally
Signfficant
impact Less
PotentiallyUnless Than
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have
the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a piant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal,
or eliminate impo~ant examples of the major
periods of California histo~ or prehisto~? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for ~ City of Rancho Cucamonga
17 15711 - Diversified Pacific Homes ' Page 11
r Potentially
b) Sho~ term: Does the project have the potential
to achieve shod-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A sho~-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
conside:able? ("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) Subs~ntial 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 tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following
earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply):
(X) General Plan EIR
(Certified April 6, 1981)
(X) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
(X) Etiwanda Specific Plan EIR
(SCH #82061801, certified July 6, 1983)
(X) Negative Declaration for Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 96-01
(Certified June 12, 1996)
. ~ENT, BY: i~ CLJCAId0NGA C0t& DEV; 8- 5-98 3;46PM; 9094772847 => ;
In~iil S~0y for ~ty 0f Ran~o Cu~monga
Page 1~
~ ~ 5711 - Dive~ifi~ Pacific Homes .....
' ApPLICA~ CERTIFICATION
I ce~ that I am tha a~l~m for the FoJe~ d~Dsd in this Ini~ S~dy. I ac~owledge ~at I
hive read this ln~ial Study and t~ ~ro00~d m ~gation roelures. Funher, I have revis~ the
~roj~ plans or p~po~ls a~Qtor hereby =gr~ ffi t~ pmpos~ mitiga~on meas~ to avoid ~e
effe~ or miteate the ~e¢~ to a poi~ w~ 8ear y no aignifi~nt envlronmntal effe~s would
OCCUr.
i:lF NAL~LN~COMM~F_NVDOC'~TI15711 .pt2.env
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 15711 Public Review Period Closes: August 12, 1998
Project Name: Project Applicant: Diversified Pacific Homes
Project Location (also see attached map): Generally located north of Foothill Boulevard, east of
Etiwanda Avenue, south of the Interstate 15 Freeway and west of East Avenue - APN: 1100-141-01 and
02, 1100-171-01 and 13. 1100-181-01and04, and 1100-201-01.
Project Description: A request for a time extension for an approved residential subdivision of 283 lots
on 80.39 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the
Etiwanda Specific Plan, Related Files: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 96-01 and Tree Removal
Permit 96-17.
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an
Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is
proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
[] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment.
The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this
proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or
mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be
required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project
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.
Auqust 12, 1998
Date of Determination Adopted By
pLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO+ 96-50
TT 15711 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES
August 14, 1996
Page 3
Plannina Division
1) The final map shall be redesigned with no mare than three lots in a row
at the minimum width of 50 feet to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
Environmental Mitiaation Measures
1) Tree Removal Pen-nit g6-17 is hereby approved subject to the following
Conditions:
a) The approval is for the removal of all trees that currently exist on
the property.
b) The removed trees shall be replaced at a minimum one-to-one
ratio with minimum 15-gallon size trees. These trees shall be of
the Spotted Gum Eucalyptus variety and provided in windrows
along perimeter property lines, in accordance with Etiwanda
Specific Plan requirements. to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
c) Any wood infested with longhorn borer beetles shall be chipped.
removed, and buried at a dump site.
d) This approval shall be effective following a 10-day appeal period
and shall be valid for a period of gO days, which shall start from
the date of issuance of a grading permit, subject to extension.
2) Screen walls shall be constructed along the Interstate 15 Freeway, and
other locations around the project perimeter, to mitigate noise levels as
recommended in the preliminary noise study. Also, certain construction
elements (i.e., dual-glazed windows) shall be provided at such time
houses are contemplated within the subdivision. These elements shall
be provided as recommended in the preliminary noise study, and a final
noise study, which will be required for review and approval of the City
Planner prior to the issuance of any building permits.
3) A 5-acre neighborhood park shall be constructed in accordance with the
recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Commission within the
boundaries of the subdivision, in lieu of payment of park fees. The park
shall be completed upon completion of one-half of the units (141) within
the project.
4) Construct those portions of the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area master
plan of storm drains necessary to serve and protect the development.
The current master plan is in the process of being revised by the City.
The developer shall receive credit for the cost of permanent master
plan facilities up to the amount of the related drainage fees in effect at
the time reimbursement is requested and shaft be reimbursed for
excess costs from future fee collection in accordance with City policy.
5) Construct an interim detention basin as fo[Io,,';s, or as modified per an
adopted mcdE~cat[on to the current master p~an of storm drains justified
by ~ final drainage report, approved by the City Engineer:
PLANNING COMMISSIOt ESOLUTION NO+ 96-50 Y
TT 15711 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES
August 14, 1996
Page 4
a) Provide an ultimate design for the basin to serve the entire
developed tributary area.
b) Install sufficient capacity to mitigate the increased runoff from this
development. with an outlet system capable of handling the
ultimate basin design (entire developed tributary area) with a
minimum amount of modification as incremental development
occurs.
c) Provide an easement to the City for the portion of Lot 284
containing the initial basin and an irrevocable offer of dedication
for the remainder of the ultimate basin design.
d) An assessment district shall be formed for maintenance of the
detention basin or a maintenance agreement shall be executed
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney
guaranteeing pdvate maintenance of the facility, but providing the
City with the right of access to maintain the facility if private
maintenance is insufficient and allowing the City to assess those
costs to the developer/developer. Agreement shall be recorded
to run with the property.
e) The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to
recover the proportionate Cost of the land and ultimate basin
related facilities (outlet, etc.) from future development using the
basin.
Enoineerino Division
7 1) Restripe the existing EtiwandalChurch intersection to provide left turn
2 lanes southbound on the north leg of Etiwanda Avenue and westbound
! on the east leg of Church Street. Widen the pavement on the west side
! of Etiwanda Avenue, south of the intersect on, to accommodate the
southbound through-lane transition, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
2) A good faith effo'rt shall be made to acquire right-of-way and install
ultimate intersection improvements at the northwest corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. If efforts to acquire full right-of-way fail, interim
improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer,
which may include condemnation Of a ponion of the ultimate right-of-
way.
3) Etiwanda Avenue shall be improved as follows:
a) Install full east side improvements along the project frontage and
install a right turn lane, per Standard 119, south of Street A.
Off-site street improvements shaft be limited to AC pavement and
berm; cobble curb, g;~tter, street lights, and parkway
improvements ~ay be deferTed until Oevelopment of the adiscent
prope,,y. Z
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR
A TIME EXTENSION FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP FOR THE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 283 LOTS ON
80.39 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
(4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN,
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, EAST OF
ETIWANDA AVENUE, SOUTH OF THE INTERSTATE 15 FREEWAY, AND
WEST QF EAST AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 1100-141-01 & 02, 1100-171-01 & 13, 1100-181-01 & 04,
AND 1100-201-01.
A. Recitals.
1. Diversified Pacific Homes has filed an application for a time extension for the approval
of Tentative Tract Map No. 15711, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map Time Extension request is referred to as "the
application."
2. On August 14, 1996, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 96-50, thereby
approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Tentative Tract No. 15711.
3. On the August 12, 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.
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:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forlh in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on August 12, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The previously approved Tentative Tract Map is in substantial compliance with the
City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and
b. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map approval will not cause ~ignificant
inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies;
and
c. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map 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 facts and information contained in the proposed mitigated Negative
Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment
for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a mitigated Negative
Declaration based upon the findings as follows:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TE FOR TT 15711 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES
August 12, 1998
Page 2
a. That the mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines
promulgated thereunder; that said mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared
therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this
Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said mitigated Negative
Declaration with regard to the application.
b. 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 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the
Initial Study and mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the
proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat
upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the mitigated
Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning
Commission during the public hearing~ the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption
of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby grants a time extension for:
Project Applicant Expiration
'IT 15711 Diversified Pacific Homes Aug ust 12, 1999
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby modifies the conditions of approval to read as follows:
Environmental Mitiqation Measures
1 ) Tree Removal Permit 96-17 is hereby approved subject to the following
Conditions:
a) The approval is for the removal of all trees that currently exist on
the property.
b) The removed trees shall be replaced at a minimum one-to-one
ratio with minimum 15-gallon size trees. These trees shall be of
the Spotted Gum Eucalyptus variety and provided in windrows
along perimeter property lines, in accordance with Etiwanda
Specific Plan requirements, to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
c) Any wood infested with longhorn borer beetles shall be chipped,
removed, and buried at a dump site.
d) This approval shall be effective following a 10-day appeal period
and shall be valid for a period of 90 days, which shall start from
the date of issuance of a grading permit, subject to extension.
2) Screen walls shall be constructed along the Interstate 15 Freeway, and
other locations around the project perimeter, to mitigate noise levels as
recommended in the preliminary noise study. Also, certain
construction elements (i.e., dual-glazed windows) shall be provided at
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TE FOR'I'F15711- DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES
August12,1998
Page 3
such time houses are contemplated within the subdivision. These
elements shall be provided as recommended in the preliminary noise
study, and a final noise study, which will be required for review and
approval of the City Planner prior to the issuance of any building
permits.
3) Construct those portions of the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area master
plan of storm drains necessary to serve and protect the development.
The current master plan is in the process of being revised by the City.
The developer shall receive credit for the cost of permanent master
plan facilities up to the amount of the related drainage fees in effect at
the time reimbursement is requested and shall be reimbursed for
excess costs from future fee collection in accordance with City policy.
4) Construct an interim detention basin as follows, or as modified per an
adopted modification to the current master plan of storm drains justified
by a final drainage report approved by the City Engineer:
a) Provide an ultimate design for the basin to serve the entire
developed tributary area.
b) Install sufficient capacity to mitigate the increased runofffrom this
development, with an outlet system capable of handling the
ultimate basin design (entire developed tributary area) with a
minimum amount of modification as incremental development
OCCURS.
c) Provide an easement to the City for the portion of Lot 284
containing the initial basin and an irrevocable offer of dedication
for the remainder of the ultimate basin design.
d) An assessment district shall be formed for maintenance of the
detention basin or a maintenance agreement shall be executed
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney
guaranteeing private maintenance of the facility, but providing the
City with the right of access to maintain the facility if private
maintenance is insufficient and allowing the City to assess those
costs to the developeddeveloper. Agreement shall be recorded
to run with the property.
e) The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to
recover the proportionate cost of the land and ultimate basin
related facilities (outlet, etc.) from future development using the
basin.
Planninq Division
1 ) All previously adopted conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 15711,
as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 96-50, shall
apply.
En.qineerinq Division
1) Five acres of land shall be dedicated to the City for a future
neighborhood park in lieu of payment of park fees.
E
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TE FOR TT15711- DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES
August12,1998
Page 4
2) All previously adopted conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 15711,
as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 96-50, shall
apply.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 1998.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
A3'I'EST:
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 12th day of August 1998, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
July 29, i998
~ECEIVE~
Rancho Cucamon~a__Planni,ng Commission
The City ofRancho Cucambn~a AUG 10
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Oily o~ gancho Cucam~n~a
: p~anning Division
A~enfion: Pla~ing Commission
This petition is to oppose the reques~/or a time extension and condition modification ~or
a previously apFoved Temadve Tract Map and design review (APN: 201-I g3-0I).
We ~he neighboring residence [o the above projcc~ reques~ ~ha~ ~he ~[a~jng commission
do not approve this regues[ Eor a time extension. The original apFoval [or given on April
22, 1992, nearly 6 1/2 ye~s ago, this cenajnl)' has been ~ble time Eor the devdoper
pursue the approved projecL M~y things have changed, including new neighbors
have not had the oppo~nky to have any input in the above project.
The enviro~en~ has ch~ed ~d this l~d has become a home and h~ven [o many
animals that live ~d [~ive in ~his enviro~ent. This developer has been given
extensions on this project already. One extension was given b7 the Sm[e o~ California
because offhe economy, and the other two extensions were g~ven by The Cky o~Rancho
Cucamonga. We ~he neighboring residence to ~his track Eeel that the project needs [o be
totally reassessed and put back ~ough the pl~in~ process wkh communky input
be/ore ~y Eunher approval should be gNen.
Signatures opposing time extension for previously approved tentative Tract Map
(APN: 201-183-01)
· ~ .
Signatures opposing time extension for prewously approved ten, tat~ve Tract Map
(APN: 201-183-01)
//~ 4-
.OFV~rK DibullO b-13o.-- DikullO! ~ "'
fOt~l H/~'rnu-'0o~ O.~. IO~Wl ~rn~.~ COO~ ./0/~
J
10130 K~v~:,,,~{ CT [O~DI ~r~ ~,~M ~T I~/Z~ KeLV~9
, ~~~,, ,~ ,,- ,
--)
SiQhatures opposing time extension for previously approved tentative Tract Map
(APN: 201-183-01)
SITE UTILIZATION MAP --' s.',.o,_~_,,,,.,_ Z
F?IREI?AF~ED_B_Y:_ .- ,,,,,l:
"' I I I ~ II 4~19 t ~1
......... ':"';""" .... ., -..-~ I~-, -,-I' ' '
LOW ' , ~LpWI ~ I .~__. ~
~ /~'-J__J__J,__L_L- '~ _
,o I ,, I ,~ ,, . I ~ F ~ \SO,,T,.,,O~
...... ' ~I I !' ' , I
%'~r'.c_c_ K~",k~.'z: COCA S~r,C~ N:' ~ -. ...... ., ...... · ........
/. PI~EPARED FOR: FLOOD CONTROL -
:.\= _.
REOEIVED
DATE: July. 29, 1998 Cily of Rancid Cucarnonga
Planning Division
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
Environmental Assessment
Time: August 12, 1998 7 P.M.
Tract 14509 - Baayoun
A P N: 201 - 183 - 01
TO Whom It May Concern,
I Alan R. Armstrong owner of 10161 Kernwood CT., Aita Loma, CA
91737 would like to go On record that I plan to pursue re-inberstment in full
for the amount of $10,000 for witch developer Baayoun charged me at that
time of purchase as a additional charge for what they termed View Lot.
If planned development is completed my View is lost So in retospec to
the fact Baayoun set the value at $10,000. I feel they should cover my loss in
the devaluation of my propert}'. I apologize for not appearing in person, but
on August. 4, I will have hip surgery and will not be able to artended. May this
letter serve notice that I plan to do what every is required to recover my loss.
Thank You,
Alan R. Armstrong
CC: Berent Le Count
DATE: August 1, 1998
TO: Chairman and ivlembers of the Planning Commission F~ E C~ t= I V E D
City Planner
EROM: Robert and Deborah Flores i/~LIG I 0 l~,~
.... Residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga for 10 years City of/qancho Cucamonga
SUBJECT: Extension Renewal of Tentative Tract 14509 Planfling Division
I am writing this letter to inform you of my concern in the matter regarding Extension Of
Renewal For Tentative Tract 14509 - Baayoun Development. Our family along with
other families in the neighborhood feel that the entire development should be abandoned
due to the environmental impact on the surrounding areas and because of the reputation
and integrity of the developer in question. This letter describes our reasoning and
justification in the matter. First a little history.
The approval to build on this tract (# 14509) by the same developer was originally granted
on April 22, 1992, approximately 6 years and 3 months ago. At that time the developer
was given a period of 2 years on ~vhich to start the project. Shortly after that time, the
housing market went into a tailspin which adversely effected the entire real estate market
in California. Most developers at that time chose to postponed development in hopes of
building when better market conditions existed. The State of California responded in turn
by granting extensions to build to developers of similar projects. The exact length of
extension is not known.
However, what is known is that on June 10, 1996 the City ofRancho Cucamonga granted
yet another extension on this same project, giving he developer another year to begin. If
that wasn't enough, in April of 1997 this same developer was given yet one more
extension on the same project that extended the time to April 1998. It seems that 6 plus
years is plenty of time to begin a project if you are a serious, reputable developer. I
believe that this project has been given more than adequate time to be started and that any
further extension on this project would not only be inappropriate, but would not be in the
best interest of the city or the residents of the immediate area. Many changes have
occurred over the past 6 years pertaining to building codes, the environment, and
overcrowding of schools. Our family as well as other families are urging the City of
Rancho Cucamonga to deny any further extension in regards to this Tentative Tract
14509.
The following is a list of detailed reasons why this extension should not be granted.
Baayoun Development has not been acted responsibly over the past 8 V2 years since they
have owned this property. They continue to neglect the property, not doing much of
anything to keep the tali vegetation down, the weeds abated or the trash and garbage out.
Every year, homeowners in this area must initiate calls to the city to have weeds and dry
brush removed from the area in order to diminish the change of fire hazard that we face.
At that time someone comes out and uses a ~veed wacker to cut down brush within 2-10
feet of the fences.
The area has also been used as a dumping ground in years past, and none of the debris
has ever been picked up from the property. With neighbors like this we certainly don't
need any enemies. Since they have been so unresponsive in the care of this property over
the years we have no reason to believe that they are, or will be, careful, considerate, and
responsible in the development of this property.
There are many different types of rodents which have made their homes on this land. Any
type of development would force these animals from their homes into our backyards. We
have had a long history of rodent problems in the area and we believe that the situation
will become unbearable if proper precautions aren't taken during the grading process. I
have children with allergies that could become totally out of control during the process of
tearing this land apart.
This property has always been a habitat and refuge for wildlife. It is a property that has
never been graded in any way and has very tall vegetation growing all over its 3.84 acres.
Living creatures that wilt have no where else to live if this land is taken away from them
and developed. My children have always enjoyed looking out our living room and
kitchen windows in the morning hours and watching the rabbits and squirrels.
The concerns of the residents were not properly addressed ~vhen the original project was
approve& I believe that you will have to agree ~th me that the original approval of this
property was not handled correctly and for that reason alone should not be extended any
further. The residents were not properly notified about the main planning meeting that
took place in February 1992, as stated in the minutes of the hearing on April 22, 1992.
The homeowners were not given the opportunity to speak at the February meeting where
the commission members made up their minds on the project without the input of the
residents directly north of the development. This ~vas the only group left out of the
mailing about the meeting. It is also the group of residents most effected by the
development. The April meeting appeared to be nothing more than a formality that had
to take place because of the City's error on notification. It appeared at that meeting that
the decisions had already been made in February. When the residents were finally
notified and given an opportunity to voice their concerns, I believe that the majority of
the commission members had already made up their minds at the previous meeting that
we where not told about. When I did voice my concerns they were not addressed to my
satisfaction. Now is your opportunity to make this oversight right by not extending the
time on this project.
The original project is much too dense and the lots are not sized properly to address
concerns of the commissioners and the residence. This property is zoned for 2-4 houses
per acre, the tentative track calls for 3.6 dwellings per acre, almost the maximum. To the
north the houses are not as dense as this proposed track. If the city is worried about the
appearance along Hermosa Ave. this density issue needs to be studied and looked at
further and adjusted to better fit in with the area.
Baayoun Development charged large lot premiums on the lots directly above this
proposed track when they developed and sold houses on that property. Most of us still
live in these same properties, some of which still are not worth the money we originally
paid for them. Some of these premiums were as much as $15,000. No~v the same
developer wants to take that expensive view away from us by building two-story home
directly south of the development he charged lot premiums for. At the meeting on April
22, 1992, Commissioner Vallette stated that the commission should start to consider
addressing the preservation of view corridors. She stated the possibility exists to
introduce a different product type to address the concerns of the residents. No~v is a
perfect time to address these concerns by denying the extension on this project. Also she
talked about the back-yard offset which is not adequate in this development. It was also
stated in the staff report 4/22/92 that the views from the lots directly north of the project
had been adequately addressed because of the grade differential and existing fencing
along the north project boundary. This is true in a few cases because of the one story
homes that are being planned behind their homes, however in my case where there is a 2
story home planned behind my home, I will totally lose any and all view that I currently
have from the living portions of my home. I totally disagree ~vith the staff report that this
issue has been addressed, it was only addressed by the developer not by any of the
residence and certainly not to my satisfaction. t will lose any ability to charge a lot
premium for a view lot when I go to sell my property. This is money that I once paid to
this developer. There are many residence in my area that have not contacted you with
any concerns at all. I believe that if this project is to go further that the two-story homes
need to be placed behind those homes. For people such as my husband and I, the only
acceptable home to be built behind our house is a one-story model that will not interrupt
our view. Also if you look carefully at the plans as approved, I look directly into the
master bedroom of the home in front of me. If I'm in the living areas of my house were
the majority of our time is spent; I get to watch people in their bedroom. I ~vould have
bought a home in Chino Hills if this is the type of property that I ~vanted, but I liked the
privacy provided by the layout of the homes that I am currently living in. If a two-story
home is built 16 foot from my back-yard I will loose all privacy.
I can speak first hand about the responsiveness and reputation of Baayoun Development.
My home almost burned down 1 year after I bought it because of a building defect in the
fireplace. This same defect existed on every house on the south side of Kemwood Ct. It
took almost 1 year for Baayoun to make necessary repairs to the fireplaces of these
homes. There were also other building defects found during this inspection process
~vhich also had to be repaired. Today I have these big squares cut out of my home for
ventilation into the under part of my house, they forgot to put in the sub-floor ventilation
when the homes were built. The homes all needed to be painted after 2 years because the
paint on the home was chipping and pealing away. Another example of their lack of
quality workmanship. We had nails in water pipes that produced leaks years later and we
had to pay to get them fixed. We had to pay to have our home re-painted. We had to pay
to have the creaks in the floors repaired and the roof fixed so the roof rats would not get
into our attic area. We are the ones that our out thousands of dollars because of this
ruthless developer that only cared about the bottom line and not his reputation or his
customers that he left with money pits for homes. I have my doubts that the tentative
track 14509 could be anything short of a nightmare for any future homebuyers and for the
City also.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 12, 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION AND CONDITION
MODIFICATION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14509 - BAAYOUN CORPORATION -
A request for a time extension and condition modification for a previously approved
Tentative Tract Map and design review of 18 single family lots on 3.84 acres of land
in the Low Residential District (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), located on the east
side of Hermosa Avenue, between Wilson Avenue and Banyan Street -
APN: 201-183-01.
BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract 14509 was approved by the Planning Commission on April 22,
1992. Since that time, the State has granted automatic time extensions for several years during the
recession. This extended the expiration of the subject Tentative Tract Map to April 22, 1998. Prior
to expiration, the applicant filed the subject extension request. Per State law and the City's
Subdivision Ordinance, the Tentative Tract Map may be extended one additional year.
ANALYSIS: Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension and compared the proposal with
current development criteria outlined in the Development Code. Based on this review, the Tentative
Tract meets development standards for the Low Residential District.
CONDITION MODIFICATION: The applicant has requested that the City delete a condition of
approval requiring construction of the City's Master Plan Storm Drain Line in Hermosa Avenue
extending from the Alta Loma basins and instead pay the required drainage fees. The applicant has
submitted a Hydraulic Capacity Study for staffs review. The study shows that the project will not
cause flows on Hermosa Avenue to flow onto the project site and that construction of the subject
Master Plan Storm Drain system will not provide additional flood protection. Staff is in concurrence
with the applicant's Hydraulic Capacity Study and agrees that the condition should be eliminated.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Part I of the Initial Study was prepared by the applicant. Staff
has completed Part II, the Environmental Checklist. In completing the Environmental Checklist, staff
noted that the property is located in an area identified as potential habitat for endangered or
threatened species. A habitat assessment and biological protocol survey was required to determine
potential impacts, particularly to the federally-listed, threatened California gnatcatcher and the site
is not at all suitable for the kangaroo rat and is so fragmented by surrounding development and
improvements, that it does not represent optimum gnatcatcher habitat. In addition, none of the two
endangered species were observed on the site during the surveys. Therefore, there should be no
significant adverse environmental impacts on the site relative to the proposed Tentative Tract or
time extension. If the Commission concurs with staffs findings, issuance of a Negative Declaration
would be in order.
ITEM F
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT 14509 - BAAYOUN CORPORATION
August 12, 1998
Page 2
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as 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 that the PI~ ing Commission grant a one-year time
nn
extension for the subdivision map and design review for Tentative Tract 14509 and delete
Engineering Division Condition of Approval Number 3 re~quiring construction of storm drain facilities
through adoption of the attached Resolutions and issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:BLC:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Resolution 92-20A (Appr0ving Tentative Tract Map 14509)
Exhibit "B" - Letter from Applicant
Exhibit "C" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "D" - Site Plan
Exhibit "E" - Elevations
Exhibit "F" - Sight Line Analysis
Exhibit "G" - Planning Commission Minutes dates April 22, 1992
Exhibit "H" - Initial Study Part II
Resolution of Approval- Tentative Tract! Map Time Extension
Resolution of Approval- Design Review'iTime Extension
.RESOLUTION NO. 92-20A
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING C0~_~.ISSION OF THE CITY OF
R~_NCHO CUCAMONGA, CkLIFOINIA, A_DPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT
~t~P NO- 14509, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HEP~OSA AVENUE
BETW~_EN WILSON AVENUE AND B~\'f_.~N STREET iN THE LOW
RESIDENTIAL ( 2-4 DW'ELLING UNITS PER ACRE ) DISTR/CT, AND
MAX<ING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-183-01.
A. Recitals.
(i) Baayoun Development has filed an application for the approval of
Tentative Tract Map No. 14509 as described in the title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is
referred to as "the application."
(ii) On the 12th day of February 1992, the Planning Comraission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the
application and concluded said hearing on that date.
(iii) On the 22nd day of April 1992, the Planning Comraission of the
City of Pancho Cucamonga conducted an additional duly noticed public hearing
on the application because of an inadequate Notice of Hearing for the first
hearing and concluded said hearing on that date.
(iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution
have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEEFORE, it iS hereby found, determined, and resolved by the
Planning Co~T~ssion 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 April 8, 1992, includ/ng written
and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Com~ssion hereby
specifically finds as follows:
(a) The application applies to property located on the east
side of Hermosa Avenue between Wilson Avenue and Banyan Street with a street
frontage of 223.59 feet and lot depth of 627.61 feet and is presently vacant;
and
(b) The property to the north of the subject site is existing
Low Residential, the property to the south of the site is vacant San
Bernardino County Flood Control District land, the property to the east is
existing Low-Medium Residential, and the property to the west is Very Low
Residential.
PL~_NN!NG CO~L~.ZSSZO=N .RESOLUT_TON ~NO. 92-20A
TT 14509 - BIAYOUN DEVELOP}LENT
April 22, 1992
Page 2
~.~
(c) .The project includes _n? development of 18 single family
residences; and
(d) There are three floor ~lans within the project, each of
them having three clifferent building elevations which vary in color, style,
and material; and
(e) The single family lots range in size from 7,412 to 11,696
square feet. The average lot size within ~the project is 9,279 square feet;
and ,
{f) The site is bounded to 'the south by a local equestrian
trail; and
(g) The subject property lies gTeater than 15 feet below the
grade of the existing residences to the north.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Comzuission
during the above-referenced public hearing end upon the specific findings of
facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above~ this Commission hereby finds and
concludes as follows:
(a) The tentative tract is Consistent with the General Plan,
Development Code, and specific plans; and
(b) The design Or improvements of the tentative tract is
consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; and
(c) The site is physically suStable for the type of development
proposed; and
(d) The design of the subd~]vision is not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage and avoidaSle injury to humans and wildlife
or their habitat; and
(e) The tentative tract is n~t likely to cause serious public
health problems; and
(f) The design of the tentatlve 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 prqposed subdivision.
4- This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project has
~i h
been reviewed and considered in compliance t the California Environmental
Quality Act of 7970 and, further, this Co,me/ssion hereby issues a Negative
Declaration.
5- Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
l, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby. approves the application subject
zo each and every condition set forth be_!o~ and in the Standard Conditions,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by th,'is reference.
TT ~4509 - B~.YOO~ Dz'VELOp.~2NT
April 22, ~992
Page 3
Planning Division
1) The developer shall apply for a Minor Exception
to reduce the front yard setback standard to 29
feet for Lots 2, 8, and 9. The Minor Exception
shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Planner prior to the issuance of buildLing
permits.
Engineering Division
~) The existing overhead utilities (telecommuni-
cations and electrical) on the project side of
Hermosa Avenue shall be undergrounded along the
entire project frontage extending southerly
off-site to the pole at the north property line
of the single fam/!y parcel at the northeast
corner of Hermosa Avenue and Banyan Street,
prior to public improvement acceptance or
occupancy, whichever occurs first. The
developer may request a .reimbursement agreement
to recover one-half the City adopted cost for
undergrounding from future development
(redevelopment) as it occurs on the opposite
side of the street and adjacent oo the same
side of the street.
2) Construct the 40~foot wide community
trail/landscaped area along the south project
boundary in accordance with the Common Use
Agreement - Alta Loma Basin No. 2 (Contract No.
289). The landscaping shall be consistent with
~he existing portion to the east.
Line in Hermosa Avenue extending from the Alta
Loma Basins to north of the north project
boundary. Sufficient catch basin capacity
shall be provided to protect the site from
flows from the north and intercept an
equivalent flow that was intercepted by the
existing inlet facility south of the project.
The project shall be eligible for drainage fee
credit and reimbursement for permanent master
plan facilities in accordance w~h Ci'y DOTiCY
development of the project.
April 22, 1992
Page 4
5) prainage from Lots 10718 shall not flow
~rectly onto the City ~aintained landscaped
area to the south. A cobcrete swale shall be
provided on the south s~de of the project's
perimeter wall with connector swales (~nim~
number possible) to h I
t ~ swale between the
landscaped area and trail~to the south.
6) The pedestrian access to: Hermosa Avenue from
Corkwood Court shall hav~ ad~tional concrete
provided to make a 90-de~ee connection to the
sidewalk on He~osa Avenue and the access
opening shall not ~ gated.
7) Every effort shall be ~de to ~ni~ze the
len~h of tilt cross-section along Hermosa
Avenue as determined durin;g plan check.
8) The sto~ ~ain ~nhole~ located within the
equestrian trail shall ~e relocated to the
satisfaction of the City,Engineer so that it
does not interfere with the use of the
equestrian trail.
6- The Secretary to this Comm/ssi~n shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
APPRO~D ~ND ~OPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF ~L 1992.
PL~ING CO~ ISSION OF THE CI~ OF RANCHO CUC~ONGA
ATTEST: I
ir Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Cgmnlission of the City of ~ncho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
re~larly introduced, passed, and adopted by' the Planning Comnission of the
City of ~ncho Cucamonga, at a re~lar meetin~ of the Planning Co~ssion held
on the 22nd day of April 1992, by the following vot'e-to-wit:
A~S: COMmISSiONERS: M~IEL, ~LCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES: COM~MISSIONERS: V~LETTE
ABS~T: COM_MISSIONEp~: NONE
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
SUBJECT:
Th<>se items checked are Condttk~ns of
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (714)~I.-1861, FOR COMPLIANCE
WiTH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
· ApprovaJ shall expire, unless exlended by the Ptannitg Commission, i butdkt perm~ are
no{ issued or a4)proved use ha~ not Commenced withi'l 24 months from the da~e of a~omvaL
2. Devek:~xnenVDesign Rev+ew ~ be approved prk:x to / /
3. ApprovaJ Of Tentative Trad No. ~ is granted _~__,~,ed to the a. pp<ovaJ Of
4. The developershalcomrn~ncl,~rttctl~zlehq, andconsu~e o<cause to be cortnenced,
palic~ed ~n, er consurnrn~ed, a k4~fo-Roo6 Corrrr~nib~ Faditles Dimrict (CFD) for the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Pro( _e.':~.~__n I:)tstrtd to ~nanc~ construction and/er rn~ntenance of
a fire station to serve the devek:~. The s~mton ~ be k)cated, designed, and I;xjilt to
ai s;:~_jtr~,-flo~ Of the ~ ~ Fre Pr~e<~lon+Dtstrk~ and sttal become the
[:N~ricrs p~ ~ co~. Th~ equipmenl shall be setsdad by ttte Disrid in
~:~.~lanc~ ~ il neealL i't Nty buldir~ o~ a m~3~1. the devek:;)~er shaJ comph, with all
///,/ aO~icabiel~w'llndt~3Limlj°nl'TheCFDshalbef°rrnedbySheDtsltk;tand~edevet°Per
5. Pdortorec)td.afiotlOfttt.i f~q./mal3o~'theeis-m..~a. rK;tOfl:xjidlng pe~.~;i.i. whk~eve~'comes
first. the a~ican~ ~ ~ to, er p~ffici~ it. lt~ estadlsh'T~t~ Of a
Commurffihf FadIN Dtstrk;:t for tt~ con~rudion ind ~ Of necessary sr..ho~l
fadRkss. However. ff any s::txx>l dts~ict ha~ ~ewous~/emablshed sudq a Community
Fa~litk~s Dim.rid. The ~ st'..~ll. in the ajtern~Ne. cort~ent to the m'~n~xa~lon of the
project site into the ter'm~ry o~ s.r..h exi~jng Dist~'~ prior to the reo3rdmion o~ the finaJ rna~
or me r>r~.zance o~ b~jilding ~. whiche,er cQn'ws ~r~. Furl~er. il the a~lected sc..ho~l
d~nct has nd fo,.rmed a Metlc-Roos Comrr~n~/Fac. i~ies Dimrid within tweive months fn3m
U'~e dale of aD~roval of the pm~;;t and pr~H' tO the recO,"~k;~n Of the finaJ mad er t.Ssuan<;e
Of bui:Nr~ peru for said pro~ct. this c,onditk:>n s-haJ be deemed nult and
This condit~n shall be waived if the City receives noCj~e thm the applicanl ~ all affeded
sc:xx>l districts have entered into an agneemem to pdv~ety accomn-~date any and all
impacts as a result of this p,,'o~ecI.
\ 6. Pndr to recorda/jon of the finaJ map or pnor to L'ssuanc~ of t:xjitding permits when nc map ~ / /
involved. w-ri~en certifr_..ation fn3m ti'~ affected water cii~ric~ thai adequate sewer and water
facilities are or will be available to serve the p,"~pos~ pmje,cl shall be submitted to the
Departmenl of Community Devetcp4'nent. Such letter ~nust have been issued by the water
district wit bin 90 days prior to ~naJ map apOroval in the case of subdivision or prid r to issuance
of permits in the case of all other residential projec'~. '
B. S~r~'iop~ertt
1. The site shall be developed and rnaintajr'ed in accordance with the a,oOmved ~ which _._/ /
inctude s/te p4ans. arc~itec~uraJ elevations, ex'ter~or rn.a/edajs and colore, landscaping, s~gn
program. and grading on file in the Planning Division, the cor'K~ions comained herein,
Developmen1 Code regulations. and '.
Specific Plan and
.;.
Planned Community. :
2. Prior to any use of the pmje::t site or business ~ being commenced thereon. all .__/ /
Conclitions of ,~val shall be c~rr~ed to the sal~.acli3n Of the City Planner.
3. ~ccupancy~ft~efad~ith/sha~n~tc~mm~n~eun~is~d~t~k~rt'easa~iUni~rmBu~-~gC~deand J -
State Rre Marsbars reguta~ons have been con~isd ,~villl. Prior to occupancy, pia. ns shaJl
be sub"niled to the Rancho Cucamonga Rre Pm(ec~oh ~ and tt~e Build~ and Safety
Division 1o .f.t~aw cornplia/x~. The building sha~ b~; irked fo4' corr~iance prior to
4. Revised site p{a ns and building ek~vm kx~s inc~lr~g al Condttto nl Of ~aJ shell be J /
sul::N'nitted for City Planner review and approvfd prior ~) ~_-uJ.snce of buitdtng penTils.
5. Agsite. grading, tB. irrigation. ands~'eetl.rnptt:~efne~p, lansstta. lbecoordiz~tedfor .J /
cons~tency pdor to issjance o~ arnf perrni~ (suet1 a~ ~ading, ~ree removal. enc~oac.~me~
~x~ilding, etc.). o~' pdo{' to finaJ ~ .~OfX~NaJ in the ~ o4 a C:LtStOm io( ~ion, or ,
a4:~:~oved use ha~ con'fnef~ed, wfilc~lever com,~
6. A,opmvaJ of this reque~ shall n~X waive ~ W~h all secltor~ of the Devek:~ment /.__/
P~-'ts in effec~ a~ the time of Bui~ng Perrn41 iss~mc:~.
7. Adeta,ledo, n--~eigt~lngpla'~sttalhene,~ewedax:l;appmvedby tl~ C~ Planner and
Sheftrs [)~l~rtmeff (geg-eel 1) ~ to the tssuance:~of ~tldlng pefm~. Suc~ I~an s~aU
indicaes;ty'~,ilumkta:rjon, iocajon, helgt~, andm.e{ho'dofst~i~:t'tg soas no~to advef~ety
8. Ifnocen~rajtzedtr4shrec~arep-ov~ded, alltr~ tt:~-.u~sh~i bef~k'd'v~dualunits /
w~h aJl recef;Xactes s,hi,e~:~d fr,o~n I;x4i~c view.
9. Trashrece~ac~s)amrequitedandshdme~Ch,~ nda'~:is. ThefinaJdestgn, locations /
ancltt~er~n'f3efoftr&sh re~ac~e~ sttaHhesuO~c~{o CltyRarf~f revle~anda~:::~.mval
~ to ~ssuanc~ of buitding perrn~.
10. A~ gn:~nd-mourXed Lrtfik~, aD~jrlenanc~ S~Qh as t~'ans'orrnem, AC Condensers, etc., s~all
~,e located o~t of pu~ic v~ew and a, dequate~f screened trtrou~ the use of a c~nt:~ath3n of
c~ncre~e er masonry walls. betruing, a.n<~' La.n~ to ~ ~a:~i~a~ion Of the City
5,?, - ~/~1 2 of 12
\ 11. Street narnes s,hall be submitted for CZty Ptanner review and approval in ac.c~rc~ance with _.j /
the adof;xed S~reet Namir'~g Policy prior to a4:~naval of tt~e final ma,o.
12. All I:xjiiding nun't~rs and individual units shall be idenlffk~l in a clear and concise manner, _..J /
including ;x'o,per illumination.
\13. A detailed ~an indicating trail widlhs, mguximum slof:~s, p~ysical conditions, fencing, and J /
weed control, in acc~arclance with City Master Trail drawings, styall be sub4'nitted for City
Planner review and approval pdor to approval and re<~n~alJon of the Final Trac-I Map and prior
to aDOroyal of street irnOrovement and gradir~ p~ans. Developer shell upgrade and construc~
all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in c=3njunc~ion with street iml:N'ovements.
14. The Covenants, Conditions and Rest~clions (CC&R$) shag not prohibit the keepir~ of equine __J /
anirnaJs where zoning requirements forthe keel~ing of said animals heve been met. Individual
lot owners in sui:xlivisions shall have the o~ion of ke~ sak:l animats without the rH~essity
of appealing to I;K3arcls of direrors or home3wnem' ::,_-L_ _-_..t:,c. iations for amendrnent~ to t~e
'//1 CC&RS.
5. The Covenants, Conditions. and Resldclions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the __j /
Homeowners' Association are subject to the aplxovaJ of the Ptanrting and Engineering
Divisions and the City Atlorney. They shell be recorded conojrrently with ~ F~r',ai Ma,o or
pdor to the issuance of t:x, liiding permits, whichever occurs firsl. A t'ecorOed c;~;)y shell de
provided to the City Engineer.
16. Allparkways, openareu,anclla.ndscapingshall bepefmanenth/mai,'lajned bythel;xo~erty J - /
owner. homeowners' association, or other means at2r:ept.l~le to the City. I::>'n:~f of this
landscape maintenance shell be sul)n-itted for City Planner anti City Engineer review and
a. ppmval prior to issuance of tyailding permits.
17. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purposs O4 assuming thal eac~h lot or / /
dwelling unit shag have We right to receive sunlight ar_.rosa adh~;ent ~ or untLs for use of
a s~lar energy sys'lem. The easements may be co,'Xalned in a ~i:m O4 Res~clions for
the sutx/ivisidn which shall be recoiled co,'~currenlly wiffi ~ ~i:m of the li'tal rnai3 or
issuance of ben'nits, whicheve' comes firsl. The eas~f'nerls sttal I:~l:>it t~e casting of
shacle, ws by vel}etalort, sm.K:mjree. fixtures or any offier ob~::I, excefX for utility w~'es anti
similar oi:);~s, pursuant 1o [:)evei:~ C(x;Je S49c1/3n 17.08.060-.G-2.
18. TheprojectcontajnsadesignaledHistodcaJLartdrnark. 'T'hesileshallbedevelopedand ._J /
rnahtalned in ~ will1 the Hlslodc ~ Alletllto4'l Psrn'l No.
· Any further rno<~icatio~e to the sile inc~, Ix,'t not irnited to, exled~' alteratiom and/or
int edor alteralions w'htctt affecI tbe exledor O4 the l~j ildtngs or slnx:Iu res, removal of landmark
trees, dernollion. rek3,callor~ rlconslrucljon o~ buildings or stn./ctures, or c:~ to the site,
shall require i modiflcaIlon t3 ttle Hi~ortc Landn"affi AJleraio~ PeflTil sut)ject to Hisloric
Preserva~3tl C, otrlTissixl rwview and ~al.
C. Building Dtltgn
· 1. An alternaltve energy system is required to !:m3vide domestic hot walet for all dwelling units / /
and for heatin~ any S'wi'TTning pOO~ or ~ unlesl othe' altemaINe energy sysleme are
time o4 initial devemnl ~ be 9.t~mefited wiffi s3lar hea~tn~. D~alt~ shall be
inciucled in the I:)uilding plans and srtall be sui~rnille(:l for City Ranner review and apl;)~val
pr, or to the t>,suance of buiidtn~ permits.
2. All dwellings shall have tf~e from, side and rear elevations up,graded with architectural / /
tmalmeht. detailir~ and increa.se(I betinealGn of surface trs~meht sut~ecl to City PLanner
rev~w and aDI;~roval pr~' to issuance O4 13uildr~ pen'hi. Is.
C~b/Ptanner and B~jildin~ Official review and approval prier to issuance of b~jilding permits.
4. All roof a,ol~der~ances, indudir~ air c~nditldners and oiher roof ~ nted e<:tuiOment and/or
pm/e~ions, shall be shielded from view and the sc. und b2.rf'fered from adjacent properties and
s~reets as re~!uired _by tt~e Planning Division. SuchI sc4'eening shait be architecturally
inlregrated with the b~Jilding design and c~nstrucled to the saIis~'aclldn of the City Planner.
Details shall be in~u~,ed in i:xjilding plans.
D. Panking an~ VehicuLar Access (Irtdlcate deVIls on 13~lk:llng .l~anl)
1. AIIpankingloflandscapeislandsshallhaveaminirrum~.rtsidedimensionof6teetandshall / /
contain a 12-inch wai< edjacenl to the pa'king stall (ir~ng ojrb).
2. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across drculatton aisles shall be J t
provided throughout the development to connect dwe lll~s/units/t~ildtngs wibh open spaces/
plazas/recreatldnal uses.
3. All panking spaces shag be do~jble 5b~.,,~d pc' City ~andards and all driveway aisles, J /
emrances, and exits shall be s~ripedpar City standardS.
4.All units shall be provided with garage door openers it Clriveways are lesatha. n18feet in
defXh from bac~ of sidewalk.
5. ]-heC~v~nan~s~C~ndif~ns`1ndRestric~i~n~sttal~r~strk~est~ra~;~eofrecr~=~i~na~v~hides
on thffi site unless they are the principal ,s~j n:e of tr~n,sO<Hlafion for tfie owner and prohibit
parking on intendr drculalion aisles other ~an in desi~naIed v~sito~' parkjn~ arsas.
6. Rans for any security g~les shat be submitted for tl~ City P~frter, CIty Engineer, and
Ra.,f_.t~ CucamonOa Fire Protection Dtstrk~ review and ~l;~3vaJ priodo Lssuance of building
permits. I
E. Landscaping (for I~d)lk:ty rrtalntalr~d landlcaOl ~ rtllr to Sectkin N.)
1. A detailed landscape and in~gaIion plan, lnctudingsk:~Oeplanltr'qandmodelhome Landsca. p- _.J /,,
ing in ll'~ case o~ rssi:~'rllal deveio~3me~. shal 13~ prsf)arKI by a licensed lands:a,oe
permils or prior final rnaO approval in the c.a~e o~ a c~l~om Io~ sul:x:lv~sto~.
2. Existingtr~r~quir~t~bep~n~se~vedinp~ace$ha~be~X~x~C~edw~h~c~rtstrt~;~nbamer ._J.__
, inacc~n3~,ncewithffieMunici~C~deSec~fott19~.11~ar~:~s~n~¢ed~nthegradingp~arts.
The iocalo~ o~ ~ ~ to be phase'red in ptace and 'new L,o,c_~lo~s for transp4an~ed trees
3.Amtr~r~mo~ __treespefgrossacre coml;~'isa:lofl~hefolowtr~gs~zes, shajl be provided /
wffhin the pro~: % - 4.8- inc. fi box of larOer ] % - :36- inch box or larger.
__ %-24-incfiboxo¢larOet %-15-gal~n ar~ __%-5~alo~.'
4. A min4mum o~ % of tre~s l~ln~ed w~l~n t~e p~ shaJI be speomen size b'ees - /__ __
24-incfi box or larger.
5. W'tlhin parking toffi. tre~s shall be p~amed ~t a ra~e 04 '~one 15-gajlofi tre~ for every three
panking slal~s..s~'E~:~erfl fo s~ade :5~Yo of the parkrng a~ea a1 so~lr noo~ on August 21.
L ~c"~'/9!
?:.;-~: >':
6, Tr~s s~ll ) pta~ in areas of'pub(~ ~ew adjace~ to a~ a~ng st~c~ures at a rate ot one
line ~r 30 li~ar feel of ~i~i~. ~ /
7. AIl~es~St~tor~inve~l~a~ofS:l org~aersb~,~than J /
2:1 s~, s~l ~, ~ ~ni~m, i~m~ a~ la~ w~h ~dme g~ ~ver for
ems~n ~1. ~ ~aml~ r~ir~ ~ th~ s~n snail i~l~ a pe~m i~at~n
sy~em to ~ i~al~ ~ :he ~ve~r ~r to ~.
8. Allpfi~es~sin~x~ssofSf~t,~ssthan8 feet inven~l~a~of2:l orgremer J /
sb~ shall be la~a a~ i~t~ for ems~n ~mml a~ to ~en t~ir ~a~ as
fol~s: one 15~al~n or la~er s~e tr~ ~r e~ 1 ~ ~. ~. of s~ area, 1 ~albn or ~er
s~e sh~b ~r e~h 1 ~ ~. ffi of s~ area, ~ ~m~e gr~ ~ver. In ~n. s~
~s in ex~ of 8 f~t in ven~
5~al~n or lair s~e tr~ ~r
p~m~ in ~ c~em to ~en a~ v~ s~ ~e. S~ ~i~ r~uir~ ~y this
s~n s~ll i~l~ a ~m i~bn sy~em ~ ~ ~1~ ~ t~ ~ve~r ~r to
9. Forsi~fa~ res~devemm, ds~~i~ns~B~mi~- J /
~s~ ~m~n~ in a ~ a~ ~ m~ n ~ ~ ~ ~r u~ e~ i~ u n~
is ~ ~ ~ ~ t~ ~yer. P~rto m~u~ ~_~ f~ u~s, ~ ~bn
s~ ~ ~ ~ t~ R~ DM~ to ~e~ t~ t~ ~ ~ ~o~
10. For ~fam~ res~m~
s~ for t~ ~inu~ ~e~ of
we~s a~
~yi~ p~ ~e~
11. From y~ I~ s~l ~ ~ir~ ~ t~ ~e~m ~ ~/of / /
. ~s ~im~ ~l ~ ~ ~n to t~ r~uir~
12. ~e ti~ ~s~n ~ t~ ~ ~ays, w~, ~, a~ s~ s~ll ~ j /
i~ ~
i~ s~w~
14. Lanclscal::~ngindtmgitkxlef~et1~recluiredtobei4,ts~ledw~inthepub&c dghl-of-wayon / /
the pedr, me~of ~ pn;Jecl area ~ be con(in.K~jBJy ~ned I:]y the develoger.
15. Aft walls sMI be pfovlded wth deco~trea~menl. Ulocle<l itt pubic r'rt~ntenance ama~ .__/ /
the design ~ be ~aI~:~ ~ the Engineering Di,rtmo~.
16.Tre~mai~enancecri~ert~ta~bedev~;>e~:~ar~u~/~mi~e<;~f~rC~Ptattn~r~viewand .__/
aDl:,'oval prior to issum c~ ~ildlng pen"n~s, These cr~e~ ~ enc~Jra~e bhe natural
growth aharadeds~ics of ~e s~klded tree sp~jes.
17. Landscapinq and irr~ion steal I~ 0esi0ne:l to co~ve wat~' tl'~ t~e pnnciO~s of / /
×e~ a~ defined in Cheer 19.16 of the Rarct~ C.,~ca~ Mun~ Code.
sc · ~/9~ 5 or ~::z
F. S~rt~
1. Thesignsinclic,-~edonthesui~n~edplansarec,0rr,,,.e~ alonlyandnetapartot thisapproval.
Arry signs proposed for this devek~pment shall cot'rip t with the Sign Orciinance an~ shall
require s~para'te a~icat~n ancl approval Dy the Plann!ng Divis~n I:h'~r to insta Latien of any
signs.
2. A Unitorrn Sign Prod'ram for this deveto0,"r~enlc s~all be ,~Jl~'nitted for Ch'y Planner review and J /
a;Oroval pnor to issuance of b~jilding permits.
3. Direc'lory n'~nu mem sign(s) shall be provide::l for apa~rne nt, condorrtinium, or townhomes ._.J /
prior to occupancy and shall require separate a;~pttc~:lon and apO~vaJ by the Planning
Division prior to issuance ot buildir-~ permits.
G. Environmental
1. Thed~ve~persha~provideeac~hpr~spec~ivebuyerw`rit1ennct~e~theF~¢JnhStreetR~c~
Crusher I;:N'oje:~ in a slanc~a~l format as petermined hy we City Planner, prior to ao~p(ing a
cash deposit on any I:xoperty.
2. The developer s~all provide each pmspe~ive buyer: wdtten notice ot the City Adopted J /
Special Studies Zone for the Red Hilt Fautt, in a sland, a~ fonT,.a as determined by ~ City
Planner, prior to accet:Xing a cas~ dep,osi~ on any ~.
3. The developer shall provide eacJ~ l;~ospective bu~/~ WTtttennotk::eofthe Foothiil Freeway J:' I
proie~ in a stan(larcl fon"n~ as determined by the CI~/~, prior to _:~x'__e!c~lng a cash
deposit on any property.
4. A final acous~icaJ report shall be sutx'ni~led for City Pa-te~ review and a4:~l:~'oval ~ to the /
i_t-J~_j3.rlc8 of buiid(l'~ permit8. The' fir):al report stt~; (Jiscus.~ tbe levl o~ ll'lter~
atlenua~iontobelow45CNELtbebuik~in~rn.atedaJsax~::l: co~slruc~:x.tte<::t~,~luespmvided,
and if aOp~,pda'le. verih/the adequao/04 the millga~k:m meB,.~Jres. The building plans will be
ci'~K:ked for conforrnance wiffi the rritigalk)n measure& co41ained in the final report.
H, ~l'~r Ag~--le~
1. Emergencysecondarya.:x,~s=sshaJlbel:>r~)videdinac;offi, ancew~thRarcho~Fire
Pro~e~ion Di~ric~ Slandatcis.
2. Emergency access sttaJlbe p,rovided, majr~enance fre~;ancl ctear, a rrmln~Jmof261eetwide --J'
a~ aM ~imes during o3nstruction in ac:otclance w~h Ranct~ C4jcamon0a Fre P~tection
D~ric~ requirememo.
3. Pdo~ to mot h,,lk:lng permits for CO~ cor~njcIjon, evidence snail be /__
sut>m~ed to ~ ~ C4,ecarnoq~ Rre PT~e<::ljon D~,rlct tha terrtl:x:N"a~ water supl:~/ for
fire p~ I= avaJat~e, petalrig co,'np~i:m o~ required fire pm{ec~io~ system.
4. The;~r2,2~camsttaico~tac~he U.S. Po~alSef~ceto:de{ernlnethealX>ro~.Dtla~ety1:~eand
k)catio~l of mail boxes. Muti--.fanlily residef'~aJ devek:)~:)mef'a~ shall 13tovt~ a solid overhead
design of the overhead s~ruc~re ~a be sut~ec~ to C~ Ranne' rev~N and appmvaJ t:~:>r
to the issuance of t:)uildlng pern'~s.
5. For P~ie:ls usu:~ sel:Xlc tank facilities, wrftten certification of accel:Mbiaty, inctj<:linq all
supporlive information, .snalt be o~Xained from tt~e ~ Bema.,'dk~ County Del:~nrnem of
Environmental Heatlh and su~'n~ed to t~e Buitcling O~iciaJ p,'xx to the is~,uance of Septic
Tar~ Permils, and p~er to ~suance of bui~g pen'n~.
?--;.~. ~-; . _.- .
c_~ D,;;:
APPLICANTS SHAJ_L CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIV|SION, (714) 989-1863, FOR
COMPHANCE WTTH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
) I. Site Development
1, The a~ioar~ shall c~rn~y with tt~ ~test adopted Uniform Building Code, UniformM~hani~ / /
cal C<x~, Uniform Plum~ng Code, NatldnaJ Electric Code, and all other apC~ical3~e c~des.
ordinances, and regulations in effec~ at the time of is..~Jance of relative permits. Please
Contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adenion Ordinance and
ap~icable hanO3uts.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) Or major acldition ----/ /
to existing unit(s), the ~ sttall pay develo~'nent fe~s at the established rate. SuQh fees
may include, but are not limited to: City Beau~icatldn Fee. Park Fee, Drainage Fee, System
Development Fee, Permit and Plan Cheddng Fees, and Sch(x~l Fees.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new cornmetcial or industdaf devetofxnent or __/ /
addition to an existing deveiopment, the ~o~,icanl shall pa~ development fees at the
estal~itshed rate. ,Sc~ch fees may include, b~ are not limited to: Systen-,= D~vetopment Fee,
V/// Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Ptan Chectdng Fees.
4. Sb~eetaddresse~shaj~bepr~videdbytheBuilding~iciaf`afteftract/parce~maprec~n:~ati~n .__J /
and prior to issuance of building permit.
J. E=ls~lng S~ructurs~
1. Provide corn01~lrr.,e with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances __/ /
considering use. area, and fire-resLs~lvene~ o~ existing buildings.
__ 2. Existing buildings shaJl be made to comply wiffi cotrec~ building and zoning regu Lltiorts for ---/ /
the intended use Or the building sl'iait be demolished.
3. ExistJngsewagedisOosaffadli~lesshaJlberef'rs3ved, filed and/Or ~ to cornply with the __/ /__
Unitorrn Plurm,-~g Code and Unio~Tn Building Code.
4. Undergm4Jnd on-site utillle6 are to be ldcaed and show~l on building plans sul:xnitted for / /
building permit aOI31cati)n.
K. Gr'~llng
1. Graciing~th¢~ub)e~p~}pe~ty~ha~beina~z:~x~:~x:ewi~1th~Uni~tmBuidingC~de~Cit`/ .__/ /
Grading Stencils, and tittered gt3dlng ~s. The fi~J grading plan shall be in
2. As~isre~:xN1st~bepref)m-edby~quajifiedengneef~ir.~ensedb"/theSta~fCa~if~mLat~ .__/ /
3. The devei30tnent is bc..~ed within the sol emsi~ co~ro4 b:x~n~taf~s; a Soit Dtstuf'oance / /
PerrNt is required. Plea co41a~ Sin B~'rtirdrto Co~rff ~ of Aglculture ~ (714
387-2111 f~ pemit aOpi:at:ion. Documenla~k~ of sud't perrail srtall be submitted to the City
__4. Age<3i~gicajre13~r~sha~be;xe1;:~`1tedbyaquajiiedef~girteerorge~i~'gistaz~ds~b4.nitted at ~ /-
the tsme of applicatm3n for grading p~an check.
7of12
reqiJ' ~ s shall be met:
6. A.s a custom-tot subdivision. the lollowing iremen1
a. S~jrsW shall be posted and an agreement exec~led ~uaran~eeing c~mpieti~n ol all o~s~e / /
clrainage lac. jl~es necessat,/for alewatering all parc,'ets to the sai~acfion ot the Building
~ Safe~'y Diesion pnorto finat map a,c~roval and p~rlo the issuance of grading permits.
b. ADproPdate easements for safe disposaf of drainage water that are corOjc~ed onto J /
or over adjacent parcels, are to be dellhealed an~ recorded to the satisfaction of the
Building and Safety Di~sion I::mof to i.ssjance of gr,~ling and I:xzilding permits.
c. O~-site drainag~ imC~ovements, necessary for dew,~tedng and I~otec~ing the sul:x:livided ---/ J
properties, ate to be installed prior to i~-,~ance of b~jitding permits for construelion upon
any pamel that may be su~e~ to drajnaOe flows ~entering. leaving. or within a parcel
relative to which a building permit is requested.
d. F~r~al grading p~ns for each parcel are to be subm~tl.'ed to the Building and Safety --J /
Division for apCm3val p4~r to ~jarlce of btlild~ atld gz't;;litlg per'rrits. (This i'l~y be on an
inctementaJ or composite basis.)
e. AJI slope banks in excess of 5 feet in verttr_~l heigt'd i shal be s~eded wlh na~ grasses /
or p4anted wilh ground cover for erosion conlml upof) comp~fon of grading o,' SOma omer
alternaive mettxx:l of erosion control st~afl be cofn~ed to the sailsration of ~e B~jitdlng
Official In addition a permanent in'ig~ion system ~ be pm,,4ded. This requirement
do~s nol release the al;X)4icant/dev~loOef from ~ Will the siol3e p4aming
requirements of ,Seclion 17.08.040 I of the Deveio~nl Code.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DNISION, (714) 9~9-1862, FOIl COMPLIANCE
WRl,.f THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
comrr~nity trails. put31ic pa.seos, pu{)tic ~ ate ~_. ~tree{ trees, ~ Ix~blic drainage
facilities as sl-saw~ on the plans and/of tematlve map. jPttvafe e~semenls fo4' non-public
faci/ilies (cross-tot dr'ajnage. ~ feeder trajls, elc) ~ N re, Htved as sh3wn on the p4ans
and/o~ lentalive map.
2. Dedication shaJI be made ot the fobwing rigtls-of-wa~ on the pedrrtelef street~ J /
(rnea.'~ured from slre~ ceilrecline):
tofal fe~
3. An irmeo~e{'otd_e,'~t:;lk:mfo4': -footwt~ema~,~ayesserrenlshalbema~.~
f~ all I;~dvate stree~ or drives.
5. Reciptocal aG~,ss easernent,~ st~alt be provided emu~fng accless to all patcel~ 1~/CC&RS /__ /
or 1~ deeds and shaw be recorded c~ncurrent~f with me rna~ o{ prt~' to ~ ,._L~an<:~ of
sc - 2/gt
6. Pdva~edrainageeasememsforCross-~otdrainageshallbel:xov~ded ar~slnallbe detineate~d
or noteS en the final map. ---/ /
7. The final map shaJl cleady delineale a I O-foot minimum buitdincj restriction area on the J /
neigt,,bodng lol adjoining the zero lot line wall and c~rTtain the followir~ language:
'l/We hereby delicate to the City of Ra. rr_t~ Cuc. arnor~a the r~ht to prohibit
construc:tfon of (residential) t:~uiidir~s (or o~er so,uctums) within O'x~se areas designateS
on the ma~ as b~jiiding resa, Llion areas.'
A maintenance agreement styall also be grantee from eac~h lot to the aclhacent lot thn:~gh the
CC&R's.
8, A~exis~ingeasements~yingwithinfu1urerights.~f-wayshat~bequitciaimed~rde~ineated~n J /
the final map.
9, Easements for pub4lo sidewal~ and/or street t~ees i:~aced outside the pul3/lc dght--ot-way __J /
sha/I be dedic~eS to the Cffi/wherever they e~:mach omo private
· 1~.Adc~tlona~stmetri~ht.~f-wayshaj~bededic`~eSalo~gr~httum~anes.t~;xx:Nideaminirnum .__j /
of 7 feet measureS from the face of curry. tf cure aGhicent stdewaJk is uMcl along the
lure lane, a paraJkH street tree rnainlenance easerrem shai be I:tovlded.
11. The develoOer shall make a go<~ faith effort to _w'~Jk'e the recluired off-sle l;xcN~rty interests / /
necessary to cor~ruct the required pu~tc impmvemenm, and le he/she should
thed~velopers~a~'at~eas~/12~ctayspd~rt~sutx~nitLa~fthe~na~rn~f~app~va~`emer -.
into an agreemenl to conlpk~e the b'nl;x'ovemef~s pursz~rrl to Govefnfnent Code Section
66462 ~tsucht~meastheC~/a~:~uire~e~;k~3e~`ty~1ef~stsr~quir~d~r~t~eiT~vernents.
Such agreement shall provide for payme1 by the devek>0er of al ~ ix:urred by the City
to acquire the o4f-site ~n'y intereats required In connec~n wiffi the - __d-Jdivisk~. Securily
for a pofllon of these coet~ sttall be in the form of acaa~ de~c3osl/'t the amoun/given in an
apl:xaisaJ ref:~ort ob(ained by the developer, ~ devek:~s cost. The al:)prd.i~ef shall have
M. Slrte( tmprovenlentl
1. A~ put~ic irn;x~3vements (intedo4' s~ree~, d~ factlies, con'~-nunly tra~, paseos, __J /
I~ areas. etC.) sre, m on the p~na and/or leffatNt rna0 shal 13e cor~ruc~eS to
City Slandards. Inledoe' s~re~ tntlxovements gtai inctude, but .am nm lnttecl to, cur'o and
gullet, AC pav~rnem, drf~ a131xoact~t, skMwak3, atre~ igt1~, and ~b'ee( trees.
2. Amini'numof26-f~wtcMpavemer~wlhin140-~o~widecM,01ca/e, drlgil-.of-wayshaJlbe _._/ /
3. ~Itlefolowtng l)eftn~efs~re~lmptoverrelltnc~t~ln~irrtteclto: / /
Nofes: (a) Me,:iian is~an~ includes lancl..sca.~r'~ a~ i~n on meter. (~) ~aveme~
~m~n a~ eveflays will ~ detemi~ du~ ~n ch~. (c)
w~ s~ ~ ~ili~ar ~r STD. 304. (~) If ~ ~, an i~l~ of ~t~n fee shall
~ ~v~ f~ this ~em.
~'/'/4. Improvement p/arts and construelion:
a. Sireel improvement p4ans including street tree~ and street lights, ~epareci by a regis- ---J ./
tered C/vii Engineer, shaft be sul)rnifled to and ~roved by the C/ty Engineer. Secuhty
shell be posled and an agreement executed to tl~ sa~isfaction of the City Engineer and
the C/W A~omey guaranteeing comOletjon of the pul~lc anci/or pdva~e street irr~ofove-
ments, pnor to final map ap~oval or the is~ance bl I:~jitdlng perm/ts, whichever occurs
first
h. Prior to any work being perfore'ted in public r~gh~-~f...way, fees s~iall be pa. jd and a .--j /
construction perrn/t shell be otXained from ~he Ct~/Engineers ~ in addition to any
other perrr~s requited.
c. Pavement strt~ng, marking, traffic, s~reet name ~.s4~, ar, d k'~erconnect conduil /
s/tall be installeel to the .safis~aclion of t~he City Engineer.
d. SignalconduitwithpejIIboxesshallbeirtstaJk~:lonam/newcOmlruc~jono~rmction .__r /
of major, secondary or collector strees which ~.~::~ with mher maior, seconctaty or
collector streets for future b,~fl;c signas. Pug boxes shall be p~acecl on bot~ sides of the
street at 3 feet oulside of BCR, ECR or any omef k:~:lons aOl:xoved by the City Eng neer.
Notes:
(1) NI pull boxes Shall be NO. 6 Unless o~hefwtse ~ectled by the City Engir~cr.
(2) Conduit shag be 3-irK~ ~l/van/zed steel w~h I~jIIrope.
e. WT~eelct~rarrOsshallbeinstalledonaltourcotne'so4k. l~perCity ----/ /
StanCan2s or a~ clireetecl by the Cib/Engineer.
f. Exi~jngCityroadsmquidnOComlnJc~ttalre~aino~otrafficataltimeswith /
ac~lua~e detours dudnO cobruin. A s~ee~ ctolum pemil may t:~ required. A cash
refunde~ upon co~l:~e~,:m of ~ c::>nsln. x:/~n to ~ s.all~aclk~ o( ~ CIty Engineer.
~. C. o4Y_.e,",b,e~eclckairagefim, v,ss~aJlno(cn~sssidewaks. Undefsldewakdrajn:s shall be ...J
h. Hara:f,,;~ access r-an'; des.i~F ~ be as ~ by the Clay E~. .._J
i. Streelnames&hallt>ealX>ro~edt:~,meCilyP~-,n~'lc:n~rt~sutxr,~aJforfi~tpianchec~. /
5. Streef irr, Or~fne~ plans per Cib/~ f~ al ~tva~e streels shall be p~vi~ecl for /
revew and ag:~.'~va/by fhe C~' Fn~.~eef. Prk:~ to a~Ty
va~e s'b'ee~, fees st~edi be paid an~
Er~s Office in ~n to any off~f I>Kmita requi~'e<L
6. S1Teef trees, a mi~n-aJm ~ ~5~aik~n size o~ lar~ef ~ be ins~a~ed per Cify Standan~ in
a."c~__."c~nce wi~h ~ Ci~'s street tree program.
sc - 2/gI to,~r
L
· Inlerse<:~ion line of s~e desi~r'~ ,~all be reviewed by the C~'~, Er~ineer for conform. ante wr~h
ac~:~:~ted policy. ._j /
a. O~ c~ileQ'~r or ~lrger s~reets. lines of sig~ shall be plotted for all project intersections, ----/ /
inckjd~ drive, ways. Waits, s~gns, and slopes shell be iocated ocrtside the lines of sigrTt.
Landsc3Oing and other ob=s~ru~ions within the lines of s~ht shaJl be approved by the City
Er~gineer.
b. Local residemial street intersections shell heve their noticeability imt3toved, us~alhf b~ .__/ /
moving the 2 +/- cle ses~ street trees on eadq side away from tbe street and placed in a street
tree easement.
8. A permit shell be ob(ain~d from CALTRANS fo~' any wodc within th~ following dght-of-way: .__/ /
9. AJI I~j~tc imp4q3vernents on the following streets shall be operationally corrq;~ete pd~r to the / /
~_~janc~ of boilcling p~rTT'itS:
O, Drair~ge =rid Fk3od Comro4
1. ThePmJ, sct(~potUoosthsm,~tslocatsdwiminaF'kxxlHazamZo~;merekn-e,m:x:x~
2. It shall be the developlt'l respcH'tsibll~ to h~ve tt~ current RRM Zone
des~nank~refT~v~dfmmlnel:x~arst Thec~se~snillpreCketsal
necessary reports. plans. and hy~tulogc/hydrsulc r..ai:njl~k:~s. A ~ Letter
of Map Revision
~.sJ_,ancs o~ ~xiii:ni'~ pernls. wti:::hever occurs first. A Lstl~ o4 Map RevSi:m (LOMB) s~all
~/// ~ ~ ~ FEMA prk:~ Io _Oc~_J~r~J'~C'y O~ irrlpn~erne nt mr'ice, wW4chever occurs fir~.
3. A nnaJ drainage ~ snail ~ su~nit~e<~ to and appmvsd b,/ttw C~ Erk~ p,"!or to final
map a. pprov ai or
f~cili~i~s shal ~e inslalted as required by trke Ci~ Er-,grewr.
sc, 2/91
4. A perrnii from the County Fiood Corrlral DistrY1 is :~ ;uired tcr work within its r~gnt~f-way.
5. Trees are prohib~led within 5 feet of the outside Cian' eter of any publid storm drain pipe
k//// measured from the outer edge of a ma~ure tree tn, jn~. __/.
6. Public storm drain easernerTIs snail be graded to c~,nveX overllows in the event of a J--J'
bloc~age in a sump catch basin on the p~blic streetj
P. Utilities
k/,//
1. Provide separate utilibf services to each parcel including sanilary sewerage system, water, /___
gas, electric power, lrelephone. and cable I'V (all unde6gro~jnd) in accon:lance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required~
2. The developer shall be responsible for the reloc~k3nrof ex st ng utilities as necessary. /
~. 3. Water and sewer p~.ans shall be designed and c~nstrGcied to mee~ the requirements of the
Cucamon~a County Water Disthct (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Pmteclton District.
and tl'~ Environmental Health Department of the C,~jnty of San Bemarcllno. A letter of
corn~iance from the CCWD is required prior to final ~3 a/3fxoval or issuance of permits,
whict~ver occurs firs1. :
O. General ReqJIretnenI~ end Api:IrovlLs
1. The separate parcels comained within the project baj~'ies shall be legally combined into '---/' /
one pam_.el prior to I~;ance of building permits.
2. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be Ixovid~ prior to final map ai:}t:xovaJ or .--/ /
issuance of btjilding perTTits. whichever occurs ~rsI. f~r.
._J /
3. Pndr to appmvaJ of th~ final map a deposit shall be p6sted wiffi the CiI~/covedng the
estimated cost of a,oportioning the a.tsessznen~ urx~t/~rneff Distric~
among the newty created parcels.
4. Eliwancta/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Seco,nda~ Regional. and Master Plan __J /
Drainage Fees shaJl be pajd prior to final ma.p apptova! of t:x'ior to building pen'n~ issuance ff
no map is invoeved. .
5. Permitssha~be~Iajnedfr~m~beI~it~wingai~er~cies..f~rw~(Kwi~intheirr~ght-~f-way: .__/ /
6.Asigr~:lcof~landweiverformlojoinancl/0rform,l~eLawEnlotc~mentCommunity / /
Facilities ~L1 sitall be ~l.e~ wilh the City Eftginger I~or to ~rt~J ma,o ~;X)tovaJ or the
issuance o~ builaing permit. whichever oQ~f~ firs1. Fofm.ation costs $1'~ll be borne I~ the
Devek:~oef.
7. Pmr to ~na,zation o~ any develapfnent praise..sutr~efl impfovemefl p4.aM shaj be com-
pieled beyond the p~ase I:x:xjndaY~ tct=~,re sea3.~n~ ~'~__ess and drainage protection to
the sateaction of the City Engir-:....sr. P~e'txx~n<Sar~ sh~ correspo~ to lot ,nes st'K~wn
an the apOmved tenta~N,e map.
5C, - 2/91 I::Z of t':2
INLAND CITIES CORP.
11490 Orum Road
Los Angeles, California 90049
TeL (310) 476-4763
Fax. (310) 472-0457
E-Mail Address: inlandcit~aol.com
20 April 1998 Hand Delivered
Mr. Brad Buller
City Planner
City ofRancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia 91729
RE: Request for Time Extension on Tentative Tract 14509.
This letter shall represent our formal request to extend the time on tentative tract map
14509 for one additional year.
Baring any unforeseen delays, and provided we can modi~' the condition regarding the
utility under~ounding beyond our property boundary, ~ve expect to begin development of
the site immediately upon map recordation, wb. ich can be as early as fall of this year.
We are in receipt of the Notice of Endangered Species, dated March 5, 1995, stating that
the property may be within habitat which may be affected by US Fish and Wildlife
Service's listing of the California Gnatcatcher and San Bemardino Kangaroo Rat, and we
are in the process of conducting the survey in compliance with the required protocol. It
~vill be delivered to you immediately upon completion.
If you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact
Jim A. Ahrnad, MSCE at (310) 476-4763. Thank you in advance to your attention to this
matter.
Sincerely,
Bayoun Corporation
Yehya Baayohn
SITE UTILIZATION MAP -- s,,.o,_c.,L. ;
UBEPARED BY:.
CORKWOOD COURT
TT LOW , ]LpW,, .L---.
/""-- __L_I__L_
b
......... .% ..... :' ',',d9
~/~
FOR: FLOOD CONTROL'-- '-
U
LFJ=r FRO~R'
RIGHT Z.';,, '...-.,,:.,,,
REAR ...........
~i':" "-"* ;:,*.2 ;','/'
,..: -. '. ........,,: ........--- .......
t,.:...;' \% ,...
-,~
LEFT :,:',1~.:~ ;'~ ,-,, 3A'
...... ""'%" ~l~"' ..... ~ ." ~ ~=~ -;;
"i"' '/""' !~ .;
"--'-: ~ ~
-"" , ..... ' '~:--__-ff>' .~' .i,i --
.~:;:..., .... ' ' -~'.,~,4.,, ~
! ~¼ .~ ..i.,- -~. .; "~=:-
i:, ~" ! :~ ~._.__.
· --' ;,; -:~
..,~' , [,, --~ .,
:~ I
---u ',.L ii
' ' 'l ,i-~.
' : ' ;:
:*
__. ,._ I ~I
"- .... 6
=; .;2 ~ --__z__/~ ..,, ,
"' ' :~ .:---iF
..'.-',~_2~ __ ~_ "" . : ? ~' '::
:'1 b - ~.~
" ff-';;~ ~- i__ Z
_ 2_' :_:;:-~"~;-;-",;:s-~..:~.,r_;z;- ~7__~- --~' ~ -';'-'
- -] .....'-==2~Z]j:Z_ZZ'_T. .....rZ,~%'~'-'z='=-z--X-z::-- ~ ;~- ....,'': ~
5ECTIOi~
A residential subdivision and design ~eview of lS single fa~ni!y lots on
3.84 acres of land in the Low Residen~ia! Distric~ (2-4 dwelling units per
acre), located on the east side of He~rmosa Avenue between Wilson Avenue
and Banyan Street APN: 20!-183-01~ Staff recommends issuance of a
mitigated Negative Declaration.
Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, pre~ented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher asked how 18' out o~ 57 people had not received the
original public hearing notice for the previous meeting.
Brad Buller, City Planner, explained that ~t was a clerical error; the person
sending out the notices thought that two ~f the rows of address labels were
identical because the first two labels ~ each row were the same name and
address.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Debbie Flores, 10121 Kernwood Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she did not
receive the original notice of public hea~ing for the previous meeting that
was held. She stated her house was only 37!feet from the property line of the
new development. She commented her main! concern was her lack of privacy
because the proposed house is a two-story.~ She felt a one-story house would
have been a better choice given the close ~roximity of the houses. She asked
the Commission to consider this when they make their decision.
Angelo Flores, 10203 South Ridge Drive, Ran~cho Cucamonga, stated he owned and
rented property approximately 10 feet from~the proposed development. He had
concerns regarding noise, safety, pollution~ and the possibility that he would
have a problem renting his property out n6w because of the lack of privacy
that would be created with the new development. He stated he has also
experienced problems with the property i~ its vacant state because it is
unkempt and large animals roam there freely.~
Commissioner Melcher pointed out that if the area were developed he would no
longer have problems with weeds and animals.
Mr. Flores replied that many of renters pre~ferred the lot vacant because they
liked the privacy.
Jim Long, 10191 Kernwood Court, Rancho C~camonga, stated he had concerns
regarding aesthetics and views also, butl his main concern was with the
reliability of the developer. He felt th~ Commission should be aware that
Baayoun is an unethical builder. He commen~ed that his house was built by the
same developer a couple of years ago and he is still trying to get them to
take care of repairs that should have been done prior to his moving in. He
stated they have moved their offices several times and are extremely difficult
to reach. Me expressed concern that the developer charges for view lots when
they know that development will occur laterZblocking the views. He said that
several peop!~ in his development have had Rroblems with faulty fireplaces and
Planning CoF~ission Minutes -6- ~ April 22, 1992
leaky pipes. He also stated he was lied to about what would be built behind
him, but he had contacted Mr. Bul!er and found out that there were plans
build there.
Robert Flores, 10121 Kernwood Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the sign
postings for public hearing notices should be larger and more obvious. He
further statej that his house almost burned down as a direct result of faulty
workmanship by the developer and the claim has recently been settled through
arbitration. He also felt the Conmission should be aware of the poor
reputation the developer'has acquired. Regarding the issue of close proximity
to other houses, he stated that people moving into the new development will
undoubtedly have the same concerns he has regarding their privacy.
Commissioner Melcher asked the app!icant's engineer if the driveway grades
would permit the houses on Lots 8 and 9 to be moved closer to the street.
Jerry Wilson, Engineer for Baayoun Development, 223 N. !st Avenue, Upland,
replied there is very little room to move the lots unless they raise them.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the houses could be moved closer to the street
without making the driveways too steep.
Dan Coleman, principal Planner, replied that the home on Lot 8 can be moved,
but not the home on Lot 9.
Chairman McNie! closed the public hearing.
Chairman McNie! asked Mr. Bullet if there were any other items that should be
brought to the Co~unission's attention that they did not hear at the last
meeting.
Mr. Buller stated that this public hearing is to give those who did not
receive the initial notification of the first meeting an opportunity to speak
to the Commission about their concerns.
Chairman McNiel asked what has been done to protect the City and potential
buyers in the tract.
~r. Buller resoonded that the Building Department and the City Council have
taken a much m~re aggressive role in the plan checking and inspection process.
Commissioner Melcher commented that the proximity of the house on Lot 8 to the
Flores property should be looked at more closely. He stated, if you look
closely at cu!-de-sacs, you will see the garage fronts are 30 feet further
apart than other garages on the street. He wondered if it would be
appropriate, in the future, to diminish front yards on the cul-de-sac to
create more space between houses that back up to one another and also to put
the space in the back yard where people use it. He felt that should be
considered in this case even though it is not before the Commission this
evening.
planning Co."~mission Minutes -7- April 22, 1992
Commissioner Va!lette agreed that the side ~nd back yards should be larger, as
she had expressed at Design Review. She remarked that she did not think it
was appropriate in this area, which is d~signated low residential, to have
such small back yards.
Dan Coleman, Principal planner, co~ented h~e thought Commissioner Melcher was
referring to the Minor Except2ion process w~ich would allow the front setback
to be moved to 29 feet rather than 32 feet. He stated the Commission could
initiate a Minor Exception for whichever lo~s they deemed appropriate.
Commissioner Melcher asked if a Minor Exception was already granted for this
tract, and if so, which lots were affected.~
Mr. Coleman replied Lot 2 had been changed Already.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the homes on Lots B and 9 can be moved forward
to the minimum front yard setback and also be granted a 3-foot Minor
Exception.
Mr. Coleman responded affirmatively.
Barrye Hanson stated that there could be so~e grading differentials created by
shifting the setbacks, which in turn may cause the need to increase the height
of the back retaining wall.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the retaini~( wall could be "stepped" to suit
everyone's needs.
Mr. Buller responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Melcher suggested continuing the item and asking the applicant to
move the homes on Lots 8 and 9 as close to the street as possible (including
an application for a Minor Exception for the two lots).
chairman McNiel reopened the public h~aring and asked Mr. Wilson if
Commissioner Melcher's suggestion was acceptable to him.
Mr. Wilson stated he preferred to move ahead with an approval tonight and work
out the rest with staff.
Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Vallette stated, that the Co.mmission should start to consider
addressing the preservation of view cdrridors. She also stated the
possibility exists to introduce a different product type to address the
concerns of the residents and her prior concerns re~arding back yard setbacks.
Commissioner Me!cher suggested moving LotsG 8 and 9 to the south to meet the
minimum front setback and further suggested that staff, with the applicant's
consent, apply for a Minor Exception permit to reduce the maximum allowed
under that permit. Additionally, he felt it would be acceptable in this case
to increase the vertical separation of thes~ lots from those to the north even
Planning Co~.ission Minutes -8- ~ April 22, 1992
if it meant lowering the property grade and increasing the retaining wall on
the north side.
Motion: Moved by Me!cher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the reso!uzion
approving Tentative Tract 14509 as modified. Motion carried by the following
vote:
AYES: COF~ISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: VALLETTE
ABSENT: CO~u2{ISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried
Commissioner Vallette stated she voted no for the reasons previously stated.
Commissioner Chitiea indicated she abstained because she was not present for
the first discussion on the project and she did not feel informed enough to
vote either way.
Mr. Buller pointed out ther~ was no discussion at the first meeting except
discussion between the ComMissioners.
corns : Foothill Boulevard and Malachite Avenue - APN: 208- ' -119, 20,
Commissioner Melcher stated he regarding the project. He
expressed concern that the parking oesn't work properly because there is
one-way traffic in places that two-way and there is a
mixture Of one-way and two-I traffic areas where he felt it is
inadvisable. He did not with the ~ plan with regards to the
Boulevard, and the p i and driveway improvements ~n the rear of the
building. He cornmen d that the back s set and yard aweas f the project are
,oe w 12u ljn ngu al er2n e a Z aZoi2
Planning Cor~ission Minutes -9- April 22, 1992
/=
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
!INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND ,
1. Project File: Tentative Tract 14509 (Time Extension)
2. Description of Project: TIME EXTENSION: FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14509 - A
request for time extension for a previously appFc~ved Tentat ve Tract Map and design Feview
of 18 single family lots on 3.84 acFes of land in the Low Residential DistFict (2 to 4 dwelling
units per acFe), located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue between Wilson Avenue and
Banyan Street - APN: 201-183-01 ~
3. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Ya,hia Baayoun, Baayoun Corporation
11,490 Orum Road
Lo~ Angeles, CA 90049
4. General Plan Designation: Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre)
5. Zoning: Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre)
6. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Existin:g single family detached dwellings to the
north, east, and west, and vacant Flood Control District land to the south. The site is vacant
with some native vegetation. The site slopes td the south at approximately six percent.
7. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
8. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Brent Le Count
(909) 477-2750
9. Other agencies whose approval is required:
None ]
E'v' ib;ur"H"Fs ,
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Time Extension for 'FF 14509 Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
( ) Land Use and Planning (t/) Transportation/Circulation (v') Public Services
( ) Population and Housing (~') Biological Resources (v') Utilities and Service Systems
( ) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics
(v') Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources
( ) Air Quality (V') Noise (v') Recreation
( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
(v') I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment. but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. but must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
( ) 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.
Brent Le Count, AICP
Associate Planner
July 14, 1998
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Time Extension for 'R' 14509 Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidefines, an explanation
is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Pote~,ntially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to
mitigate the significant effects identified,
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the propqsal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or~ zoning? ( ) ( ) ( )
b) Conflict with applicable environmental pl,ans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdi,ction
over the project? ' ( ) ( ) ( )
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in,' the
vicinity? , ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community? i ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or I~cal
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area eith,er
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c)Displace existing housing, especially affdrdable
housing?
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal ½esult in
or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( )
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Time Extension for TT 14509 Page 4
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( )
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( )
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( )
f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( )
h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( )
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
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 properly to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) (V) ( )
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ( ) ( ) ( )
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( )
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations, or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V')
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Time Extension for TT 14509 Page 5
Comments:
a and b) The project will increase runoff b'ecause the site is currently vacant and the
~ rfac such as
project will add impervious ,
su es street improvements,
driveways, and rooftops. Thei approved Tentative Tract Map includes
conditions of approval requiring certain storm drain system and ground
surface conveyance improvemerits that will handle the increased flows. The
impact is not considered significant.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality Standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violat!on? ( ) ) ( ) (v')
b) Expose sensitive receptors to po]lutants? ( ) ) ( ) (v')
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or tempeEature, or
cause any change in climate? ( ) ) ( )
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ) ( )
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congest!on? ( ) ( ) (~) ( )
b) Hazards to safety from'design features ie.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipmen{)? ( ) ( ) (V')
c) Inadequate emergency access or acces~ to
nearby uses? ( ) ( ) (V)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) (v')
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bi,~yclists? ) ( ) (~')
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn6uts,
bicycle racks)? ) ( ) (v')
g) Rail or air traffic impactS? ) ( ) (v')
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Time Extension for 'IF 14509 Page 6
Comments:
a) The project will increase the number of traffic trips in the area since it entails adding
18 new homes. The approved Tentative Tract Map has conditions of approval
requiring certain public street improvements to handle the increased traffic. The
impact is not considered significant,
Potentially
Signzficant
Impact Less
PotentiallyUnless Than
d ct
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, animats, and birds)? ( ) ( ) (v') ( )
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees,
eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and
vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V')
Comments:
a) The property is located in an area identified as potential habitat for endangered or
threatened species. A habitat assessment and biological protocol survey was
required to determine potential impacts, particularly to the federally-listed threatened
California gnatcatcher and the endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat. The
habitat assessment and protocol surveys were conducted by Planning Consultants
Research (Dated June 8, 1998, and July 6, 1998). The results of the surveys
indicate that the habitat on site is not at all suitable for the kangaroo rat and is so
fragmented by surrounding development and improvements, that it does not
represent optimum gnatcatcher habitat. In addition, none of the two endangered
species were observed on the site during the surveys. Based on the this
information, the project will not likely result in adverse effects. There is no
knowledge of other unique, rare, sensitive, or endangered animal species potentially
living on project site.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Time Extension for '1'1' 14509 Page 7
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Wouald the
proposal.' ]
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservati!n
plans? ~ ( )
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ~ ( ) (~)
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,? ( ) (t/)
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve.'
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release; of
hazardous substances :'(including, but nqt limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiatio,n)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V')
b) Possible interference with an emergenc~/
response plan or emergency evacuatior~ plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Exposure of people to existing sources 6f
potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fiammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,./)
r PotenIially
segn~canl
Iml~acl Less
Potentially Unless Than
; =
10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (Y) ( )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (y)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Time Extension for 'IT 14509 Page 8
Comments:
a) The project will add new sources of noise such as automobiles because it entails
construction of 18 new homes on vacant land. The increase in noise levels however
is not excessive and not expected to exceed City established noise level limits. The
impact is not considered significant.
potentially
Impact Less
Potentialty Unless Than
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? ( ) ( ) ( )
b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Schools? ( ) ( ) (V) ( )
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Comments:
c) The project will increase demand on schools since it wilt add 18 new homes. The
approved Tentative Tract Map has a condition of approval requiring the developer
to consent to or participate in a Me[Io-Roos Community Facilities District for the
construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. The impact is not
considered significant.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( )
b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) (~/)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( ) ( )
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) (v')
e) Storm water drainage? F2¢~' ( ) ( ) (V) ( )
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Time Extension for 'I'1' 14509 ~ Page 9
f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
g) Local or regional water supplies? , ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Comments:
e) The project will increase runoff because the site is currently vacant and the project
will add impervious surfaces such as stre,~t improvements, driveways, and rooftops.
The approved Tentative Tract Map includes conditions of approval requiring certain
storm drain system and ground surface ~onveyance improvements that will handle
the increased flows. The cost of these mp ovements will be borne by the developer.
i r
The impact is not considered significant
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposaL'
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? i ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic!effect?
" ( ) ( ) ( ) (V)
c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? i ( ) ( ) ( ) (V')
b) Disturb archaeological resources? i ( ) ( ) ( ) (t/)
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Have the potential to cause a physical ch:ange
which would affect unique ethnic cultural;values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred useslwithin
the potential impact area? ~ ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Time Extension for TT 14509 Page 10
s.,..,., ...... s,;:;,:., , ·%,:.,
15. RECREATION. Would the proposah
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) (f) ( )
b) Affect existing recreational oppodunifies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
Comments:
a) The project will increase demand on parks in the area because it involves
construction of 18 new homes. The developer will be responsible for payment of
park fees at the time of building permit issuance to offset any impact on parks. The
impact is not considered significant.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have
the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal,
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/)
b) Short term: Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one which occurs
in a relatively brief, definitive period of time.
Long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Time Extension for TT 14509 ] Page 11
c) Cumulative: Does the 'project have imp]acts that
are individually limited, but cumulatively!
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in conneStion
with the effects of past projects, the effe.'cts of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have
environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tieiing, 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 fo'r this project were within the scope of and
· I .
d~ r
adequately analyzed in the following ea e document(s) pursuant to apphcable legal standards, and
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures b~ised on the earlier analysis· The following
earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Stbdy and are available for review in the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply):
(v') GenerarPlan EIR
(Certified April 6, 1981)2
(~/)Master Environmental Assessment for tl~e 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
(t/) Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract ~14509, approved by Planning Commission
April 22, 1992
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 mitigatidn measures. Further. I have revised the
project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the p;roposed mitigation measures to avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly 0o 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 14509 Public Review Period Closes: August 12, 1998
Project Name: Project Applicant: Yahia Baayoun, Baayoun Corp.
Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue between
Wilson Avenue and Banyan Street - APN: 201-183-01.
Project Description: A request for time extension and condition modification for a previously approved
Tentative Tract Map and design review of 18 single family lots on 3.84 acres of land in the Low
Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre).
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 them 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 Plannin9
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.
Auqust 12, 1998
Date of Determination Adopted By
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR
A TIME EXTENSION FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP, AND MODIFYING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THEREOF,
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 18 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 3.84 ACRES
OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2 TO 4 DWELLING
UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HERMOSA
AVENUE, BETWEEN WILSON AVENUE AND BANYAN STREET, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-183-01.
A. Recitals.
1. Baayoun Corporation has filed an application for a time extension for the approval of
Tentative Tract Map No. 14509, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map Time Extension request is referred to as "the
application."
2. On April 22, 1992, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 92-20A, thereby
approving, subject to conditions and time limits, Tentative Tract No. 14509.
3. On August 12, 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.
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:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
ParL A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on August 12, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The previously approved Tentative Tract Map is in substantial compliance with the
City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and
b. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map approval and removal of the condition
of approval requiring construction of the Master Plan Storm Drain system improvements will not
cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plan, ordinances, plans,
codes, and policies; and
c. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map approval and removal of the condition
of approval requiring construction of Master Plan Storm Drain system improvements 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TE FORTT14509-BAAYOUN CORPORATION
August12,1998
Page 2
3. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration,
together with all written and oral reports included f,~r the environmental assessment for the
application, the Planning Commission finds that there isI 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 provisions of Section 7~53.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as followsi In considering the record as a whole, the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project
will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife r~sources or the habitat upon which wildlife
depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff
reports and exhibits, and the information provided to t6e Planning Commission during the public
hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in
Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of theCalifornia Code ~f Regulations.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions sei forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby approves removal, of Engineering COndition No. 3 of Resolution 92-20A related
to construction of storm drain system improvements an:d grants a time extension for:
Application Applicant ~ Expiration
'IF 14509 Baayoun Co:rp. April 22, 1999
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 1998.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TE FOR TT 14509 - BAAYOUN CORPORATION
August 12, 1998
Page 3
I, Brad Butler, 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 12th day of August 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
RANCHQ CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR
A TIME EXTENSION FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW
FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14509 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 18
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 3.84 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2 TO 4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE),
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HERMOSA AVENUE, BETWEEN
WILSON AVENUE AND BANYAN STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-183-01.
A. Recitals.
1. Baayoun Corporation has filed an application for a time extension for the approval of the
Design Review for Tentative Tract Map No. 14509, as described in the title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review Time Extension request is referred to as
"the application."
2. On April 22, 1992, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 92-20A, thereby
approving, subject to conditions and time limits, Tentative Tract No. 14509.
3. On the August 12, 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.
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:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on August 12, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The previously approve~ Design Review is in substantial compliance with the City's
current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and
b. The extension of the Design Review approval will not cause significant
inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plan, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies;
and
c. The extension of the Design Review approval is not likely to cause public health
and safety problems; and
d. The extension is within the time timits established by State law and local ordinance.
3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, and 2 above, this
Commission hereby grants a time extension for:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TE FOR DR FOR TT 14509 - BAAYOUN CORP.
August 12, 1998
Page 2
Desipln Review Applicant Expiration
TT 14509 Baayoun ~orp. April 22, 1999
4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 1998.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCH,(:) CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
A'FI'EST:
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 regula:rly 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 August 1998, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: j
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' ,f~~,~
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 12, 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buffer, City Planner
BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 MODIFICATION - RODRIGUEZ - A request
to modify a condition of approval related to preparation of Design Guidelines for an
approved master planned shopping center, with Phase One development consisting
of a 2,900 square foot drive-thru restaurant (Burger King) and a 5,548 square foot
restaurant (previously Zendejas) on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial
designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner
of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13.
BACKGROUND: Conditional Use Permit 95-25 was approved by the Planning Commission on
May 14, 1997. for a master planned shopping center, including two restaurants. The adequacy of
the Design Guidelines were a key issue during the Planning Commission's deliberation. In an effor~
to move the project forward, a condition of approval was added requiring the following:
"A comprehensive Design Guideline supplement, which shall include integrated
architectural and landscape themes and examples of architectural styles for the
shopping center including, but not limited to, major tenant, in-line shops, and
freestanding pad buildings. shall be prepared for review and approval of the
Design Review Committee. prior to the issuance of any building permits for
Phase One construction. as shown on the Phasing Plan."
ANALYSIS: The applicant is currently in plan check for the Burger King restaurant (which is within
Phase One). The applicant prepared a Design Guideline supplement, which was reviewed by the
Design Review Committee on June 2, 1998, (see Exhibit "A"). It,was determined that the Design
Guidelines did not adequately address many of the comments and concerns originally brought to
the appficant's attention during the Conditional Use Permit review process.
The Committee (Bethel, Macias, Buller) recommended that staff initiate the subject condition's
modification to allow issuance of building permits for Phase One construction, prior to approval of
the Design Guidelines and that no permits for Phase Two be issued until approval of the Design
Guidelines by the Design Review Committee. The revised condition would read as follows:
"A comprehensive Design Guideline supplement, which shall include integrated
architectural and landscape themes and examples of architectural styles for the
shopping center including, but not limited to, major tenant, in-fine shops. and
freestanding pad buildings, shall be prepared for review and approval of the
Design Review Committee, prior to the issuance of any building permits for
Phase Two construction, as shown on the Phasing Plan."
ITEM G
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 95-25 MOD.- RODRIGUEZ
August12,1998
Page 2
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as 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 that the Plan:ning Commission modify Planning Division
Condition Number 4 of Resolution 97-27 through adoption of the attached Resolution.
Re submitted,
City Planner
BB:BLC:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Design Review Committee Action dated June 2, 1998
Exhibit "B" - Resolution No. 97-27 ap ~roving CUP 95-25
Resolution No. 97-27A,
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:20 p.m. Brent Le Count June 2, 1998
DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - Review of the Design
Guidelines supplement for an approved Master Planned Shopping Center with Phase One development
consisting of a 2,900 square foot drive-thru restaurant (Burger King) and a 5,548 square foot restaurant
(previously Zendejas) on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue -
APN: 207-211-12 and 13.
Backqround:
Conditional Use Permit 95-25 was approved by the Planning Commission on May 14, 1997 for a master
planned shopping center including two restaurants. The adequacy of the design guidelines were a key
issue during the Planning Commission's deliberations. In an effort to move the project along. a condition
of approval was added requiring:
"A comprehensive Design Guideline supplement, which shall include integrated architectural and
landscape themes and examples of architectural styles for the shopping center. including but not
limited to major tenant, in-line shops, and freestanding pad buildings, shall be prepared for review
and approval of the Design Review Committee, prior to the issuance of any building permits for
Phase One construction, as shown on the Phasing Plan."
The applicant is currently in plan check for the Burger King restaurant (which is within Phase One) and
has prepared a Design Guidelines supplement for Committee review.
Previous DesiRn Review Comments:
The Committee reviewed a draft of the Design Guidelines in April of 1997 (see attached minutes). The
Committee's comments were as follows:
1. The Design Guidelines should be more comprehensive. particularly to include greater amount of
text explaining how the four proposed architectural styles and amenities relate to each other in
the big picture (i.e. Thomas Winery. Klusman House and internally viewing the project as a
whole).
Staff Comment: Text was added to a section titled, "Project Design Goals" that states the
relationship of the "combination of styles can easily be compared to a fruit
bowl." The common elements which tie the project together are white stucco
walls with red clay tile or simulated wood shake roofs, and accent elements
(street furniture and hard scape). Mixing of such a diversity of styles presents
design challenges. While diverse styles make work on pad buildings, staff is
not convinced that the combination of styles works on in-line shop buildings
(see Shop Building Sketch 2B).
2. Astr~ngersense~funityandagreatereXp~anati~nsh~u~dbepr~videdt~exp~ainh~wtheaccent
elements will provide a sense of unity and cohesiveness, yet provide variation within the overall
theme. The Committee expressed concern with the lack of a unifying theme in the proposed
street furniture and lighting fixtures.
Staff Comment: The Guidelines indicate that water, planters, seating, pedestrian and parking
lot lighting, and native river rock will have common color and shape to provide
consistency. However, the "Site Furniture" and "Center Accessories" sections
of the Guidelines show very dissimilar styles of benches and light standards,
DRC COMMENTS
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
June 2, 1998
Page 2 ~.
and a very modern-looking tubular bike rack all lacking a unifying theme. If
different styles of architecture are!, deemed acceptable by the Committee (see
comment #1 above), then different styles of street furniture may be appropriate.
3. Photographs and text on the Klusman House shoul,d be included to establish an important third
example of potential architectural styles for pad buildings.
Staff Comment: Photographs and some text on K~lusman House, Rains House, and Thomas
Winery are provided. The text for Rains House and Thomas Winery should
state what style of architecture '!they represent. Also, the text should be
expanded to more completely describe the elements, forms and materials
which are characteristic of these s,'tyles of architecture (see attached examp e
from Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan regarding Thomas Winery). The spelling
of Rains should be corrected.
4. The renderings are not based on the current Maste~ Site Plan; do not accurately depict possible
views of the future development. Current renderings of the project based on the current Master
Plan should be included.
Staff Comment: The renderings are the game; however, their image quality has deteriorated
significantly. They appear to I~e copies made from copies, which has
obliterated the details. The only di;fference in the renderings appears to be the
addition of river rock base to colu~nns
Other Comments:
1. The Committee noted that the Design Guidelines would be critical to assuring the Commission
that this project will be of a high quality for this impo, rtant intersection.
2. Landscape Plan has no explanation of types of plant materials, accent trees, etc. Text and
illustrations should be added to show how the or~-site landscaping will work with the City's
established landscape guidelines for Foothill BouleVard.
3. The Design Guidelines do not address signs; how~ever, a Uniform Sign Program has been
submitted under separate cover. The Uniform Sign ~Program does not illustrate how signs will be
integrated into the different architectural styles proposed for the shop bud ngs.
4. The site plan diagram under "Center Accessories" should be corrected to switch the labels for #1
and #2 (incorrectly shows pedestrian light fixtures w,'ithin parking lot).
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Guidelines be revised and brought back to the Committee for further review.
Attachments: DRC Comments dated April 15, 1997
DRC COMMENTS
CUP 95-25 o RODRIGUEZ
June 2, 1998
Page 3
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Brad Buller
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
The Committee (Bethel, Macias, Buller) recommends that staff initiate a condition modification for
Conditional Use Permit 95-25 to allow issuance of building permits for Phase One (Burger King and
Zendejas buildings) construction, prior to approval of Design Guidelines and that no building permits for
Phase Two be issued until approval of the Design Guidelines by the Design Review Committee.
The Committee made the following comments regarding the content of the Design Guidelines in addition
to those identified by staff:
1. Applicant proposing "Fruit Bowl" of architectural styles which does not work on such a small site.
Proposing combination of 3 architectural "styles" (i.e: Klusman House, Rains House, Thomas
Winery) with different roof materials (simulated wood shake and Spanish tile) on a relatively small
site without clearly defining how these styles will be combined. Architectural renderings don't
appear to match master plan for site shown in the Guidelines.
2. Architectural options need to be more clearly defined.
3. Consider deleting Rains House style. Renderings do not show any concept examples of the
Rains House architecture. Staff's opinion is that fired red brick does not mix well with the other
two styles proposed.
4. Pad buildings adjacent to Klusman House should not compete with the scale and style of
Klusman House. These buildings should be single story.
5. River rock columns do not work well with the Klusman Spanish Revival architecture and should
not be used in areas immediately around and pad of the Klusman House.
6. Will all patio furniture for outdoor dining areas have to match the proposed "Smith Hawkins?"
What about umbrellas on larger tables?
DESIGN REVIEW CO {MENTS
6:40 p.m. Steve Hayes April 15, 1997
DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERiMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - Review of
the Design Guidelines supplement for a proposed Master 2Plarmed Shopping Center ~4th Phase One
development consisting of a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant
on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific
Plan, located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-
12 and 13.
Background:
This project has been considered on three separate occas'.ions by the Planning Cormnission. Most
reVently reviewed by the Commission on March 26, 1997i the applicant requested a continuance to
April 23, 1997 to allow the newly hired consultants on the project to prepare a Design Guideline
Supplement worthy of consideration by the Design Revie~w Committee. The applicant's goal was
to have the guidelines prepared in a timely manner to Oat a review' could be completed by the
Design Review Committee prior to the April 23rd Planning Commission meeting.
Staff Comments.: :
At the time of cogent preparation, the updated Design '.Guidelines Supplement had not yet been
received by staff. Once the guidelines are received by staff, they will be forwarded to the Planning
Commissioners and an oral presentation will be given 15y staff at the meeting. However, if the
guidelines are not received in time for staff to provide a co ,mprehensive review or the Design Review
Committee ample oppommity to review' the supplement p~ior to the meeting, this item ~1I be held
over to the next Design Review Committee meeting.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Steve Hayes
The Design Review Committee did not recommend approvial of the Design Guidelines and the draft
Uniform Sign Program as presented. The Committee noted that the revised Design Guidelines
appeared identical to those presented to the Commission on March 26, 1997, except for two
renderings, which were not based upon the proposed Master Site Plan. The Committee did offer the
following comments relative to the two documents:
1. Desi.on Guidelines:
a. The Design Guidelines should be more comprehensive, particularly to include a greater
amount of text, explaining how the four proposed architectural styles and amenities
related to each other in the "big picture" (i.e:, Thomas WineD', Khisman House and
intemally viewing the project as a whole).
DRC COMMENTS
CUP 95-25 RODRIGUEZ
April 15, 1997
Page 2
b. A stronger sense of unity and a ~eater explanation should be provided to explain how
the accent elements wilI provide a sense of unity and cohesiveness to the project, yet
provide variation within the total overall theme. The Committee expressed concern
with the lack of a unifying theme in the proposed street furniture and lighting fixtures.
c. Photographs and text on the Klusman House should be included to establish an
important third example of potential architectural styles for pad buildings.
d. The renderings are not based on the current Master Site Plan; do not accurately depict
possible views of the future deveIopment. Current renderings of the project based on
the current Master Pian should be included in the Design Guidelines.
e. The Committee noted that the Design Guidelines would be critical to assuring the
Commission that this project will be a high quality project suitable for this important
intersection.
2. Uniform Sign Program:
a. The Committee was concerned with the "boiler plate" approach to the program and
noted that elements within the program would not "fit" with the specific architectural
style shown for the Major Tenants and In-Line Shops by the renderings in the Design
Guidelines supplement. Specifically, the Committee felt that the diagram for In-Line
Shops could not work the with proposed architectural style because of the long,
overhanging sloped roof element, which does not give any exposed wall area above
shops entrances, and the Sign Program indicates wall areas above shops buildings
where wall sign could be provided.
b. The Committee asked staff to provide the applicant with written cornrnents.
The Committee recommended that the Design Guidelines and Uniform Sign Program be revised and
be rescheduled for Design Review Committee.
Architectural Im. cx~ery ~Desicjn Palette:
As previously mentioned, the. T~mas ~ARCHIT~CTURAL CHARACTER
Brot~rs Wine~ is t~ style determinant 'DET~R~,~INANT:
in this ~barea. T~ main buildi~s at
t~ T~mas Brot~rs Wine~ do not ~r- ':THOMAS B~OTHERS WIN~RY
tray "special" architectural fea~res ot~r
t~n a grape a~or and multiple s~d ~o Wall Materials:
r~fs. Investigations into t~ archi-
tectural ~rit~e of wine~ buildi~s Textured s~cco, smooth s~cco
~ests tk~t t~ st~cture is repre- Clapboard or board and batten sidi~
santatire of t~ California ~rn Style Vertical w~d sidi~
(s~ sketch). T~ simple, clean lines of Brick
t~ barn in profile pr~ide an almost un- Cobblestone, river rock,
limited ra~e of architectural expressions.
T~ barn sil~uette is universally reck- o Roofs:
nized as a symbol of t~ wine~ culture
and is uniquely ~it~ to sere as the Gable, hip, and shed roofs
primary architectural prototype for this Pitch - 3:12 to ~:12
subarea. Wood shi~le
Siate
~epeated use of ~ildi~ m~terlais, color, Metal [colored earthtones]
and basic architectural elements, can be
expanded ~ tb~t proposed ~ildi~s can
be designed in b~rmony with t~ basic o Accents:
contex~al "f~l" of t~ winery.
Vine arbors, covered waikways
9.~.5 ~oof overha~s over entries
~scape/Str~tsca~ l~e~ .~ulti-lighted windows
Porc~s
T~ concept within t~ activity center ~x~sed rafter tails
area is to incorporate a formal, r~ularly
sp~ced strut tr~ planti~ system o Scale:
utilizi~ an informally sloped, coloral
strut tr~ palette. T~ tr~s are to be One to two stories with towers,
p~sned ~ f~t on center and are to ~ pergolas, campaniles.
placed be~n ~o to five feet inside
t~ property line (s~ illustrations Section ~ Colors:*
~.3.2).
White to off-white
~ ~'~ ~ Beige, sand, warm earth tones
T~se color ranges are only examples
and ~re only enc~r~ed to be
utilized.
~v-~.23
RESOLUTION NO. 97-27
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 95-25, A MASTER PLAN FOR A SHOPPING CENTER.
INCLUDING A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 2,900 SQUARE FOOT
DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT AND A 5,548 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT,
ON 8.9 ACRES OF LAND IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
DESIGNATION OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN,
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
AND VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 207-211-12 THROUGH 15, 38, AND 40.
A. Recitals.
1. Gil Rodriguez, Jr. has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit
No. 95-25. 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 February 26. and continued to March 11, March 25, April 23, and May 14, 1997. the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on
the application and concluded said hearing on the latter 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 follo~,~:s:
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 the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on February 26, March 11, March 26, April 23, and May 14, 1997, including
written and oral staff reports. together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically
finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at the southwest corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue with a Fqo{'hill Boulevard street frontage of approximately 644 feet
and lot depth of approximately 608 feet and is presently improved v;ith a historic residence and
related landscape and parking lot improvements; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant, the properly to the south
consists of vacan~ land, the property to the east is a service station and apartments. and the property
to the west is the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel and vacant land; and
c. The application contemplates the construction of a portion of Phase One
improvements. which includes a fast food restaurant with a drive-thru facility, a sit-down restaurant.
and an on-site extension of the pedestrian activity center area near the intersection of Foothilt
Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue; and
d. The application contemp[ates the removal of the interim parking lot for the existin2
historic Klusman House as part of Phase One development; and
PLANNING COMMISSION I-,~SOLUTION NO. 97-27
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
May 14, 1997
Page 2
e. The balance of the buildings shov;n in Phase One around the on-site pedestrian
activity center area will not be constructed initially and', will be required to be reviewed under a
separate application through the City's development review process in the future; and
f. The application indicates Phase Two of!the Conceptual Master Plan as being the
balance of the 3.7 acre site and includes a 41,250 square ioot major tenant. such as a supermarket.
and approximately 13.750 square feet of shops space. THis portion of the development will also be
required to be processed through a separate development review application(s) in the future.
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 iollows:
The proposed use is in accord ;vith the General Plan, the objectives of the
D~velopme~i Code. and the purposes Of the district in which the site is located.
b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare br materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
c. The proposed use complies with ea~ch of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration,
together with all written and oral reports included for:the environmental assessment for the
application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect upon the environment and adopt~ a Negative Declaration based upon the
findings as fofio,..;s:
a. The Negative Declaration has been pre, pared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and t,he State CEQA guidelines promulgated
thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the initial Study prepared therefore reflect the
independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and. funher. this Commission has reviewed and
considered the information contained insaid Negative D~claration with regard to the application,
b. Based upon the changes and alteration& which have been incorporated into the
proposed project, no significant adverse environmental e!fects will occur.
c. Pursuant to the provisioqs'of Section 753:5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations. the Planning Commission finds as follov;s: In considering the record as a whole, the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project
will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife
depends. Fur[her, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff
reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the;Planning Commission during the public
hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the pres:umption of adverse effect as set forth in
Section 753.5(c-I-d) of Title 14 o; the California Code of Begulations.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set iorth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to ~ach and every condition set forth below
and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incoiporated herein by this reference.
PLANNING COMMISSION r,,.:SOLUTION NO. 97-27
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
May 14, 1997
Page 3
Planninq Division
1 ) Any modifications to the proposed Phasing Plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Commission. No restaurant use (other than
that proposed with Phase One) is proposed for the center. If over 15
percent of the gross leasable area is occupied by food service uses,
one additional pa~ing space per 100 square feet of gross leasable floor
area used for food service shall be provided. Likewise, if a cinema or
offices are proposed, then additional parking may be required.
2) Temporary fencing with a green mesh or similar material shall be
provided around Phase Two as shown on the proposed Phasing Plan
prior to occupancy of any buildings within Phase One.
3) A Uniforfn Sign Program for the shopping center, indicating provisions
for major tenants, other in-line tenants, and pad buildings, shall be
submitted for review and approval of the Planning Commission prior to
the issuance of any building permits for Phase One development.
4) A comprehensive Design Guideline supplement. which shall include
integrated architectural and landscape themes and examples of
architectural styles for the shopping center. including, but not limited to,
major tenants, in-fine shops, and freestanding pad buildings, shall be
prepared for review and approval of the Design Review Committee prior
to the issuance of any building permits for Phase One construction, as
shown on the Phasing Plan.
5) A portion of the amenities within the on-site pedestrian Activity Center
area shall be completed with Phase One development. The final
design of the on-site extension of the pedestrian Activity Center,
including the at1 piece, pedestrian furniture, and focal elements such as
a water feature, and the proposed phasing of improvements, shall be
submitted for review and approval of the City Planner prior to the
issuance of any building permits for Phase One development, as shown
on the Phasing Plan.
6) The design and location of the required bus shelter shaft require review
and approval of the City Pianner prior to the issuance of building
permits.
7) The following trees shall be at least 36-inch box size:
a) Trees framing the main ~ocal point;
b) Entry access trees framing the main drive aisles throughout the
project; and
c) On-site Activity Center trees a~ the intersection of Foothill
Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue.
The final landscape and irrigation design of the 10-foot wide
landscaped areas flanking both sides of the main entrance off Foothill
Boulevard shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division
prior to issuance of any building permits for Phase One development.
PLANNING COMMISSION ,,ZSOLUTION NO. 97-27
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
May 14, 1997
Page 4
A pedestrian walkway incorporating the~ special paving scheme used
throughout the project shall be provide~d on the east side of the drive
aisle to provide a continuous pedestrian!access route from the Foothill
Boulevard sidewalk to the front of the~major and shops tenants, as
shown on the conceptual Master Plan..
8) Two works of art shall be placed; one, at the Activity Center at the
corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue and one at the
terminus of the main driveway from Fobthil[ Boulevard in front of the
Major Tenant. The art piece at the Aciivity Center shall be installed
within 180 days after the issuance of th,e Certificate of Occupancy for
either building in Phase One. whicheved occurs first. The Art piece at
the terminus of the main driveway in froqt of the Major Tenant shall be
installed prior to occupancy of the Major Tenant. The property owner
and/or trustee shall be responsible to rfiaintain the two art work focal
elements for the life of this commercial ~enter.
9) Public telephones shall be placed inside the building. Placement of
outside public telephones may be allowed and shall be subject to City
Planner review and approval prior to installation.
10) Placement of newspaper racks on-site sf~all be subject to City Planner
review and approval prior to installation.
11 ) Any outdoor displays of merchandise sh~ll be limited to specific areas
that will be considered as part of P:hase Two development. as
applicable.
12) Berming. low walls. dense hedgerows of evergreen shrubs. or any
combination thereof, shall be provided to:sufficiently screen all parking
areas, drive-thru lanes and any other k, ehicular activity areas from
public view of perimeter streets, to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
A decorative cap shall be provided on a~ll screen walls and retaining
walls.
13) The applicant shall resolve any Building~ Code compliance difficulties
(with construction of canopies, prope~y lines in relation to walls and
other openings, and roof tile installation to ~withstand severe winds) with
the Building and SafetyrDivision prior to~ the issuance of any building
permits.
14) The final design. material use, and height of the parapet and chimney
on the Burger King building shall be revie,X, ed and approved by the City
Planner prior to the issuance of building 'permits.
15) The Burger King building and drive-thru lane shall be shifted westerly
3 feet to comply with the minimum 45-fBot setback from the ultimate
face of curb along Vineyard Avenue. Since this shift will cause a
reduction in the amount of landscaped ,area on the ,,,zest side of the
building, the final landscape and irrigatiop design of this area shall be
reviewed as pan of the detailed landscapeiirrigation plan, and approved
prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase One development.
PLANNING COMMISSION i,,.:SOLUTION NO. 97-27
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
May 14, 1997
Page 5
16) The parking spaces along the drive aisle immediately west of the
Burger King building shall be angled at 45 degrees and painted arrows
shall be used to identify the proper travel direction, to the satisfaction
of the City Planner.
17) Directtonal signage shall be used to properly direct vehicular traffic to
the dr~ve-thru lane and one-way drive aisle west of Burger King, to the
satisfaction of the City Planner.
18) Rolled curbing. tuff block, and raised special paving consistent in
design with that used throughout the shopping center, shall be used at
the narrowed (south) end of the one-way drive aisle west of Burger
King, to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
19) The parking area along the south property line shall be set back a
minimum of 15 feet from the southerly property line, to the satisfaction
of the City Planner. The landscape palette along the southerly property
line shall be selected as to provide a dense landscape buffer between
the shopping center and any future development on the vacant
residentially zoned parcel to the south, to the satisfaction of the City
Planner.
20) Additional areas of special paving sha!l. be used throughout the project.
especially at all vehicular entrances to the site, key pedestrian routes
across vehicular drive aisles and to denote primary pedestrian
walkways and gathering areas within the shopping center, to the
satisfaction of the City Planner. This shall include the circular
"compass rose" pattern treatment where each entrance driveway
intersects with the first interior drive aisles (see attached Exhibit "1 "),
21) The formal landscape/hardscape treatment used for the activity center
shall extend from the public sidewalk to the house entry. Arechilies
used within the activity center such as benches, a fountain, etc. could
also be used in this area. to the satisfaction of the City Planner,
22) Native river cobble shall be used (as opposed to a manufactured rock
veneer product) in all areas where rock is proposed on the building and
wall elevations throughout the project.
.,,-'
23) The final design of the radius curve south and west of the on-site
pedestrian activity center area shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Planner and the Fire District prior to the issuance of building
permits for Phase One development.
24) Revise the southerly parking lot to provide a minimum two-way drive
aisle width of 24 feet in all drive aisles.
Enaineerinq Division
1) The project as proposed will require the processing of a Lot Line
Adj,ustmenL
Nate: All conditions referencing project frontage or APN's are with
respect to lot lines subsequent to the Lot Line Adjustment.
PLANNING COMMISSION hcSOLUTION NO. 97-27
CUP 95-25- RODRIGUEZ
May 14, 1997
Page 6
2) Along Foothill Boulevard a total of 64' feet is required as measured
between the street center line and ultimate curb face. Additional right-
of-way is required for the proposed parkway improvements (Activity
Center) to include both rows of tree wells and the pedestrian corridor.
The right-of-way dimensions are subject to Caltrans approval during
Technical Plan Review. ,,
3) Along Vineyard Avenue a total of 35 fee.'t plus an additional 11 feet, to
accommodate a bus bay fight-rum lane, is required for a total of 46 feet
as measured between the approved surVey line and ultimate curb face.
Additional right-of-way is required .for the proposed parkway
improvements (Activily Center) 1o include both rows of tree wells and
pedestrian corridor.
4) The Activity Center pedestrian corridoi along Vineyard Avenue shall
include two rows of tree wells, similar to the corridor as shown along
Foothill Boulevard to provide a colonnade feeling. pursuant to the
Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan.
5) Pursuant to the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan a minimum spacing of
10 feet is required between center lin~ of tree wells. In addition, a
minimum distance of 6 feet is required from center line of tree well to
curb face to allow for a 2-foot minimum,planting area.
6) Easements will be required for the cross-lOt drainage and any proposed
on-site drainage facility. All on-site drainage facilities are subject to
review by the Building and Safety and Engineering Divisions.
7) A separate set of Landscape and Irrigation Plans for the Foothill
Boulevard median island. per Engineering Public Works Standards.
shall be submitted for review and approva'l. prior to issuance of building
permits, and shall be constructed thereof. The developer may request
a Reimbursement Agreement to recove,r one-half the cost from future
development as it occurs on the opposite side of the sireel. Said
Reimbursement Agreement shall be submitted within 6 months of the
public improvements being accepted b~/the City, or all rights of the
developer to reimbursement shall terminaie. However. if Caltrans does
not allow the construction of a med.ian island, and subsequent
landscaping, then an in~lie'd fee as contrib, ution to one-half of the future
cost of constructing ar~ landscaping said median island shall be paid
to the City, prior to the issuance of buifdir%g permits. The amount shall
be as determined during Technical Plan ~'eview times the length of the
project frontage to the center line intersection of Foothill Boulevard and
Vineyard Avenue.
8) Full frontage improvements shaft be co:nstructed across the Foothill
Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue frontages, A right-turn lane shall be
constructed for the Foothill Boulevard dri,;eway. The driveway on
Vineyard Avenue shall be constructed Is a bus bay right-turn lane.
Driveways shall be standard commercial iype. per City standards. with
no ramps or pavers+ All right-o;-way neqessary to construct right-turn
pockets, bus bays, drivev.'ays, and transitions on Foothill Boulevard
and/or Vineyard Avenue shalI be dedicated and constructed as a pare
t'sfa tcTn of the C/t), Enaineer.
of this project, all to the s~
PLANNING COMMISSION , .:SOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
May 14, 1997
Page 7
9) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the
existing overhead utilities (telecemmunications and electricai) on the
north side of Foothill Boulevard shall be paid to the City, prior to the
issuance of building permits. The amount shall be one-haft the City
adopted unit amount times the length from the center line intersection
of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue to the project's westerly
boundary.
10) An in-fieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding and/or
previous undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities
(telecommunications and electricaJ, except for the KV electrical) on the
east side of Vineyard Avenue shall be paid to the City, prior to the
issuance of building permits. The fee shall be one*half the City adopted
unit amount times the length from the center line intersection of
Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard to the project's southerly
boundary and/or the reimbursable amount for the previous
undergrounding improvements pursuant to the Reimbursement
Agreement, whichever is applicable, at the time of payment of the in-
lieu fee.
11 ) A cash contribution in lieu of construction towards one-fourth the cost
of construction of special pavers within the Foothill Boulevard/Vineyard
Avenue intersection shall be paid to !he City. prior to the issuance of
building permits and shall be based on the calcuIated amount as
determined for the project located on the southwest corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue.
12) The parkway Activity Center shall be constructed per the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan fronting Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard
Avenue to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, City Planner, and
Caltrans.
13) Modification and relocation, as necessary, of the traffic signal at the
Foothill Boulevard/Vineyard Avenue intersection shall be the
responsib[fity of the developer. The modification and relocation shalt be
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Cattrans,
14) Construct the [ocat storm drain pipe in Foothill Boulevard from the
existing connection at,,,the intersection of Vineyard Avenue to
Cucamonga Creek u0fess a drainage study demonstrates that the
storm drain pipe could be placed in the northern portion of FoothilI
Boulevard to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; in that case, this
condition shall be deleted.
15) "No Parking/Stopping" signs shaft be posted along the frontages of
FoothiII Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue.
16) The proposed project is draining 70 to 80 percent of the site to the
southwest corner and conveying the drainage flows direcfiy into
Cucamonga Creek Drainage Channel. San Bernardino County Flood
Control District approval and permit is required, prior to the issuance of
a building permit. The connections shall be sized to accommodate the
drainage for the whoIe site in its ultimate condition. Since this is a
sump condition, a secondan/ove~!e,.'~ is required The sump condition
shall pond a depth of water no creamer than 13 inches.
PLANNING COMMISSION kcSOLUTION NO. 97-27
CUP 95-25 - RODR1GUEZ
May 14, 1997
Page 8
Buildinq and Safety/Fire Protection District
1) Submit comprehensive foundation soi!s report. prior to issuance of
grading permits, including recommendations for existing uncompacted
2) Assembly-type occupancy uses within 'building will require additional
and specific review and comments.
Environmental Mitiqation Measures
1) A final geologic reporf shall be submitted to the Planning Division for
review and accepted by the City's geol~agist, prior to issuance of any
~, permits. The applicant shall pay the cost of the review by the City's
geologist by depositing funds for this pdrpose.
2) The recommendations of the final geologic report shall be incorporated
into the project, and verified during plan ~heck. prior to the issuance of
any permits. These recommendations include, but are not limited to,
the following:
a) No human occupancy structures; shall be placed within the
approximate restricted use zone as shown on Plate One unless
a subsurface engineering geology investigation finds this podion
of the site to be free of active faulting. The recommended
restricted use zone applies to prgposed structures only. The
restricted use zone on the site cab be used for purposes other
than the placement of human oqcupancy structures, such as
parking areas.
b) The southeast boundary of the recommended restricted use zone
shall be surveyed. This restricted!area zone shall be sho~;n on
all site development plans, includir~g Grading Plans.
c) Positive drainage of the site should be provided, and water shall
not be allowed to pond behind or flEow over any cut or fill slopes.
Where water is collected in a common area and discharged.
protection of the native soils shall be,' provided, as the native soils
are moderately to .highly susceptible, to erosion by running waler.
d) The maximum inclination of all cut ~lopes shall be two horizontal
to one vertical up!to a maximum h~ight of 10 feel
e) All cut slopes shall be planted as Soon as possible to minimize
erosion, as material on-site may b~ susceptible to erosion from
wind and water.
0 The final Gradin'g Plan For the ~site shall be reviewed and
approved by an engineering geologist, prior to any grading.
g) The trench backfilI ,,,,,as not comp?cted. The suitability of this
material for future use shall be deiermined by the geotechnical
engineer if any man-made use of tt~is area is planned.
PLANNING COMMISSION ~ESOLUTION NO. 97-27
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
May 14, 1997
Page 9
3) A detailed acoustical study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical
engineer, pdor to issuance of building permits, to address interior noise
levels of all buildings within the project.
4) Light fixtures shall be shielded and directed away from residential
areas. A detailed Lighting Plan, including a photometric diagram, shall
be prepared, prior to issuance of building permits, to provide proper
shielding of adjoining properties from light and glare.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY 1997.
PLANNING A. THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ATT'EST:
/Bra Bul . e^retary
I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
cerLi~y 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 14th day of May 1997, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, I.IACZAS, ~'~CNIEL, TOLSTOY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BETHEL
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
C_ I'7
COMMUNITY D,-:VELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT#: Conditional Use Permit 95-25
SUBJECT: Master Plan for a Shoppin,~ Center
APPLICANT: Gil Rodriauez. Jr.
LOCATION: Southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
Time Limits completion Dale
t. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not
issued or appreved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval.
2. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to the issuance of building permits when no map is
involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water
facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the
Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water district
within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of
permits in the case of all other residential projects.
B. Site Development
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the appreved plans which include
site plans, architectural elevations, exterio/,matedals and colors, landscaping, sign program, and
grading on file in the Planning Divisio~),"the conditions contained herein, Development Code
regulations, and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan.
2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions
of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
3. Occupancy of the faciIities shaft not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and
State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be
submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division
to show compliance. The buildings shatl be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy.
4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be
submitted for Cit,/Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
Project No. CU 9s-2sjI
5+ All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for
consistency prior to issuance of ny p r ' ( h ga ading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.) or prior to final map approvaI in the case of a cusLom lot subdivision, or approved
6. Approval of this request shall not waive comphance w~th all sections of the Development Code,
all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable CommUnity or Specific Plans in effect at the
time Of building permit issuance. ~
7. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prie,'r to the issuance of building permits.
Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height,! and method of shielding so as not to
adversely affect adjacent properties.
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 transfo'rmers, AC condensers. etc., shall be
located out of public view and adequately screened througl~ the use of a combination of concrete
or masonry walls. berming, and/or landscaping 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. :
All parkways. open areas, and landscaping shall be perr~anently maintained by the property
owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptab!e to the City. Proof of this landscape
maintenance shall be submitted for City PJanner and City Ehgineer review and approved prior to
the issuance of building permits.
'12. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark.' The site shall be developed and
maintained in accordance with Historic Landmark Alteration Permit No. 94-03. Any further
modifications to the site including, but not limited to, exterio~ alterations and/or interior alterations
which affect the exterior of the buildings or structures, reinoval of landmark trees, demolition.
relocation. reconstruction of buildings or structures, or Changes to the site, shall require a
modification to the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit subject to Historic Preservation
Commission review and approval.
'13. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along tl~e project perimeter. If a double wall
condition would result. the developer shall make a good !aith effort to work with the adjoining
property owners to provide a single wail. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property
emb a of any walls/fences along the project's
owner at least 30 days prior to the r v I existi'ng
perimeter.
C. Shopping Centers i
1. A uniform hardscape and street furniture design including ~seating benches, trash receptacles,
free-standing potted plants, bike racks, light botlards, etc., shall be utilized and be compatible with
the architectural style. Detailed designs shall be submitted for Planning Division review and
approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
2. Provide for the foilowing design features in each trash enclosure. to the satisfaction of the City
Project No. CUP ~5-25
Completion Date
a. Architecturally integrated into the design of (the shopping center/the project).
b. Separate pedestrian acGess that does not require the opening of the main doors and to
include self-closing pedestrian doors.
c. Large enough to accommodate two trash bins.
d. Roll-up doors.
e. Trash bins with counter-weighted lids
f. Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis.
g. Ghain link screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of the enclosure and designed
to be hidden from view.
3. .~ Trash collection shall occur between the hours of 9 am. and 10 p.m. only.
4. Graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours.
5, The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash and
debris remain for more than 24 hours.
6. Signs shall be conveniently posted for *'no overnight parking" and for "employee parking only."
7, All operations and businesses shall be conducted to comply with the following standards which
shall be incorporated into the lease agreements for all tenants:
a. Noise Level - All commercial activities shall not create any noise that would exceed an
exterior noise level of G0 dB during the hours of 10 p.m. until 7 a.m, and 65 dB during the
hours of 7 a.m. until 10 p,m.
b. Loading and Unloading - No person shall cause the loading, unloading. opening, closing,
or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or other
similar objects between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless otherwise specified herein,
in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area.
8. Textured pavement shall be provided across circulation aisle, pedestrian walkway, and plaza.
They shall be of brick/tile pavers, exposed aggregate, integral color concrete, or any combination
thereof. Full samples shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits.
9, The Master Plan is approved in concept only. Future development for (each building pad/parcel)
shall be subject to separate Development/Design Review process for Planning Commission
approval. Modifications to the Shopping Center Master Plan shall be subject to Planning
Commission approval.
10. All future building pads shall be seeded and irrigated for erosion control. Detailed plans shall be
included in the landscape and irrigation plans to be submi~ed for Planning Division approval prior
to the issuance of building permits
11. The lighting fixlure design shall compfiment the architectura~ program. It shall include the plaza
area lighting fixtures, building lighting fixtures (exterior), and parking lot lighting fixtures,
12. The design of store fronts shall compliment the architectural program and shall have subtle
variations subject to Design Review Committee approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
13. All future projects within the shopping center shall be designed to be compatible and consistent
with the architectural program established. ~
14. Any outdoor yencling machines shall be recessed Into the budding faces and shall not extend into
re
the pedestrian walkways. The design details shall be viewed and approved by the City Planner
prior to the issuance of building permits. ~
15. Cart corrals shall be provided for temporary storage. No pe, rmanent outdoor storage of shopping
carts shall be permitted unless otherwise approved by the planning Commission. The shopping
carts shall be collected and stored at the approved designat,~d place at the end of each work day.
D. Building Design
1. ~, All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and oti~er 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 screenihg 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 l~lans)
1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall
contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb).
2. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances,
and exits shall be striped per City standards.
3. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more
parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall, whichever is greater, of the total number of
stalls for use by the handicapped.
4. Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial, and office facilities with 25 or more
parking stalls. Developments with over 100 parking staffs s~all provide motorcycle parking at the
rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shalllbe a minimum of 56 square feet.
5. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily
residential projects or more than 10 units. Minimum spaces;equal to five percent of the required
automobile parking spaces or three bicyde~storage spacesJ whichever is greater. After the first
50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, a~dditional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of the
required automobile parking spaces. Warehouse distributio:n uses shall provide bicycle storage
spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent on the required automobile (aarking spaces with a minimum of a
3-bike rack. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed 100.
~n f
Where this results ' a raction of 0.5 or greater, the number shall be rounded off to the higher
whole number.
6. Carpcol and vanpool designated off-street parking dose to the building shaft be provided for
commercial, office, and industrial facilities at the rate of 10]percent of the total parking area. If
covered, the vertical clearance shall be no less than 9 feett
Projec~ NO. CUP ~c5-25
Completion Date
Trip Reduction
1. Transit improvements such as bus shelters, bus pullouts. and bus pads shale be provided.
G. Landscaping
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping
in this case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior
final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2, Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in
accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The
location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be
shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shali follow a)f of the arborist's
recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods.
3. Within parking lots. trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking
etalie, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21,
4. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one
tree per 30 linear feet of building.
5. 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.
6. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ~. 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 incfude 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,
7. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible for
the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site. as well as contiguous planted areas
within the public right-of-way, All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and
maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning. fertilizing. mowing,
and trimming. Any damaged, dead, dis,~ed, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within
30 days from the date of damage,
The ~naI 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.
9. Special Iandscape features such as mounding, alluvial reck, specimen size trees, meandering
sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified Iandscaping, is required along Foothill
Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue eer the Activity Center quidelines of the Foothill Boulevard
Sceci~c Plan
Project NO CUP 95-25
10. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the
perimeter of this project area shall be Continuously mainta:ined by the developer.
11.AZl walis shall be provided with decorative treatment+ If located in public maintenance areas, the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division!
'[2. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conse, rve water through the principles of
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cu~amonga Municipal Code.
H. 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 Divisioh prior to installation of any signs
2. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shail be submitted for City Planner review and
~, approval prior to issuance of building permits.
I.- Environmental
1. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of
implementing said measures, including monitoring and repprting. Applicant shall be required to
post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee a~cceptable to the City Planner in the
amount of $ to be determined , prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing
satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation ni;easures. These funds may be used
by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the
mi~tigation measures. Failure to complete all actions reqdired by the approved environmental
documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit+
J. Other Agencies
1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Sen'ice 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 tlie 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 SAFETYj DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
K. Site Development
1. The applicant shad comply with the latest adopted Uniforms: Building Code. Uniform Mechanical
Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, NatiOnal Electric Code, and eli other applicable codes,
ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuanc~ of relative permits. Please contact
the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable
handouts. j
2, Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial Dr industrial development or addition
to an existing development. the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate
Such fees may include. but are not limited to: Transportatiqn Development Fee, Drainage Fee,
School Fees. Permit and Plan Checking Fees
Project No CUP 95-25
Completion Date
3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official. after tract/parcel map recordation and
prior to issuance of building permits.
L, Existing Structures
1. Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed, filled and/or capped to comply with the
Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Building Code.
2. Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for building
permit application.
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. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from
street centerline): Please see Enqineerinq Division's Special Conditions in the Resolution
2. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&R's or by
deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of building
permits, where no map is involved.
3. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided.
4. Easements for publrc sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall
be dedicated to the City.
5. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum of
7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn
lane, a parallel street tree maintenance .ease e t shall be provided.
O. Street Improvements
1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
Foothill Blvd. ,/ b ,/ ,/ ,/ ~ ,/ ,/ e
Vineyard Ave. b ,/ ,/ ,/ ~ ,/ e
sc.~,a- 7
Project NO CUP 95-25
Completion Date
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter (b) Pavement
reconstruction and ovedays wiU be determined during plan c, heck. (c) If so marked, s~dewalk shal
be curvilinear per STD. 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of ~onstruction fee shall be provided for
this item. (el Activity Center.
2. Improvement Plans and Construction: '
str
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, ~et lights, and intersection safety lights
on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans sh~ll 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 stree improvements, prior
to final map approval or the issuance of building permits. whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public righi-of-way, fees shaft be paid and a
construction permit shall be obtained from the City; Engineer's Office in addition to any
.t other permits required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street nar~e signing, traffic signal conduit, and
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaqtion of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with ahy new construction or reconstruction
project along major or secondary streets and at inter~ections 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 th~ City Engineer.
Notes:
(1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200
feet apart, unless otherwis~ specified by the dity 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 ~ll 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 completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall"F~ot
cross sidewaliks. Under sidewalk drains shall be
installed to City Standards, excep! for single family r~sidential lots.
h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner p, rior to submittal for first plan check.
3. Street trees, a minimum of 15*gaffon size or larger, shall be instailed per City Standards in /
accordance with the City's street tree program.
4. A permit shaft be obtained from Calltans for any work withifi the following right-of-way: Foothill /
Boulevard.
Project NO CUP 95-25
Completion Date
Public Maintenance Areas
1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shalt
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: Foothill Boulevard (see SPecial Conditions~.
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 conform to the results of the respective
~ Beautification Master Plan: Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue (Activity Center).
Q. Drainage and Flood Control
1.A permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its
right-of-way.
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.
Utilities
1, Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas,
electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.
3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letterof compliance from
the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first.
S. General Requirements and Approvals
1. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to"[~e City. covering the estimated operating costs for all
new street lights for the first six months 6f operation. prior to final map approval or prior to building
permit issuance if no map is involved.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
T. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Fire flow requirement shaU be 2000 gallons per minute.
a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the buildeddeveloper and witnessed by fire depa~ment
personnel prior to water plan approval
Proiect N~. CUP 95-25
Co~.p~tio!I DaI~
b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional ~; flow test of the on-site hydrants shah
be conducted by the buildeddeveloper and witnes:sed by the fire department personnel
after construction and prior to occupancy.
2. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be ins!alled. 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.
3. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to waier plan approval. Required hydrants,
if any, will be determined by the Fire District, Fire Distric! standards require a 6" riser with a 4"
and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgrad,ed to meet this standard. Contact the
Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers.
4, Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible cor~struction, evidence shall be submitted
to the Fire District that an approved temporary water s.upply for fire protection is available,
pending completion of required fire protection system.
5. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required foqall hydrants and installed prior to final
inspection.
An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required~as noted below:
Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 1
Note: Special sprinkler densities are required :for such hazardous operations as
woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray paintingi ~ammable liquids storage, high piled
stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to deter'mine if sprinkler system is adequate
for proposed operations.
7, Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards. as noted:
X Special provisions would be required for rolled curbs in FIRE LANES.
8. Emergency access, a minimum of 26 feet wide. shall be provided, and maintained free and clear
of obstructions at all times, during construction in accordance with Fire District requirements.
9. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to ~na, I inspection. Proof of purchase shaII
be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contac:t the Fire Safety Division for specific
details and ordering information.
10. Plan check fees in the amount of S__0 hav'e been paid, AqadditionaiS1,290.00 shallbepaid:
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.
11. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC,
UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15.
Special Permits
1. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use, as noted beIow:
a.Places of assembly (except churches, schools, and other non-profit organizations).
Compressed gases (storage, handling or use exceeding 100 cubic feet).
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
V. Security Lighting
1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power.
These areas should be lighted from sunset Io 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.
W, Security Hardware
1.One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within
40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used.
2. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal gates,
or alarmed.
X. Building Numbering
1, Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime
visibility.
Y. Alarm Systems
1. Install a burgIar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and
employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in
turn save dollars and lives.
/
RESOLUTION NO. 97-27A
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MODIFYING A CONDITION OF
APPROVAL RELATED TO PREPARATION OF DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR
AN APPROVED MASTER PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER IN THE
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION OF THE FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND VINEYARD AVENUE, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF-APN: 207-211-12AND 13.
A. Recitals.
1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has initiated a modification to a condition of approval
for Conditional Use Permit No. 95-25, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this
Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit modification request is referred to as "the
application."
2. On the 12th day of August 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 the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on August 12, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at the southwest corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue, with a street frontage of approximately 644 feet on Foothill
Boulevard and 608 feet on Vineyard Avenue, and is presently improved with a historic residence
and related landscape and parking lot improvements; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant, the property to the south
consists of a residence and vacant land, the proper~y to the east is developed with a service station
and apartments, and the property to the west is the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel and
vacant land; and
c. The approved Conditional Use Permit involves the construction of a portion of
Phase One improvements which include a fast food restaurant with a drive-thru facility, a sit-down
restaurant, and an on-site extension of the pedestrian activity center area near the intersection of
Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue; and
d. The approved Conditional Use Permit indicates Phase Two of the Conceptual
Master Plan as being the balance of the 3.7 acre site and includes a 41,250 square foot major
tenant, such as a supermarket, and approximately 13,750 square feet of shop space. This portion
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 97-27A
CUP 95-25 MOD. - RODRIGUEZ
August 12, 1998
Page 2
of the development will be required to be processe~ through separate development review
application(s) in the future; and
j ..
e. The application involves modifying a condition of approval to allow issuance of
building permits for Phase One construction, prior to a~proval of Design Guidelines and that no
permits for Phase Two be issued until approval of the ,Design Guidelines by the Design Review
Committee; and
f. That Design Guidelines have been subm. itted by the applicant and reviewed by the
Design Review Committee on June 2, 1998, without approval.
3. Based upon the substantial'evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific finding~s of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as!follows:
a. The proposed modification is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the
st ~ct ~n which the site is located.
Development Code, and the purposes of the dl r
b. The proposed modification will not be ~etrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvem~ents in the vicinity.
c. The proposed modification complies wiih each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code.
4. This Commission hereby finds that the application identified above in this Resolution is
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and
the guidelines promulgated thereunder, as it is not defined as a project pursuant to Article 19,
Section 15378
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set' forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the subject conditic~n modification of Resolution No. 97-27,
Planning Division Condition Number 4, to read as follow's:
"A comprehensive Design Guideline supplement, which shall include
integrated architectural and landscape themes,' and examples of architectural
styles for the shopping center including, but riot limited to, major tenant, in-
line shops, and freestanding pad buildings, sh~all be prepared for review and
approval of the Design Review Committee. prior to the issuance of any
building permits for Phase Two construction, as shown on the Phasing
Plan."
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF~AUGUST 1998.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO, CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 97-27A
CUP 95-25 MOD.- RODRIGUEZ
August12,1998
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 12th day of August 1998, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 12, 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 -
RODRIGUEZ - A request for review and approval of a Uniform Sign Program for an
approved master planned shopping center with Phase One development consisting
of a 2,900 square foot drive-thru restaurant (Burger King) and a 5,548 square foot
restaurant (previously Zendejas) on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial
designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner
of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13.
BACKGROUND: Conditional Use Permit 95-25 was approved by the Planning Commission on May
14, 1997, for a master planned shopping center, including two restaurants. The Commission
conditioned the project to require the preparation of a Uniform Sign Program, subject to review and
approval by the Planning Commission, prior to issuance of building permits for Phase One. The
applicant is currently in plan check for the Burger King restaurant (Phase One) and has prepared
a Uniform Sign Program for consideration by the Commission.
ANALYSIS: The applicant has been working with staff to develop the Uniform Sign Program. While
many of the issues identified by staff have been addressed, there remain some outstanding items,
they are as follows:
1. Page 3, "Project Identification Sign - Type A" - The maximum allowable height per the
Sign Ordinance is 6 feet, the Program specifies 8 feet in the text, but the illustration
shows 6 feet. Two sides are specified in text, yet the drawing and Site Plan imply a
single-sided monument sign. These minor inconsistencies should be revised.
2. Page 4, "Project Tenant Monument Sign - Type B' - The Sign Ordinance limits
monument signs on the Foothill Boulevard frontage to 24 square feet because two signs
are proposed (see Sign Type I). The text says 48 square feet and the drawing shows
24 square feet (4 feet x 6 feet). This minor inconsistency should be revised. The Sign
Ordinance requires a minimum of 300 feet between these two monument signs on
Foothill Boulevard; however, the Site Plan indicates 240 feet. Either a single monument
sign should be shown on Foothill Boulevard or their locations shifted to provide a
minimum of 300 feet of separation.
The Sign Ordinance will allow a 48 square foot monument sign on 'Vineyard Avenue
because the project has more than 500 feet of frontage, yet a single sign is shown on
the Program.
ITEM H
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
USP FOR CUP 95-25- RODRIGUEZ
August12,1998
Page 2
3. Page 5, "Major Tenant Signage" - A Major!Tenant is defined as greater than 40,000
square feet, which means only Building A would qualify. Building A has only one street
frontage (faces Foothill Boulevard) becaus~ it is separated from Vineyard Avenue by
Sub Major B, Shops Building D, and the Ze,'ndejas restaurant pad. Therefore, Item A
should be revised to delete any reference tcj any additional walt mounted identification
signs. See Exhibit "A" for the text which should be deleted.
4. Page 6, "Major Tenant Signage" - Item F refgrs to multiple major tenants instead of just
one. Again, there is only one Major Tenant with greater than 40,000 square feet as
defined by the developer. This minor ~ncon~lstency should be revised.
5. Page 7, "Sub Major Tenant Signage" - Iterfi A references a building with frontage on
Vineyard Avenue, the approved Master Plan. shows the Sub Major tenant building only
having frontage on FoothilhBoulevard. The program allows the Sub Major tenant "one
sign per entry facing Foothill Boulevard" but the Sign Ordinance only allows one wall
sign per building face. Therefore. Item A sh,'ould be revised to delete any reference to
any additional wall mounted identification signs. See Exhibit "A" for text which should
be deleted.
A maximum letter height of 24 inches is proposed for the Sub Major, Building B, which
is the same maximum letter height as for the Major Tenant, Building A. Sub Major,
Building B is about one-tenth the size of Maj'or Tenant, Building A. Staff suggests that
either Sub Major wall signs be limited to 18~inches or the Major Tenant wall signs be
increased to 36 inches.
6. Page 9, "Pad or Restaurant Signage - Type ,E" - Item A proposes that pad tenants can
have a monument sign; however, there are;no standards or drawings for them. The
Sign Ordinance does not allow monument s:igns for individual pad buildings; rather it
allows for shopping center monument signs which can list multiple tenant names (Sign
Type B). This minor inconsistency should' be revised by deleting any reference to
monument signs.
A maximum letter height of 24 inches is proposed for all pad buildings, which is the
same as that proposed for the Sub Major Tenant. Planning Commission policy has
been to limit pad buildings to 18 ~nches beca, use of their proximity to the street.
7· Page 9a, Burger King wall sign appears to be typical corporate canister (i·e., "can") sign
while the Program specifies no "can" signs.' Provide more detail for Burger King wall
signs and design it for compatibility with the center rather than generic corporate
specifications.
8. Page 16, "Historic Sign Type l" - Proposes a monument sign for the Klusman House,
with multiple tenant names, in the same ~lesign treatment as the Project Tenant
Monument - Sign Type B. Sign Ordinance '.requires a minimum of 300 feet between
these two monument signs on Foothill Boule,vard; however, the Site Plan indicates 240
feet. Either a single monument sign should be shown on Foothill Boulevard or their
locations
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
USP FOR CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
August 12, 1998
Page 3
shifted to provide a minimum of 300 feet of separation. Also, text states 12-inch
maximum letter height, whereas the drawing shows 16 inches which is too large for sign
panels.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission direct the applicant to provide the
above-referenced revisions and come back to the Commission for final review.
R,~pe,ctfutly submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:DC:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Draft Uniform Sign Program
Exhibit "B" - Sign Ordinance Excerpts
SIGN PROGRAM
LOCATION
Southwest Comer of:Foothill Btvd. and Vineyard Ave.
PROJECT NAME
To be decided
RECEIVED
DEVELOPED !BY JUL t 6 1998
i City el RanCho Cucamonga
Oil Rodrigu~z Jr.
SIGN PROGRAM PREPARED BY
Joe A. Ramos, A.I.A, Architect
DATE
July 15, 19~98
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Name Page Number
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1
INTRODUCTION 2
PROJECT DENTIFICATION ( SIGN TYPE - A-). 3
PROJECT TENANT MONUqViENT ( SIGN TYPE-B-) 4
MAJOR TENANT ( SIGN TYPE - C-) 5 - 6
SUB - MAJOR TENANT ( SIGN TYPE -D-) 7 - 8
PAD TENANT OR RESTAUR,tCIT ( SIGN TYPE - E - ) 9 - 10
SHOP TENANTS ( SIGN TYPE - F & G - ) 11 - 14
TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS ( SIGN TYPE -H-) 15
HISTORIC BU1LDING ( SIGN TYPE -I- ) 16
LOCATION PLAN 17
GUIDELINES 18 - 2 1
Foothill &Vinevard Proiec! Si,o-n Program
INTRODUCTION
This program has been developed for the purpose of. assuring a coordinated S ignage
theme, and continuity for all types of Signage throughout the project for the mutual
benefit for all tenants and the public. All Signage ecintained within the Foothill &
Vineyard Project shall be consistent with this criteri'a and shall be submitted for review
and approval to the landlord, and the City of Ranch Cucamonga.
2
SIGN TYPE -A- PROJECT IDENTIFICATION SIGN
The shopping center may be identified by street oriented signs ( Project Identification ) at the main
entrance on Foothill Blvd. and Vineyard Ave. All signs shall be in accordance with the criteria in this
program unless in the opinion of the landlord and the City of Rancho Cucamonga, that the design
contributes to the overall benefit of the project.
QUAN 111 Y One per street frontage, not to exceed 2 per center
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
NO. SDES
MAXIMLrM AREA PER SIDE 24 sf.
M1Nh~M LETTER HEIGHT 8"
MAXIMUM LETTER HEIGHT 12"
MAXIMUM LENGTH OF SIGN AREA 6'0"
LETTER TYPE ' Helvetica, channel letters
TYPE OF ILLU~ATION Ground mounted flood lights or internally illuminated
individual letters.
PERMI ITED USERS Theme name or center logo
COLORS White stucco with concrete cap
Sign Face, White # 7328
Letters, Red # 2793
[-".' "."' :"-":' ~':1 .'
%
W/UNDER UGHT
I""F":
FRONT ELEVATION 3 ,c;inr
SIGN TYPE - B- PROJECT TENANT MONUMENT SIGN
Tenant Monument sign will be located on Foothill Blvd. ~and Vineyard Avenue sides of the
project. This monument sign may display the shoping cehter name and may also be used to
identify the tenants.
QUANTITY I
MAXIMElM HEIGHT 6'0 1
NO. SIDES 2
mX~MUM A~EA PER S~DE ~ g4 ~ ~ r-w~xt-,-- %.t i 4b~ ~
M~ LE~ER HEIGHT 8" ~1~ ~ ' '
g~t LETTER HEIGHT I2" ~ 6b~ ~ ~ ~T
LETTER T~E Helvetica or individual letter stvl~ of tenet
T~E OF ILLUM~ATION CroWd mo~t~ fig limb or intem~ v
illm{natcd in~vidual letten ~ opaqu~ backgo~d
( 2 pc? side plus project ngg )
PE~MI~EDUSERS Proj~tn~e& Majortenets
COLO~ ~ver~r~k ven~r ~d w~ stain to match c~ter elemen~ -~,.
Si~ Face, white, ~ 73:28
Letters, red g 2793
. ~....~ 3g '-
FRONT SIDE
S,DE H t ' '°' 4
PROJECT TENANT MONUMENT
SCALE 3/8 = 1' 0"
H. MAJOR TENANT SIGNAGE -SIGN TYPE - C -
( Greater than 40,000 sq.ft.) Building -A-
A. Tenant shall be allowed to install one (1) ~vall mounted identification sign._--roP-_,ac~
-s~cet fr. ent~ge. Or (1) ~ig:rron th~si~amf-ascia_in front of~Tenanta_gpace,-fac4~othill
-13oalcvar~ry' custome~ant-s~;';hich have-sWeet ~o,-xm,,-e-on more thzm.
one qtr~et-shatl--bratlowed to have'0nc (1 '~ addiki.kalat--wath~ountebident4fficatioP,-sigq:~for
~cct ~cnta~-~.. Tho-total numbdi"of ;.','a!! meuatcd s ~g~.s s, ,kattmot-exccca%hrreeiz~'
Major tenants may also be identified on street monument s~gns.
B. The Major Tenant sign shall be of a size which is appropriate to the exterior
elevations of the proposed Major tenant. These signs will be submitted to the City of
Rancho Cucamonga during the Design review process. The maximum sign area allowed
shall be one hundred fifty square feet (150 s.f.).
C. Signs shall be in accordance with criteria contained within this program, unless in the
opinion of the landlord and the City ofRancho Cucamonga, the desikn contributes to the
unique benefit of the complex.
D. Major Tenant signage shall be as follows:
1. Internally illuminated individual letters shall consist of(l) channel letters, (2')neon
illumination, (3) plastic face and (.4) trim cap.
2. Channel letters shall be made of .063 aluminum returns with .090 aluminum backs.
3. Letters shall be internally illuminated via neon lighting. Transformers shall be housed
~vithin the individual letters or in a raceway located behind the sign fascia. Exposed
raceways are prohibited.
4. All metal surfaces shall be primed and painted to match colors specified in design
drawings.
5. Individual letter styles of the Major Tenant shall be allowed, provided however that
design, color and spacing of letters are subject to written approval by Landlord and the
City ofRancho Cucamonga.
6. Sign area shall be the entire area within a perimeter defined by a continous line
composed of right angles ~vhich enclose the extreme limits of lettering, logo, trademark or
other ~aphic representation. The height of each sign shall be measured from top to
bottom.
City ofRancho Cucamonga's Sign Ordinance and rfiust be approved by Landlord prior to
submission to the City.
1.X~i~dividual letter ~.tyles o.,f Tenan,t,t,ts'shall be allowe.kl. A-fi major user tenants/shall be
ted to the following Plexiglass colors: red # 2793 with a maximum choiae of two (2)
of the following colors not to exceed 10 ~ of the tqtal letter area; blue # 2214, white
# 7328, green # 2108 by Rohm and Haas Co. or ap~roved equal. Tenants with a
trademark/logo that is "registered4' or nationally rec4gnized trademark may be allowed
subject to review and written approval by Landlord and the City ofRancho Cucarnonga.
.SIGN TYPE - C- MAJOR TENANT WALL SIGNS
QUANTITY One per building face, a ma.'(imum of 3 for any one
business
~ HEIGHT Not to project abovte the roof and in no case be
higher than ;20 feet from finished grade
i2OLORS .
White or CorpOrate Color of Major
MAXIMUM AREA PER SIDE 150 SQ FT.'
MINIMUM LETTER HEIGHT 12"
MAXIMUM LETTER HEIGHT 24"
· MAXIMUM LENGTH OF SIGN AREA 10% of the ~uilding face Not to exceed 150 sq.~.
LETTER TYPE Channel Le~ers Only
Individual letter Styles of Major Tenant
.-: .... .-:.-.-
. . ...... [
.....
Smco Finish -.~ ,. . :
Horizontal Wood Siding · s:::::=--- ~
.....
6
III. SUB .MAJOR TENANT SIGNAGE - SIGN TYPE - D-
( Maximum of 39,999 sq.ft..) Building -B-
A. Tenant shall be allowed one sig-n per building elevation up to a maximum of three (3)
signs per business. Hnw~'er, if the hnilding-ebv-ation Lha[ fac~s'rr~!~fbil!--B'bv4-p__~
4Lkney~rct Av~I~aC and~a~ff0YFth'anmne-e~nt4ha4t-be-attvwed-on~n
height of each sign shall be no higher than 20 feet above finished grade.
Sub Major Tenants that require a larger sign area, height or len~h, must submit sign
specifications and drawings, composed on the building elevation, to the City of Rancho
Cucamonga review and approval.
1. Two line signs shall not exceed 36" in total height including the space between
the line and no line shall be more than 2 feet high maximum. The space between lines
shall not exceed one third of the letter height of smallest letter.
2. Upper and lower case letters shall not exceed 36" including downstrokes.
3. Single line. signs in all upper ease letters shall not exceed 24" letter height.
4. Len~h of sign shall not exceed 70 % of shop frontage, or thirty-five feet (35'),
whichever is less. Shop frontage shall be d~fined as, storefront dimension or average
lease bay width, whichever is ~eater.
B. A trademarl41ogo may be combined ~vith individual letters if said trademark/logo is
"registered" or nationally recognized with at least six (6) open stores and is within the
allowable area and size requirements.
C. Each sign shall consist of internally illuminated letters. Internally illuminated
individual letters shall consist of(1 ) channel letters, (2) neon illumination, (3) plastic
face, and (4) trim cap.
D. Channel letters shall be made of 22 gauge sheet metal, 5" deep (minimum), sides
painted medium bronze. Channel letters shall be fastened to and be centered on the sign
fascia.
E. Letters shall be internally illuminated via neon lighting. Transformers shall be housed
in a raceway located behind the sign fascia and exposed raceways are prohibited.
7
F. Individual letter styles of Tenants shall be allowed. jAIl major user Tenants shall be
limited to the following Plexiglas colors: red # 2793 ~:ith a maximum choice of two (2) of
the following colors not to exceed 10% of the total lete'er area; blue #2214, white #7328,
green #2108 by Rohm and Haas Co. or approved equ,~l. Tenants xvith a trademark/logo
that is "registered" or a nationally recognized trademarik may be allo~ved subject to review
and written approval by Landlord and the City of Rancho Gucamonga
G. Plastic faces shall be trimmed with a 3/4" trim cap (medium bronze) to match letter
returns.
H. Sign copy Shall contain Tenants trade name only. iqo other services or product
advertising will be allowed unless it is part of the Tenants nationally registered trademark
or logo name, subject to Landlord approval and the City ofRancho Cucamonga.
I. In addition to the signs described above, each Tenar~t shall be permitted to place white
vinyl lettering (Helvetica Medium letter style) to provide store name and hours
information as specified on attached d'etail sheet (Sigq, Type (~"). The total area for this
sign shall not exceed 2 square feet.
J. Promotional or special event signs shall be in confohnance with the City of Rancho
Cucamonga's Sign Ordinance and must be approved b'y Landlord prior to submission the
City.
K. Sign area shall be the entire area within a perimete~ defined by a continous line
composed of fight angles which enclose the extreme limits of lettering, logo, trademark or
other graphic representation. The height of each sign ~hall be measured from top to
bottom.
SIGN TYPE -D- SUB MAJOR TENANT
QUANTITY One per builhing face, a maximum of 3 for any one
business
MAXIMUM HEIGTH Not to project above the roof and in no case be
higher than 20 feet from finished grade
MAXIMUM SIGN AREA 150 SQ.FT."
MINIMUM LETTER HEIGTH 12"
MAXIMUM SIGN AREA 10% of the building face not to exceed 150 square
feet '
LETTER TYPE Individual letter styles of Tenants
TYPE OF ILLUIv[INATION Internal
PAD OR RESTAURANT SIGNAGE - SIGN TYPE -E-
A. Single users~enant~ ndi g h ow
(2) wall- mounted '~ntifieation sigs one sign per elevation or buitdin~ face~g
-monumcnt ~g as an option, each'tenantZhall be allowed (3) ~an-go~nted
identification si~s, one (1) sig per elevation or building face. Only a mgimum of three
(3) sigs may be used to identi~ ~y one business and only in the combinations described
herein.
1. Wall Mounted Si~s - Si~ area shall be the entire area within a perimeter defined by a
continuos line composed of ri~t ~gles which enclose the extreme limits of levering,
logo, ~ademark or other gaphie representation. The height of each si~ shall be
measured ~om top to bosom and shall not exceed the following guidelines:
a. Two line signs shall not exceed 24" in total hei~t, including space be~een lines, and
no line shall be more th~ 18". The space be~een lines shall exceed one third of the
le~er hei~t of smallest le~er.
b. Upper and lower case sigs shall not exceed 24" including do~strokes.
c. Single line sigs in all upper case shall npt excel%
d. Len~h of si~ shall not exceed 70 % of shop ~ontage, or ~en~-five feet (25'),
whichever is less. Shop ~ontage shall be defined as store~ont dimension or average lease
of bay width, whichever is geater.
e. Wall sign shall be limited to 10% of building face and not to exceed I S0 Square feet.
Signs shall be constructed with individual channel letters. No CAN signs allowed.
C. Multi-Tenant Pad. In the event that there are multiple tenants in a ~ee standing pad,
signs shall be as shog in Shop Tenant Criteria (SIGN TYPE - "F").
NOTE: The location of wall signage per the individual building elevation
.
HI"/.
~,~.
D. A registered trademark/logo, ~vithout adjacent individual letters, may be included
within the calculated sign area provided the alloxvable sign area for the trademark/logo
letters is reduced to thirty-three percent (33%) of the allowable area and that the logo may
not exceed five feet in any dimension. Logo sign shall also be sized to be in proportion to
the building face to which it is attached. Sign area shall be the entire area within a
perimeter defined by a continous line composed of right angles which enclose the
extreme limits of lettering,logo,trademark or other graphic representation. The height of
each sign shall be measured from top to bottom. This sign is also subject to approval by
the Landlord and the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
E. A trademark/logo may be combined with individual letters if said trademark/logo is a
"registered" or nationally recognized trademark and is ~vithin the allowable area and size
requirements.
F. A sign shall consist of internally illuminated individual letters. Internally illuminated
individual letters shall consist of(l) channel letters/logo, (2) neon illumination. (3) plastic
face. and (4) trim cap.
G. Channel letters/logo shall be made of 22 gauge sheet metal, 5" deep, sides painted
medium bronze. Channel letters shall be fastened to and be centered on the sign fascia.
H. Letters shall be internally illuminated via neon lighting. Transformers ,shall be housed
in a raceway located behind the sign fascia and exposed raceways are prohibited.
I. Individual letter styles of Tenants shall be allowed. In the case of a single user for a pad
building Tenants with a trademarlqlogo that is registered or a nationally recognized
. trademark may use their national colors subject to written approval by Landlord. All other
pad Tenants shall use the following colors: red//2793 with two of the following colors
not to exceed 70 % of the total letter area; blue//2214 white #7328 green #2108 by
Rohm and Haas Co. Or approved equal.
J. Plastic faces shall be trimmed with a 3/4 trim cap medium bronze to match letter
returns.
K. Sign copy shall contain legally registered name only. No other services or product
advertising will be allowed.
L. In addition to the signs described above each Tenant shall be permitted to place white
vinyl letter (Helvetica Medium letter style) to provide store name and hours information
as specified on attached detail sheet. ( SIGN TYPE "G" ) The total area for this sign shall
not exceed 280 square inches. Each restaurant may also display one (1) menu provided it
is contained within a display area incorporated within the overall architectural theme.
M Promotional or special event signs banners and flags shall be in conformance with the
City ofRancho Cucamonga s Sign Ordinance and must be approved by Landlord prior to
submission to the City.
10
SHOP TENANTS & MULTI TENANT - SIGN T~YPE F & G
Building - D -
A. Tenants shall be allowed one (1) Sign per building elevation with a maximum of three
(3) signs allowed. The height of each sign shall be m'easured from top to bottom and shall
not exceed the following guidelines (SIGN TYPE - "F"):
1. Two line signs shall not exceed 24" including the ~pace between the lines in total
height and no line shall be more than 18". The space~between lines shall not exceed one
third of the letter height of the smallest letter.
2. Upper and lower case signs shall not exceed 18" ipcluding downstrokes.
3. Single line signs in all upper case shall not exceed~ 12".
4. The length of sign shall not exceed 60 % of Shop frontage, or twenty-four feet (24')
whichever is less. Shop frontage shall be defined as storefront dimension or average lease
bay width, whichever is greater.
B. A trademark/logo may be combined with individdal letters if said trademark/logo is
"registered" or nationally recognized with a least six!(6) open stores and is within the
allowable area and size requirements.
C. Each sign shall consist of internally illuminated ihdividual letters shall be of (1)
channel letters, (2) neon illumination, (3) face, and (~1) trim cap.
D. Channel letters shall be made of 22 gauge sheet metal, 5" deep (minimum), sides
painted medium bronze. channel letters shall be fastened to and be centered on the sign
fascia.
E. Letters shall he internally illuminate via neon ligh'ting. Transformers shall be housed in
a raceway located behind the sign fascia and exposea raceways are prohibited.
F. individual letter styles of Tenants shall be allowed. Tenants with a trademark/logo that
is registered or a nationally recognized trademark rfiay use their national colors subject to
v~qritten approval by Landlord. All other Tenants shall use the following colors: red
#2793 with two of the following colors not to exceed 70 % of the total letter area; blue
#2214 ~vhite #7328 green #2108 or yellow #2037 bY Rohm and Haas Co. or approved
equal.
G. Plastic faces shall be trimmed with a 3/4" trim ca~ (medium bronze) to match letter
returns.
H. Sign copy shall contain Tenant's trade name only. No other services or product
advertising will be allowed unless it is part of the Tenants trade name without Landlords
Prior written consent.
Si.~n Type "G"
I. In addition to the signs described above each Tenant shall be permitted to place white
vinyl lettering (Helvetica Medium letter style ) to provide store name and hours
Information as specified on attached detail sheet (Sign Type "F") . The total area for this
sign shall not exceed 280 square inches.
J. Promotional or special event signs, banners and flags shall be in conformance with the
City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sign Ordinance and must be approved by the landlord prior
to submission to the City.
K Sign area shall be the entire area within a perimeter defined by a continous line
composed of right angles which enclose the extrerhe limits of lettering,logo, trademark or
other graphic'representation. The height of each sign shall be measured from top to
bottom.
12
SIGN TYPE - F - Multi Tenant Buildings
QUANTITY ~ one per shop space; two wall signs &
monument sign, or three wall signs for pad
tenants including multip e tenant pad buildings
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
15Ft. for shop space and 9 f~.- 15f~ on pad
i buildings
MAXEvlUM AREA P ~ ~ 10% of the building face, not to exceed 150
AP..~3_.~E 1 square feet
MINIMUM LETTER HEIGHT , 8"
MAXIMUM LETTER HEIGHT ' 12" for single line signs. Upper and lower case
, signs shall not exceed 18"
MAXIMUM LENGTH OF SIGN ~ Shall not exceed 60 % of shop fi'ontage or 24 ft.
',which ever is less
LETTERING TYPE Individual channel letters
TYPE OF ILLUMINATION Internal or internal
PERMI 11ED USERS Z Typieal tenant shop tenants
/ .--sroR~ ,.to. sc. m,~ G In line Buildings
- / ------,TOR~ ,00RESS ,lii'i: i i :;:,!f 'i .' , ~ 1 ~'
Multit~ant Buildinis, + ..
.'.'...;.~
..
Note: Elevations may v~ dep~d~g ': .'?' ' ' "
on fm~ b~g desi~ conc~ts J ', ' ' ' TvE ~o~om
13
SIGN TYPE - G -
QUANTITY (1) Per tenant entrance
MAXIMUM EIGHT (Not applicable)
NO. SDES 1
MAXIMUM AREA 230 SQ.IN.
NOMINAL LETTER HEIGHT 3/4" for hours, 2-1/2" for address and
store name
MANLYMUM LENGTH (Not applicable)
TYPE OF ILLUMINATION None
LETTER TYPE Helvetica, white vinyle
PERMITTED USERS Major users, shops, pad tenants and
restaurants
TYP. STORE~'ORNT DOOR,
DOOR FRAME & MULLIONS
TYP. STORE NAME
2 1/2" MAX. LETTER
HEIGHT
TYP. STORE HOURS & VARIES
LETTER HEIGHT
TYP. STORE ADDRESS
2 1/2" HIGH NUMgERS
~.,,~
14
TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS - SIGN TYPE - H-
A. Signage required to control and manage the movement of traffic and pedestrians shall
b.e installed in accordance with the criteria of this pr;ogram. Traffic signs shall be standard
sizes, heights and colors and shall be in accordance with all requirements of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga and the State of California. Si_,2hs shall be mounted on fabricated
metal sign backgrounds painted in colors complemg,htary to the approved colors and
materials or the center. I
B. Traffic signs shall be installed in locations as needed by the landlord. Sign locations
shall be reviewed and approved by the City ofRancho Cucamonga prior to installation
and shall be reviewed again after one (1) year to determine if they are adequate in
managing traffic with an acceptable degree of efficie,'ncy and safety.
SIGN TYPE - H -
QUAN 11 J. Y' (A~ r;equired)
MAXI/VlUM HEIGHT 9' 0"
NO. SIDES 1
MAXIMUM AREA Pl!~. SIDE (Not~applicable)
MAXIMUM LE rl J:.F, HEIGHT (Per local or state jurisdiction)
MAXIMUM LENGTH (Notiapplicable)
TYPE OF I1.1-UMINATION None.
PERMITrkD USERS (Not 2applicable)
tuBE
15
SIGN TYPE - HISTORIC- 1
QUANTITY 1
MAXBMUM HEIGHT 6'-0"
NO. SDES 1 per ~ee~of~ntaoe .~
/pc)st ~
a AREA PER SIDE 24 SF.
~ LETTER HEIGHT 8"
MAXEVlUM LETTER HEIGHT 2~
MAXIMUM LENGTH OF SIGN AREA 6'-0"
TYPE OF ILLUMINATION Ground mounted flood lights or internally
illuminated individual letters
LET 1 ER TYPE Helvetica
PERMITTED USERS Historic Building
COLOR Sign base white to match building, letters
background white, letters red
The sign criteria on this page, is for the Historic Klusman House which is
located on pad -E- of the site plan. The building currently has an approved
sign. Any new monument sign for the building shall be approved by the
Landlord and the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
· *'. · . · ·
. (..L, ~.~usu~ .,~u.$'~-:" · ~' .'~
d'~ TENANT ~
T~
FRONT ~ , ~; ~ [~ ~/ SIDE
16
LOCATION PLAN
, ,.,
~N~T MOmeNT ~IGN H is~ rl ~ FOOTHILL BLVD.
FOOTHI[ ,L & VINEYARD PROJECT SIGNAGE PROGRAM
(SOUTHWEST CORNER) .
~7/4~~
GLIDELINES - BUILDING SIGNAGE FOR TENANTS
A. General Requirements:
1. Each Tenant shall submit to the Landlord for ~witten approval before fabrication, not
less than four (4) copies of detailed drawings of the Tenants proposed signs indicating the
location, size, layout, design, materials and color graphics. Such drawings shall be
submitted concurrently with architectural drawings, sufficient in Landlord's opinion, to
show the exact relationship with the store design, Tenant's store location on site and the
dimensions of the building frontage.
2. Prior to fabrication, detailed drawings of all signs shall be submitted to the City of
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division for review and approval. These drawings must be
signed and stamped as approved by the Landlord prior to submittal to the City.
3. Tenant shall obtain and pay the entire cost of all permits, and approvals, construction,
installation and maintenance of its respective sign. No sign shall be installed until all
required approvals and permits have been obtained.
4. Tenant shall be responsible for fulfillment of all of these Sign Criteria to the extent
applicable.
5. No Tenant-shall affix or maintain upon any glass or other material on the storefront of
within twenty-four inches (24") of any window, any signs unless such signs or materials
have received the written approval of the Landlord and comply with this Sign Criteria. v
B. General Specifications:
1. All primary identification of Tenant shall be illuminated. Secondary Signage may be
non-illuminated if total allowable sign area is not exceeded in height and width.
2. T~vo lines of copy may be used as long as the total height of sign does not exceed
maximum sign height for the applicable type of Signage and the design is approved by the
Landlord and the city of Rancho Cucamonga
3. The width of the tenant fascia sign (unless covered elsewhere in this program) shall not
exceed 70% ( 60% for shop tenants) of the storefront dimension based on the average
lease bay width, whichever is less. Sign shall center on thestorefront unless prior written
approval is obtained from the Landlord.
4. Tenant shall be solely responsible for the installation and maintenance of its own signs.
5. Tenants sign contractor shall repair any damage to the premises or other property in the
Shopping Center caused by the contractor s work. Should Tenant's contractor fail to
adequately repair such damage, Landlord may, but shall not be required to, repair such
damage at the tenant expense.
6. Tenant shall be fully responsible for the actions of Fenants sign contractor.
7. Electrical service to Tenants signs will be connected to Tenants meter and shall be
connected to a time clock supplied by Tenant. Time dlock hours shall be subject to
Landlord approval.
C. Construction Requirements:
1. Landlords representative shall be given adequate notice priorto installation of all signs.
Failure to notify Landlord may result in removal of si~n to inspect penetration in building
face.
2. All signs shall be fabricated and installed per UL ~d city standards.
3. Letter fastening and clips are to be ,concealed and lie of galvanized, stainless,
aluminum, brass or bronze metals. '
4. No labels will be permitted on the exposed surface iofthe signs, except those required
by local ordinance, which shall be placed in an inconipicuous location.
5. Tenants shall have identification signs designed in ~a manner compatible with and
complimentary to adjacent and facing storefronts andSthe overall design concept of the
Shopping Center. ·
6. Design, layout and materials for Tenant signs shall iconform in all respects with the sign
' design drawings included in this criteria. The maximum heights for letters in the body of
the sign shall be as indicated in these criteria.
7. All penetrations of the building structure required for sign installation shall be sealed in
a watertight condition and shall .be patched to match ddjacent finish to Landlords
satisfaction. i
8. No wood backed letter material will be allowed on the internally illuminated channel
lettern.
F. Insurance:
1. Tenant shah cause Tenant's sign contractor to submit to Landlord prior to such
contractor entering upon the Shopping Center, a certificate of insurance, evidencing that
such contractor has in effect commercial general liability insurance and worker's
compensation coverage as required by the State of California in an amount and issued by
a company acceptable to Landlord.
2..All Tenants are to carry liability insurance naming themselves and Landlord as
additional insured in accordance with terms and conditions specified in the lease.
G. RESTRICTIONS:
All tenants are subject to the following:
1. No animated, revolving, flashing, audible, or odor producing signs will be allowed.
2. No vehicle'signs will be allowed.
3. No formed plastics or injection-molded plastic signs will be permitted.
4. No exposed raceways, cross-overs or conduits will be pehnitted to be visible.
5. No other types of signs except those specifically mentioned within this criteria will be
allowed.
6. Tenant will be required to remove any sign considered to be in bad taste or that does
not contribute positively to the overall design of the center.
Miscellaneous Si~;ns:
A. It is understood that there may be the need for additional signs for information and
directional purposes. These signs will be reviewed by Landlord for consistency of design
with the shopping Center.
B. City, State and Federally required signs shall be installed as required by the g;~verning
agency.
D. Sign Installation:
1. All work to fabricate, erect, or install signs (includ!ing connection to electrical junction
box) shall be contracted and paid for by Tenant and ~ubject to approval by Landlord.
2. All signs shall be designed, constructed and installied in accordance with local codes
and ordinances. All permits shall be obtained by Ten~mt s sign contractor, at Tenant s sole
expense.
3. ~igns not installed in strict accordance with previo~usly approved plans and
specifications shall be immediately corrected by Tenant, at TenanEs cost and expense,
upon demand by Landlord. If not corrected within fil~een'(15) days, sign may be removed
or corrected by Landlord at Tena~t's expense.
4. Erection of any sign shall be promptly and safely e~ected with as little disruption to
business and traffic as possible and with minimum oF inconvenience to the Landlord and
to the other Tenants.
5. Upon removing any sign, Tenant shall, at its own expense, repair any damage created
by such removal and shall return the area from which the sign was removed back to its
original condition. All debris from removal shall be p'romptly removed from the site.
E. Protection of Property:
1. Tenant's sign contractor shall design, install or erect Tenant'S sign in such a manner
that it will not over stress, deface, or damage any potion of the building or grounds.
2. Any sign, temporary or permanent, capable of exeffing damaging pressures on the
building due to its size, weight or design shall have its design examined by a structural
engineer. Prior to installation of such sign, Tenant shill submit to Landlord such engineer'
a written approval verifying that no unsafe condition will be imposed upon the building or
other sl~-ucture to which the sign will be attached.
3. All exposedparts of any sign or sign support subje,~t to corrosion or other similar
damage shall be protected in a manner acceptable to ,Landlord.
4. Any sign on which stains or rust appear, or which becomes damaged in any way, or
which in any manner whatsoever is not maintained pr,'operly shall be promptly repaired by
Tenant. Landlord may remove and store, at Tenant s ~cpense, any signs not maintained
properly or not in accordance with sign program.
14.20.100 Permitted Signs - Commercial and Office Zones - The following signs may be permitted in the commercial and office zones
~-- subject to the provisions listed:
CI ASS SIGN TYPE MAXIMUM NUMBER MAXIMUM SIGN AREA MAXIMUM HEIGHT REMARKS
c. Monumenl signs shall be placed enlilely ol~ Itle st~bjecl
property and sball not overhang into private or public properly
2 Business identification Wall One per building face. a 10% of tile building lace, not to Not Io project above the roof a A combinalion of monument and wall signs may be used;
permitted signage
20 Revised 1/98
14.20.100 Permitted Siqns - Commercial and Office Zones - The following signs may be permitted in the commercial and office zones
subject to the provisions listed:
CLASS SIGN TYPE MAXIMUM NUMBER MAXIMUM SIGN AREA MAXIMUM HEIGHT REMARKS
Bt~siness idenfificafion and Monument One per sireel lronlage. 24 square teet Up to 8 leer,
(husinesses wjgljn ShOppiRg a+ Monument signs may contain up to three identifications per
tenlets) (Confinued) side; either the theme name of the cenler and two tenants or
three tenants, The design (color, material, sl'/le) el all
or Monument Two per street frontage, 24 square leel Up Io 6 feet b, Monument signs shall identgy major anchor lenants and
minimum 300 leer apart provide sulllcienl area to idenliF/minor tenants as determined
by the property owner.
-p:. ,Monume.tlsfi,n%?es.;r ,cth:t,o Idest ,o,m.tsetp" 'r°"''he
..................... g: Project_LD~_signS shaI _be iotaled at a major_illte~secljon.o~_
(hal heeslandlng sign).
i. A pair or project I D, signs fiankin9 a project entW shall count
21 Revised 1/98
RECEIVED
HAND DELIVERED
Rancho Cucamonga City Council AUG 2 0 1998
City of Rancho Cucamonga UItY OF R,~NCHO
10500 Civic Center Drive CITY CLF_RK
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Re: Development/Design Review (DR 98-13) for the
Lauren Development Project - Tract No. 14771
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
This fn'm represents the Haven View Estate Homeowners Association
and Rancho Cucamonga V-Haven View Estates Homeowners' Association (the
"Homeowners").
On August 12, 1998, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
approved two Resolutions with respect to Development Review 98-13 ("DR 98-13 "),
one of which approved DR 98-13 and the other of which determined that no
subsequent environmental review was necessary for DR 98-13 (collectively, the
"Resolutions").
On behalf of the Homeowners, we hereby appeal the Planning
Commissions' approval of DR 98-13, which includes, without limitation, the Planning
Commissions' approval of the Resolutions. The reasons for this appeal are set forth in
our letter dated August 12, 1998 to the Planning Commission, a copy of which is
enclosed for your convenience.
LOS ANGELES · ORANGE COUNTY · SAN DIEGO · SAN FRANCISCO
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON
Rancho Cucamonga City Council
August 19, 1998
Page 2
Enclosed is a check payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the
mount of $126.00 to cover the cost of the appeal.
Please advise us when a hearing date for this appeal has been scheduled
for the City Council.
Very truly yours,
Ja~ckH.'Ruben% ' '
for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON
LA2:LR.E~LETxVCD\I 1137506.1
Enclosure
co: Haven View Estates Homeowners Association
Rancho Cucamonga V-Haven View Homeowners' Association
$HEPPARD, ['vIULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON
ATTORNE:yS AT LAW
(213) 617-4137
August 12, 1998
VIA HAND-DELIVERY
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho C ucamonga, California 91730
Re: Development/Design Review (DR 98-13)
FOrThe Lauren Develo0ment Project - Tract No. 14771
Honorable Chairman and Commissioners:
This firm represents the Haven View Estates Homeowners Association
and Rancho Cucamonga V-Haven View Estates Homeowners' Association
("Homeowners"), which consist of residential property owners who live directly
adjacent to a 26-acre parcel of land (the "Lauren Development Property") which
Lauren Development seeks to develop with 40 single-family homes (the "Project").
Lauren Development has submitted an application for Development/Design Review
("DR 98-13 ") and for review under the City's Hillside Development Regulations
(collectively, "Development Review"). The purpose of this letter is to set forth the
Homeowners' objections to Development Review approval for the Project.
SUMMARY
The Homeowners object to Development ReView approval for the
following reasons, each of which are discussed in more detail below:
1. The proposed Project is inconsistent with the three separate open
space designations for the Lauren Development Property in the City's General Plan and
thus, Development Review approval must be denied pursuant to Development Code
Section 17.06.010F(1). The General Plan maps and diagrams clearly depict the Lau~en
Development Properly as Open Space under the Land Use Element category of "Flood
SHEPPARD. MULLIN, RICHTER G HAMPTON
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
August 12, 1998
Page 2
Control/Utility Corridor" and the Open Space Element categories of "Flood Control
Lands" and "Streamside Woodland and Water Recharge Area." In fact, the City's own
staff has repeatedly found that the Lauren Development Property was designated as
Open Space under the General Plan. Under the General Plan, Open Space land cannot
be developed to a density greater than one dwelling unit per 10 acres. Here, the
request for approval for 40 dwelling units is inconsistent with and obviously violates
the density limitations of the General Plan which would only allows two dwelling units
on the Lauren Development Property.
2. Under Development Code Section 17.060.010G, "following the
denial of a Development Review Application, no application for the same or
substantially the same use on the same or substantially the same site shall be filed
within one year from the date of denial." Here, the City Council denied the applicant's
first Development Review Application (DR 97-1 I) on September 3, 1997. But, Lauren
Development has submitted a new application for precisely the same use (40
single-family homes on 25.35 acres) on the exact same site on April 21, 1998 and June
2, 1998, less than one year after September 3, 1997. Indeed, City' staff concedes the
present application is for the same use.
3. Lauren Development's application does not satisfy the
requirements of the Hillside Development regulations. See, Development Code
§ 17.24.030. Among other things, Lauren Development failed to provide the City with
any of the following prior to our delivery of this letter: a natural features map, a cut
and fill map, a conceptual drainage and flood control facilities map, slope analysis and
slope profile maps certified by a civil engineer, a geologic and soils report, or a
statement of conditions for ultimate ownership.
4. The processing of Lauren Development's Development Review
Application violates the City's Development Code, specifically, Sections
17.06.010E(2) and (4). At the Design Review Committee hearing on August 4, 1998,
we were informed that, contrary to the Development Code, there would be no review
by the Technical Review Committee of this application.
5. The design of the proposed 40 homes is still not compatible with
the surrounding properties and suffers from the same defects identified by the City
Council in denying design review on September 3, 1997. Contrary to the City
Council's mandate, the developer has not provided additional floor plans or more
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
August 12, 1998
Page 3
elevations. Rather, these are essentially the same homes that were proposed and
rejected last September.
6. ContTary to the staffs resolution, Development/Design Review
concerns far more than just design issues. Here, Lauren Development is proposing
significant grading changes to the Project, among other things, which have not been
considered by the Grading Committee and which have not been adequately
documented for meaningful review by the Planning Commission. Moreover, there are
numerous changed circumstances regarding the Project since 1990 and it is clear that
the Project itself has significantly changed since 1990. Accordingly, additional
environmental review under CEQA is neeessay,.
ANALYSIS
A. The Proposed Project Is Inconsistent With The General Plan.
The Homeowners have filed a lawsuit challenging the City's approval of
the Final Map for the Lattren Development Project because it is flatly inconsistent
with the General Plan, in that the Lauren Development Property is designated Open
Space under three separate categories in the General Plan which limit the density of
development for the proposed Project to two dwelling units.v The trial court did not
reach the merits of the Petition in the Final Map Lawsuit, rather, it ruled that the
challenge to the Final Map was untimely..That ruling is being appealed. Obviously,
there will be no timeliness issue with respect to the Development Review here. And,
for the same reasons set forth in the Final Map Lawsuit, the proposed project remains
inconsistent with the General Plan.
v That lawsuit is entitled, Haven View Estates Homeowners Association. et al. v. Ci_ty
of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. RCV-31906
(the "Final Map Lawsuit"). We hereby incorporate by this reference the entire
Administrative Record prepared by the City for the Final Map Lawsuit, the
Supplemental Administrative Record prepared by the Homeowners, as well as all
plearings in the Final Map Lawsuit.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
August 12, 1998
Page 4
Under Section 17.06.01 OF of the City's Development Code,
Development Review cannot be grunted unless the Planning Commission can fred that
"the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan." This is consistent with state
law, which requires that all land use approvals be consistent with the General Plun.
Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors. 52 Cal. 3d 553, 570 (1990).
As set forth in the Final Map Lawsuit, the City has admitted that when
the General Plan was adopted in 1981, the Lauren Development Property was
"conceptually" Open Space. Similarly, both the Developer and the City admit that, at
least up until 1986, the Lauren Development Property was considered "Flood Control
Lands" since it was impressed with a County Flood Control District Flood Control
Easement over the entire property to protect the Flood Control Levee which forms its
southerly boundary. The text in the Open Space Hun element of the General Plan
makes it clear that "the three major sources of Open Space in Rancho Cucamonga are
the flood control lands, the agricultural lunds which may or may not be in active
production, and private vacunt lunds." Because there has been no General Plan
amendment with respect to the Lauren Development Property since the adoption of the
General Plan in 198 I, the original designations of the Lauren Development Property as
Open Space continues to this day.
By reference to the prominent Flood Control Levee which forms the
southerly boundary of the proposed project, it is clear to any reasonable person that the
General Plan maps designate the Lauren Development Property as Open Space under
three separate categories. The Lauren Property is designated as "Open Space - Flood
Control/Utility Corridor" in the Lund Use Plan Map set forth in Figure III-I of the
Land Use Element of the General Plan. On Figure III-I of the General Plan the
horizontal dashed lines represent the Open Space - Flood Control/Utility Corridor
designation. As the Commission can see, the curving southwesterly boundmy of this
hash mark pattern follows the contours of the prominent Flood Control Levee forming
the southerly boundmy of the Lauren Development Property.
The Open Space Hun Element of the General Plan includes an Open
Space Plun Map (set forth in Figure IV.-4 of the Open Space Plan) that specifically
designates the Lauren Development Property under the Open Space categories of
"Flood Control Lands und Utility Trunsportation R.O.W." und "Streamside Woodlund
und Water Recharge Area." The boundaries of "Flood Control Lands" on the Open
Space Plun Map are designated by jagged lines. The entire Lauren Development
· SHEPI~AI~D, ~ULLIN, F?ICHTEI~ & HAMF~TON u.6,
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
August 12, 1998
Page 5
Property falls within the large "Flood Control Lands" area in the central northem
portion of the Open Space Plan Map. One of the bounchzy lines for that Flood Control
Lands area coincides exactly with the prominent Flood Control Levee located on the
southerly border of the Lauren Development Property. Moreover, the Hood Control
Map set forth in Figure V-6 of the General Plan further confinns that the Flood Control
Levee is an official flood control feature and that the existing residential developments
in Haven View Estates and Rancho Cucamonga V are separated liom the Open
Space/Flood Control Lands which comprise the Lauren Development Property by the
pronounced Flood Control Levee. The "Streamside Woodland and Water Recharge
Areas" on the Open Space Plan Map are designated by dense, black horizontal lines.
As with the Flood Control Lands designation, the entire Lauren Development Property
is included within a large "Streamside Woodland and Water Recharge Area" in the
central northem portion of the Open Space Plan Map. Once again, the southerly
border of that area coincides exactly with the Flood Control Levee, which is also the
southerly border of the Lauren Development Property. And, as set forth in the General
Plan, these maps impose a certain pattem on the land and define the spatial dimensions
of the Plan. General Plan, p. VI-16. Moreover, the City's own Development Code
requires that consistency with the General Plan's Land Use Element be determined by
reference to the Land Use Element Map. Development Code § 17.02.010D.
In fact, in the pleadings it filed in the Final Map Lawsuit, the City
admitted, without quantifying it, that the Lauren Development Property was at least
"partially" designated Open Space in the Land Use Plan Map and "partially"
designated Open Space under the two categories in the Open Space Plan Map of the
General Plan. Even after fabricating new overlay maps, which manipulate the relevant
boundary lines, the very_ best the City could come up with is an overlay copy of the
~lan Mall and Homeowners' Tract Map showing that arguably, a small
portion of the Lauren Development Property can be junfiigged into the Very Low
Residential Land Use designation on that one map.
Signi~candy, however, the City did not submit any exhibit overlaying
the Open Space Plan Map over Homeowners' tracts. This is because such an overlay
would show that all of the Lauren Development Property is within the huge 'area
constituting Open Space - Flood Control Lands and all but the tiniest sliver in the
extreme northwest comer of the property is within the Streamside Woodland - Open
Space designation. Thus, even the City has conceded that the vast majority of the
Lauren Development Property is designated Hood Control Open Space on the Land
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
August 12, 1998
Page 6
Use Map, 99% of the property is designated Streamside Woodland and Water
Recharge Area - Open Space on the Open Space Plan Map and 100% of the property is
designated Flood Control Lands - Open Space on the Open Space Plan Map. Of
course, if the Lauren Development Property is designated Open Space under any
category of Open Space in the Open Space Plan then DR 98-13 must be denied. See,
Gov't. Code § 65567; Families Una~'aid to Uphold Rural El Dorado Coun_ty v. Board
of Supervisors, 62 Cal. App. 4th 1332 (1998).
In sum, it is manifest to any reasonable person that the proposed Project
is subject to three Open Space designations, and even the City concedes that the
overwhelming majority of the Lauren Development Property is within the three Open
Space designations discussed above. See, F~ supra, 62 Cal. App. 4th
at 1341 (Where general plan inconsistency was "readily apparent" and no reasonable
person could conclude otherwise on the evidence, the project must be set aside).
Dispositively, the fact that the proposed Project is inconsistent with the
General Plan was proved by the City itself. After the Final Map was approved by the
City, during the Final Map lawsuit, the I-Iomeowners uncovered three separate staff
reports from 1983, 1986 and 1989 in which the same City staff that is processing
DR 98-13 correctly found that the Lauren Development Property was designated
Flood Control - Open Space. Seer Final Map Lawsuit Supplemental Record
pp. 112947, 1148-55, and 1156-60. As the City Attorney has admonished
Homeowners, this contemporaneous administrative interpretation is entitled to great
weight. And, the Commission should be aware that the City did not dispute at all that
these three staff reports correcfiy found that the Lauren Development Property was
designated Open Space under the General Plan. Nor did the City claim that it was
mistaken in reporting the Lauren Property as Open Space in the three staff reports
mentioned above. Of course, without a General Plan amendment, this General Plan
designation cannot change.
The evidence is overwhelming that the Lauren Development Property is
subject to three separate Open Space designations under the General Plan, all of which
limit development to two dwelling units here. This evidence consists of the General
Plan maps, the General Plan text, the City's own staff reports, and the developer's and
the City's admissions.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMDTONua,
Rancho Cucaraonga Planning Commission
August 12, 1998
Page 7
Finally, the proposed resolution for the approval of DR 98-13
inaccurately states the findings which the Commission must make to approve
Development Review for this project. The proposed project must be consistent with
much more than just the "objectives" of the General Plan and Development Code.
Both under state law and the City's Development Code, the Commission must fred that
the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan in its entirety, including "the
applicable elements of the City's General Plan." Development Code
§ 17.06.010E(3)(a). See also, Development Code §§ 17.06.010F and 17.02.010D;
Families Unafraid, 62 Cal. App. 4th 1332. There is absolutely no authority to limit the
proposed resolution's "objectives" of the General Plan only. Rather, the Development
Code refers continually to consistency with the General Plan and General Plan is
defined under the Development Code as "The General Plan of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, including all maps, reports and related plan elements adopted by the City
Council." Development Code § 17.02.140.
B. The Development Review Application Is Premature Under The
Development Code and Must Be Denied
Development Code Section 17.06.0 10G provides: "Following the denial
of a Development Review Application, no application for the same or substantially the
same use on the same or substantially the same site shall be filed within one year from
the date of denial." (emphasis added). "Use" is defined under Development Code
Section 17.02.140 as "the conduct of an activity, or the performance of a function or
operation, on a site or in a building or facility.' Here, it is obvious that DR 98-13 is for
the same use - ao single-family residences on the same 26-acre site. In fact, at the
Design Review Committee hearing, Dan Coleman admitted that the use was the same '
as it was when the first Development Review Application was denied on September 3,
1997. Titis is eonfu'med by the Design Review Committee Minutes attached as Exhibit
H to the August 12, 1998 Staff Report for Development Review 98-13 ("Staff
Report"). See also, Transcript of Design Review Committee hearing of Augnst 4, 1998
attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Since one year has not elapsed from the denial of
September 3, 1997, the Planning Commission has no jurisdiction to consider DR
98-13, which Lauren Development applied for, apparently, on June 2, 1998.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
August l2, 1998
Page 8
C. The Development Review Application Does Not Satis_fy The
_.R. equirements of the Hillside Development Regulations.
Development Code Section 17.06.0 10F(3) requires that the Planning
Commission make a finding that "the proposed use is in compliance with each of the
applicable provisions of the Development Code ....7' As set forth in the Design
Review Uniform Application for DR 98-13, the proposed Project is subject to Hillside
Development Review under the Hillside Development Regulations. Section 17.24.030
of the Hillside Development Regulations sets forth the Application Filing
Requirements for Development Review. This Development Review application fails
to comply with numerous of these requirements.
Section 17.24.030A requires that the developer submit a natural features
map with his Development Review Application. As evidenced by the letter dated
April 21, 1998 ~'om Lauren Development to Brad Buller, no such natural features map,
with the items required under subsection A, has been provided. Additionally,
subsections B(2), C, D, E, F, G, and H, require a colored cut and fill map, a conceptual
drainage and flood control facilities map, a slope analysis map, slope profiles, a
geologic and soils report, and a statement of conditions for ultimate ownership,
respectively. Again, as evidenced by the April 21, 1998 letter from Lauren
Development and the City's file for DR 98-13, none of these items were submitted with
the application.
D. The Technical Review Committee Failed to Review DR 98-13.
The City's Development Code, Seelion 17.06.010E(2) provides in paxt:
"All development proposals submitted pursuant to this section are initially reviewed by
the Technical, Design, and Grading Committees: . .. (3) Technical Review Committee
- compliance with technical code requirements. Each committe~ shall make a
recommendation on each project for consideration by the Planning Commission or City
Planner (if applicable.) (emphasis added). Subsection E(4) of that same section
provides that the Technical Review Contmittee, which consists of, among other things,
representatives of the Planning, Engineering and Building and Safety Division of the
City, will consider items including grading, drainage facilities, storm drain
hnprovements, uniform building code requirements, and requirements for
environmental processing.
,SHEPPARD, MULLIN. RICHTER & HAMPTON
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
August l2, 1998
Page 9
At the Design Review Conunittee meeting on August 4, 1998, we were
informed, with no explanation, that there was not going to be any Technical Review
Committee review of Development Review Application DR 98-13. See, Transcript of
August 4, 1998 hearing of the Design Review Committee attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
Of course, one of the main technical issues for the City to review was whether the
proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan. We were informed that the
Technical Review Committee was the appropriate committee to review this issue but
that the Technical Review Committee would not be analyzing this project. The City
appears to be going out of its way to arbitrarily ignore its Development Code sections
which standardly apply to all other residential projects. Before the pending
Development Review Application can be considered by the Planning Commission, it
should be referred to the Technical Review Committee for review of all of those issues
set forth in the Development Code, including whether the proposed project is
consistent with the General Plan.
E. The Proposed Houses Are Still Not Compatible With The Surrounding
Properties.
As noted by Mr. Coleman at the Design Review Committee hearing on
August 4, 1998, the City Council rejected Lauren Development's first application for
Development Review because there were not enough floor plans and not enough
variety in the elevations. See, Staff Report; Transcript, Exhibit 1. The floor plans
have not changed nor have they increased. The applicant is proposing the same four
basic footprints except that some of the garages have been flipped in their orientation
to the house. As far as the elevations, Lauren Development simply took some of the
previously optional exterior design features such as bonus rooms Porte Cocheres,
balconies and decks, ~d made them standard features. Finally, the developer has
simply added two elevation styles - Prairie and Traditional. In essence, these are the
same tract homes that the City Council rejected last year, with the same rottuber of
floor plans, with some optional features now standard, and with some slight variation
on exterior materials. Many of the units are exactly the same. As noted above, the
application is for the same use as before.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
August 12, 1998
Page 10
However, even if substantially similar use were incorrectly interpreted to be design,
these are still substantially the same designs. The proposed houses are incompatible
with the larger custom homes in the privately accessed RC-V tract adjoining the
Lauren Development Property.
F. The Approval Of Development Review Based On The 1990 Negativ,
Declaration Would Violate CEQA.
The Staff Report includes a proposed Resolution determining that no
subsequent environmental review is required in connection with the proposed DR 98-
13. Paragraph 3 of the proposed Resolution is a finding that "the environmental
materials presented and environmental concerns raised at the hearing on this [sic]
design review matter did not relate to the discretionary matter before the Commission,
the lot-specific design of the residences in question." Paragraph 4 includes an
additional finding that, based on "substantial evidence" presented to the Planning
Commission at the August 12 hearing, no supplemental environmental review is
required with respect to the Commission's action on the Development Review
application.
We have numerous concerns regarding those proposed findings. First,
with respect to Paragraph 3, and as discussed above, the development/design review
process concerns far more than design issues. As the name suggests, the purpose of
development/design review is to investigate both development and design issues and to
minimize adverse effects of a proposed project on surrounding properties and the
environment. Development Code § 17.06.010A. 1. The Teelmieal Review Committee
is required to evaluate a host of issues unrelated to design. Development Code
§ 17.06.010E.4. The Grading Committee is required to consider overall, as well as lot-
specific, grading issues, including the effect of proposed grading on adjacent
properties. Development Code § 17.06.010E.5. Even the Design Review Committee
is required to analyze the overall layout of the proposed development to avoid
interference with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future
developments. Development Code § 17.06.010E.3.a. For reasons that the City has not
divulged, the City has artificially and unlawfully natrowed the scope of the
development/design review process to include only lot-specific, design issues.
Second, with respect to Paragraph 4, it is readily apparent that additional
environmental review under CEQA is required as a result of significant new
SHEPPARD, I"~ULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
August 12, 1998
Page I 1
information and changed circumstances regarding the project since 1990.-v In addition,
it is now clear that the project itself has significantly changed since 1990. Among
other things, the original Conceptual Grading Plan approved for Tentative Tract 14771
in 1990 did not include any lot-specific grading or slopes, apparently because the
project at that time consisted of custom home sites. However, Lauren Development
subsequently modified the project to substitute tract homes in place of the custom sites.
Now, in connection with DR 98-13, Lauren Development has submitted a new
Conceptual Grading Plan that shows detailed house footprints, slopes between lots, pad
grading, etc. The Staff Report acknowledges that the ofiginal Coneeptual Grading
Plan applies to a different project than the current one, but nonetheless concludes, with
no supporting evidence or analysis, that the "proposed grading is in substantial
conformance with the originally approved grading plan and was designed to minimize
the amount of grading associated with the project, while maintaining the contour
characteristics of the existing topography."
One of the few elements of the original Conceptual Grading Plan that
was carried over into the new Conceptual Grading Plan are the specifications for the
drainage channel contemplated at the northerly boundary of Tract 14771. As we
understand it, Lauren Development will require an easement over and on the property
directly north of Tract 14771 to perform the grading work necessary for the
construction and operation of the drainage channel. However, the drainage channel
contemplated at the northerly boundary of Tract 14771 is no longer possible because
the City of Los Angeles Depa~.ent of Water and Power, which owns the property
immediately north of Tract 14771, has advised Lauren Development in writing that it
will not grant an easement for the construction of the drainage channel.
As a result, Lauren Development has submitted a "Conceptual
Alternative Storm Drain Plan" (the "Conceptual Alternative Plan") to the City for a
significantly different drainage channel at the northerly boundary of Tract 14771.
Inexplicably, the Conceptual Alternative Plan will not be considered by the Planning
Commission as part of DR 98-13, despite the fact that the proposed drainage channel
cannot be built. On several occasions, our clients have questioned City official
That issue is currently being litigated in Cucamon~ans United for Reasonable
Expansion v. Ci_ty of Rancho Cucamonga et al., San Bernardino Superior Cotat
Case No. RCV 30406.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
August 12, 1998
Page 12
regarding the Conceptual Alternative Plan. Among other things, they have asked why
Lauren Development submitted the plan to the City, whether the City had reviewed the
plan, and why the plan was not formally submitted in connection with Development
Review 98-13 when the proposed drainage channel is plainly infeasible. They did not
receive straightforward answers to any of those questions. We can only surmise that
the reason the City has attempted to keep the Conceptual Alternative Plan under wraps
is that it confwrns an inevitable and substantial modification to the original 1990
project.
Third, Paragraphs 3 and 4 amount to nothing more than a post hoc
rafionalization for approving Development Review 98-13 without appropriate
environmental review under CEQA. The two findings relate to issues and evidence
presented at a Planning Commission meeting that has not occurred yet. It is
particularly astonishing that the finding in Paragraph 3 rejects all potential CEQA
concerns as irrelevant before the Planning Commission has heard or considered any of
those concerns. It seems apparent that the City has no intention of requiring any
additional CEQA review, regardless of whether that review is legally required.
Vexy truly yours,
Richard L. Stone
for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON u~
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 12, 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Thomas Grahn, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-13 - THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES,
LLC - A design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract
14771, consisting of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very Low
Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven
Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 1074-511-27 through 31 and
1074-621-01 through 35.
SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site is vacant with an average cross slope of 5.9 percent,
although some portions reach 10 percent. The site is bordered on the north by property owned by
the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, on the east by property owned by the San
Bernardino County Flood Control District, on the south by Ringstem Drive, and on the west by
Tackstem Street. A partially developed subdivision (Tract 12332 Phases I & 2 * Haven View
Estates) lies to the west and south of the project site.
Haven View Estates is a gated community with private streets developed with both custom and
semi-custom homes. The project site is located in the extreme northeast portion of the gated
community (see Exhibit "A").
ANALYSIS:
A. Backqround: Tentative Tract 14771 was originally approved by the Planning Commission on
November 14, 1990, and a final map was approved by the City Council on October 15, 1997.
A previous application for design review approval for proposed homes on the project site (DR
97-11 ) was approved by the Planning Commission on July 9, 1997; however, the application
was appealed to the City Council and subsequently denied on September 3, 1997.
The City Council denial focused on two primary design concerns: not enough floor plans and
not enough variety in the elevations. Since that denial, the applicant has made extensive
revisions to their design and submitted a project that substantially differs from the previous
project.
B. General: The following revisions have been incorporated into the project design:
Five distinct architectural styles are provided including: French Country, Spanish
Colonial, Italian Tuscan, Prairie, and Traditional.
ITEM I
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 98-13 - HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES I
August 12, 1998 '.
Page 2 I
2. The project design includes five basic floor pans; however, because of the differences
in building footprints including cross lot versus downhill foundations, reverse footpr nts,
numbered garage spaces~ and garage do~>r orientation (e.g., front-on, side-on, or
recessed) there are 14 different floor plans. ~
3. The structures range in size from 3, 143 squaie feet to 4,942 square feet w th an average
size of 4,068 square feet.
4. Each of the 40 homes will be unique. The project was designed with a specific bui dng
footprint for each lot (see !Exhibits "B" & "G") that was then designed with specific
architectural features, exterior color schemes, building materials, garage orientations,
porte-cocheres, entry gates, etc., resulting in :a condition where no two homes will be the
same. The proposed conditions of approval reflect how the design for each lot will be
unique.
5. All exterior architectural features have been made standard rather than optional. Design
features that were previously optional (e.g., bonus rooms, larger garages, porte-
cocheres, balconies and decks, portals. driveways and entry gates, etc.) were evaluated
on a lot-by-lot, case-by-case basis and plotted accordingly.
6. There are 12 lots (30 percent) with garage doors that front-on to the street. On 10 of
those lots, the 3- or 4-car garage is L-shaped and the front-on condition is located 13
to 20 feet behind the side wall of the garage,that side-on to the street.
7. There are 19 lots (46 percent) with garage doors oriented toward the street, but
recessed 40 to 45 feet behind the front of the structure. In all instances where this
condition occurs, the garage doors are located behind a porte-cochere or entry gate.
Additionally, the project is subject to the requiremenis of the Hillside Development Regulations
and, as such, was designed to minimize the amount of grading (see Exhibit "B"). The design
includes split level pads with multilevel breaks rang!ng from 6 inches to 78 inches between the
garage floor and interior levels of the first floor (see' Exhibit "G"). The exhibits attached to this
report contain the two Grading Plans associated with this project. Exhibit "C" contains the
Grading Plan included with the Tentative Map approval and Exhibit "B" contains the Grading
Plan proposed for the current project. Proposed grading is in substantial conformance with
the originally approved grading plan and was des!gned to minimize the amount of grading
associated with the project, while maintaining the contour characteristics of the existing
topography.
C. Desiqn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (McNiel, Macias, Fong) reviewed
the project on August 4, 1998, and recommendedapproval subject to the following:
1. The placement of units on Lots 4 and 19 sl~all be conditioned to meet all applicable
setbacks.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 98-13 - HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES
August 12, 1998
Page 3
2. Door and window surrounds shall be provided on all elevations.
D. Gradinq Committee: The project was reviewed on August 4, 1998. The Grading Committee
recommended approval.
E. Neiqhborhood Meetinq: On July 28, 1998, the applicant held a Neighborhood Meeting at
Chaffey College to provide an opportunity for the community to be made aware of the
proposed project. The meeting was attended by approximately 25 residents of Haven View
Estates. Elevations of the proposed streetscape, including models of proposed units, were
presented throughout the room to allow for an informal, small group discussion of the design
review application. Items of discussion included: architectural modifications, floor plan
variation, unit cost, unit square footage, potential for access to the east of the project,
landscaping improvements, timing of construction, and compliance with Hillside Development
Regulations.
CORRESPONDENCE: The property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners
within a 300-foot radius of the project site and to all property owners within Haven View Estates.
Although not necessarily required by law, this item was noticed at the direction of the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION: StaffrecommendsthePlanningCommissionapproveDevelopmentReview
98~13 through adoption of the attached Resolution.
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:TG/Is
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "B" - Detailed Site Plan/Grading Plan
Exhibit "C" - Original Grading Plan Approved for Tract 14771
Exhibit "D" - Final Tract Map 14771
Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Landscape Plan
Exhibit "F" - Potential Equestrian Corral Pad Locations
Exhibit"G"- Elevations/Footprints
Exhibit "H" - Design Review Committee Comments
Resolution of Approval with Conditions for DR 98-13
Resolution Determining No Environmental Review Necessary
Z SITE UTILIZATION AI~ IN~E~'
~ CONCEPTUAL GRADt',tG- SITE PLAN
3A.-3D. EXISTING GRADING PLAN TRACT
4A.-4C: APPROVED TRACT MAP 14771 M NO. 14771
5. CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
6. POTENTIAL CORRAL PAD LOCATION PLAN
Z-46. LOT-BY-LOT ARCHITECTURAL PLANS ,,e~. ...........~.". ,., " """ """'"' ............." AND /NDE.Y/ .M. AP
GRADING LEGEND
LAU'REN
DEVELOPMENI INC.
',b'
.....
-" '~h- , "-- -L,' ·
' ~"~ ' ' '' .... TRA C T
,';'~ ............ "" ~ NO. 14771
,,. ' "" CONCEPTUAL
'~'' '+ "~TYpIG~k~RIVEWA~,g~DE~ :
UTLtZING V~RTIGAL~URVES " GRADING - SITE
/ 2. L'. / ,',
%
I -, ..' O1: ~/~',l[It,)~t~l) I'~)~,~ll~'
: 72 :-, · --"::-." ;~ -.-.. .'
_:'.. .., ...'~-:,-.i,'~..---.' 2T:'f .....~,,
~ :',,~"
~ , % .% .,",-;...
""'~z~"' '~ ',;:";=:.=":'-- · c' "'-'
~_;,,:~.__. :L, ,.. ·~,o:" '-.
SECTION A- ~ ' :
.. ,,:,',,
z~o ,.. % .....'~" ,~ ~ ,. ' ,.. '~ _...~
, ~ ~ - '~"
........ - ....... ~'~z ' " '.,~
SECTION B-B ~E~IQ~:~ SECTION D-D : .. ~,
z2 ~IL "' ' "'
SECTION F-F ,::2~7 ~'~ ~.o SECTION G-G SECTIONH-H
O,.,,AL .OT. T R A C T N O. I 4 7 7 1
.~ ....................;..:: ................... .=-:~;; ....., ...............
., ~L:.:..~:?:..::..::,~:~::~:L:.:~..~..~:::~:,:,7:C.~;.,::~:::::'.:,.,:.': .......~.::~:..: .................. ~ ...........................
'.:.~::~:::,'.~:.:'~,..::.::~" ;,.~. :" ':,.~-..
~'.j ~-, X ~ I- '~'LOI 8 "~ -~ ~ ~'
..... :~. ~ ......
--,,,C,:,r~, . L,-,: ....._ ~ , ~'-. ' ' '
"'-C~, .,~ 'T,~ ,.,,.~;,; .. .... ' ,,~<;~:_ ""~':-" . '/_
;o "'2 "- Z~' :,' - ' -
,' ",~,,~, '~': - , ~ _.. . . -,,~ ,,. ~
- - "' ':'., - ' "' 12 ...... -
'-,,, : --, ,, ,
~" """,, "::--- ,' ..").~ x,' "'-~'-:~--,"--
'%a~ -,,..~e~ .~. --r-,~. ,,
~ "--,'~,--- ~ ;--~, .,~.:_. ~ ' C-'
'C ' - -' '-' -, I~ ~, z~ ' ' '
". ':T *' ~T i"'~:i~,::~ .........,.,:.,'~.",', ' ~:.>":.-::--"
..... .~.':;::~".~.~::~%S:~:';" <.,..:,:..-, ~:;.,~ ~-.. ,::, ::::::::::::::::::::::: .............--",,,?:..; ',~.: ~...-, .......~:.:.:
, , . - ~
,.,. . ,. ~ ............. .,.~,.:~_
~ ............ TI,~ACT NO l,i??l ............ - ...............""1"',""'7,"' .................... ~ ...........
,,.-, ' - ......... 'IRACI NO. 14771
TRACT
NO. N77~
............... ~"" '"' TRACT MAPS
~ TRACT
NO. 14771
L A U I:~ E NIitlD$ %.~:.t'-:",;'5":· .....
"""'-'°""":"' "":' . ......... APPROI/~'D 4B
,,.,,,.,~ .............:-,,, ..... TRA"CT MAPS
.~ TRACT
NO. 14771
L A U R L~, N II,IDS %.:-':'--"',U5":.
ocv.o.,.,,, ,.~ ......... APPROVED
,,,o ........,,.. ,0,TRA c T ,,A~'~, 4 C
I,A U I,~
c,i ........... ',...
~ .-: =.-.'=L~.'.-.'_-':-.-\:'. i~ ,-."-.: ........- ~
c~-.-=.,=: .......... '7;2'. .................
II .-.==~
rENrA rIVE
TRACT
NO 14771
EONEEPTU^L LANDSC^I~E PLAN
..... ' /r/ ,
FENF~ FIVE
TRACT
POTENTIAL E~UESTRIA~ CORAL PAD LOCATIO~
~'-- , ,,,-h.. ,.:.',;:.-. BUILDING FOOTPRINT
,,.:""'~.~
...,.[,~, -,-
FRONT ELEVATION ,,:~.,,. ....
SECTION
.................. :'7.-~':~ '-- ......~:~;C~ ....-;;~-'~ .....' ....
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION .....- LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
,1928 SUNDOWNER CT.
· 1 CAR GAllAGE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES
IVERSON ASSOCIATES, iNC.
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
FRONT ELEVATION
SECTION
RIGHT SiDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ~ ...... LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
,1918 SUNDOWNEl{ CT.
4 CAR GAllAGE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES
IVI~RSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
0~L SECTION
~_ ........ .z"'_.~_7,,~.~---..' .... _ __~ ....
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ....... LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
4908 SUNDOWNER CT.
4 CAR GARAGE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES
IVERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
FRONT ELEVATION
SECTION
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION .... · .... LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
4919 SUNDOWNEll CT.
3 CAR GAllAGE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES I.^uRliN
IVERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
~ FRONT ELEVATION ~": ~ '' I '\'
~' SECTION
RIGtIF SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVA'FION ..... -.,, LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
,1929 SUNDOWNEl1, CT.
3 CAll. GAI~,AGE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES I. ^ u ,~ ~.: ~
IVERSON ASSOCIATES, INC,
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
FRONT ELEVATION
SECTION
\,,
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION .... .-,,, LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
4998 BUCI<,SI(,IN CT.
3 CAll GARAGE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES
IVERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
.~ "". · BUILDING FOOI-pRiNT
FRONT ELEVATION
SECTION
,- .~.~ ~ -. :',..~.
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION . REAR ELEVATION ~.~...,~ LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
,1986 BUCI(SKIN CT.
3 CAll GAI1AGE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES .. ^ u l< I.: N
~D~G ~OOT~T
FRONT ELEVATION ~ ~
SECTION
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ~,..,, LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
,t974 BUCKSI{IN CT.
3 CAR GARAGE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES ~-^u,~i~N
1VERSON ASSOCIATES, INC,
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
, . .....
FRONTEEEVATION ,~L,.-.,, ,~;~:~_
,.~ SECTION
RIGI4T SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ,,,~ .... LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
4962 BUCI(SKIN CT.
3 CAR GARAGE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES
IVERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
~ ~ , .l}. BUILDING FOOTPRINT
FRONT ELEVATION "'
k SECTION
......... l:.,.
RIGI IT .S DE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ........ LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
4956 BUCKSI~,IN CT.
3 CAR GARAGE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES ,.^u,~,iN
IV[RSON ASSOCIATES, INC
(:'~.
,,, .......................... ~ .....,~:~: ....... - ~ -~_Z_.h___:I
. ,]r~---'-y,~,'~=,=,-.~:1~ illit~lli
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATIONREAR ELEVATION .......LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
,1953 13UCI(SI(IN CT.
-'1 CAll. CIAI~.AGIE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES
IVERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
f L "~'
FRONT ELEVATION .... .
SECTION
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ........ LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
4957 BUCI(SKIN CT.
,1 CAR GARAGE
.... 'V_ITI_E_.t':I_E!_GHT_S AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES
IVERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
h ~U~L~N~ FOOTPRINT
~.. '-'
FRONT ELEVATION " ~]" ""
..... ' SECTION
.~ :_:.:.. ,...
,/
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ..... ..,, LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
· 1971 BUCKSKIN CT.
'1 CAll GAllAGE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES
IVERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
· '-,,. i .... BUILDING FOOTPRINT
..
FRONT ELEVATION ..... ..,~
SECTION
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ..... · .... LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
4985 BUCIiSKIN CT.
3 CAll GAllAGE
--. ,~HE_ HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES
IVERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
20
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
' ~l~-~--"'-':-
'~'/ FRONT ELEVATION ..... ..,,, . ~'Z ',l ........
~ SECTION
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION .... · .... LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
4999 BUCKSKIN CT.
4 CAR GAItAGE
THE HFIGFt'FS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES
IVERSf/N ASSOCIATES, INC.
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
FRONT EI_EVATION
(~ SECTION
- ;..,~.~.., /""*L"-~T:'-'~':. .........
, ,, L- ~'~ ;~i¢~?dE, ~.~'.,. -~--- ~. ~.,~: ,:.,~..
. , - ~ ~ .......z:~-- .....~.,..... ...,~.:. ,,.,,,.,~...
I~IGHT SID~ ELEVATION ~EAR ELEVATION ..... .,,~ L~FT SIDE ~LEVATIO~
4992 LONE ACIIES CT.
3 CAH. GAI~.AGI"-
THE H,_E_JG__H_TS_A__T HAVEN VIEW ESTATES
/ _';.:::' .L, uulLDINC EOOm,Um-
,t:...: :,':'
'~ :,7,,'227_ ~n: .... J "" "'_"
~J SECTION
_ _JJ
........ ~'l.,ai~'.~.:-i:i" .......'-~i,,i,i,~!~i~.~:-. ~ ~:" .~.'~,!.. l~.!i,,i:~::'~:'''::
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ~...,. LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
,1976 LONE ACIIES CT.
,1 CAll GAllAGE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES
IV[RSOt,! ASSOCIATES, INC.
23
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
FRONT ELEVATION ,,:.,,,.,,,. .... ,-~,~---,~..
SECTION
................
,....., ~Lq~ll~
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ....... LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
,1962 LONE ACRES CT.
3 CAR GARAGE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES ,,^U,~,cN
IVERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
24
SECTION
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ....... LEFT SiDE ELEVATION
4952 LONE ACRES CT.
3 CAR GAllAGE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION .-,,.,..,¢ LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
4946 LONE ACRES CT.
3 CAR GARAGE
THE_.: HE_!_GHTS AT HAVEN_,_.Y!E_,_W~,.ES. TATES,..^u,.:,.:N
IVERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
', ',.?.%t'Z,.'. ',',;."'~ ~7;%',"'.
.,,,-
>
;~" '~ \ BUILDING FOOTPRINT
FRONT EI. EVATION ........
SECTION
I~IGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ~ ........ LEFT SIDE EI.EVATION
4945 LONE ACI1ES CT.
,1 CAll GAll, AGE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES
IVEI~SON ASSOCIATES, INC.
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
FRONT ELEVATION
SECTION
.................. I 1
RIGHT 51DE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ~,~.. LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
4951 LONE ACRES CT.
3 CAR GAll, AGE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES
]VlERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
,,: ~ I'l .... : :~. I~l,~ BUILDING FOO'FPRINT
¢,
,- '~,~,
FRONT ELEVATION ~,,,-,,.- .... t :" -
SECTION
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ..~,...,, LEFT SID~ ELEVATION
4961 LONE ACRES CT.
3 CAll GAllAGE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES
IVERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
29
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
I"
.... :"'~'L ..........~.~.
FRONT ELEVATION ..... ..., ,_ .
~ SECTION
.~ ~ ~ Till' , ,' ~ ..... ~ ~ ........... ~.~
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION .... ..,~ LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
,1973 LONE ACRES CT.
,1 CAR GARAGE
IVERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
/ ~"'~"~' \
,,.\
: ....:/ ,... ......--~.~.
..........................................
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ..... .-,, LEFT SiDE ELEVATION
4987 LONE ACRES CT.
,1 CAR GAll, AGE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES ,.^u,~,.'.~
IVERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
,: BUILDING FOOTPRINI'
':'i
'~'~ E.: ':"
,,r"","7"- "" ! ':~
-
,~ FRONT ELEVATION
.~ SI~C'I'ION
RIGI4T SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ....... LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
4999 LONE ACRES CT.
3 CAR GARAGE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES LAuI,~IiN
IVERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
32
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
FRONT ELEVATION
,.~ SECTION
..... ~, ....................................
., .- --.--F----,..-- =:; .---- .~,~_.. .......---"""----~,~;~.,ur .......,~,, ......~ _ ._ ._ ,:,,, ::,;.~,..: .......
"~'=='!'i'!';:'': i ....' ,.,",~,,'~:':" ~ '~ :'-:':':
:.:~,.,.. '~!!',...... ;5~ ~'LL. ~ ......· ..-~,:' ':": ....~ .............-. ..'~-'__1 ,,.fi,~F]l riP, ~:~!!i~.lr~I .
I.~lGI-rF SIDE ELEVATION REAlm. ELEVATION .... ._,,, LEFT SIDE EI_EVATION
5008 PAI]DOCI( Pl~.
3 CAI[ GARAGE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES
iVERSON ASSOCIATES, iNC.
33
N
I ~l BUILDING FOOTPRINT
,
.
i" I
.~..,, , ....'~=-~.'.~.,:i~_.~
FRONT ELEVATION .',~,,.. .... i ~ ,- ....... _
SE'CTION
~[~, I [] IJ[] ( I ~ ......... !' ,
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ~,.. .... LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
4988 I'ADDOCK PL.
3 CAR GARAGE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES L^ u
IVERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
34
[/ ~" ~'!":'~' ... ~,~. "1 BUILDING FOOTPRINT
~./ FRONT ELEVATION .....,...,~
~ SE:CTION
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ..... · .... LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
4974 PADDOCK PL.
,1 CAR GARAGE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES
FRONT'
L.~,~ ELEVATION ~ '"' .... SECTION
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION .... · LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
'1960 PADDOCI( I'L.
'1 CAR GARAGI'2
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES ~,^ui~iN
[VERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
36
., BUILDING FOOTPRINT ..
~.
FRONT ELEVATION
SECTION
..... 7'.- "CI -i ·
--:.-,-'~ .. ~;'-L',', ·
RIGIfT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ....... LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
4936 PADDOCK PL.
3 CAR. GAllAGE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES
IVERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
37
~' " .....~ L i' 'i ' ', -:'''~ '~ !~l i ~, ..~~'~.~,,~'~,!~ ~.,
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ....... LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
4922 PADDOCK PL.
3 CAR GAllAGE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES
IVERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
RIGI IT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ..... · I_EFT SIDE ELEVATION
11002 IIIDDEN TI~,AIL DR.
'1 CAI~, GARAGE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
SIZCTION
.7
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ~,.-,, LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
11012 IIIDDEN TRAIL DIt.
3 CAR GARAGE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES
IVERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Q FI2, ONT ELEVATION .... . SECTION
........ "'~:LT~';~i'~'~-~ ..................-, ......,,:~-:- .........~ ~i:~' .....~ ....
RIGI IT SIDE IZI]ZVA'I'ION REAI~ ELEVATION ,.~,..,, LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
,1 CAR GAI~,AGE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES .,^UI~ICN
-.. BUILDING FOOTPRINT
FRONT ELEVATION
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION .... · .... LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
'1939 PADI)0CI{ PL.
'1 CAll GAllAGE
.. THE._ HE!GHTs_,._AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES
IVERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
·
FRONT ELEVATION
~ SECTION
........... _ _ ..... ,_-u:____ . ............ , .-'-Z"'~ "~
'~'~"~':~J ~~ ~ ~""7
RIGIqT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ..... ..,~ LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
4965 PADDOCI~ PL.
3 CAH, GARAGI~
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES l,^ui~.~N
IVERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
43
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ,, ........ LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
'1981 I~ADDOCIc,. PL.
· 1 CAI~. GAIn. AGE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES I, ^ u it l.: N
IVERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
\
BUILDING EOOTPR. INT
~ ':..-.,!~-' ..........
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ..... ..,, LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
5001 PADDOCK PL.
3 CAll GAII. AGI,'.
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES ,,A
IVERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
45
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
FRONT ELEVATION ..... .
SECTION
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ....... LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
5021 I~ADDOCIC PL.
3 CAR GAll, AGE
THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES
IVERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
48
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:40 p.m. Tom Grahn I August 4,1998
DESIGN REVIEW 98-13 - THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES - A review of the detailed Site
Plan and Building Elevations for Tract 14771, consisting ',of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of
land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwglling units per acre), located east of Haven
Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 1074-511-2,7 to 31 and 1074-621-1 to 35.
Backqround: Tract 14771 was originally approved by t~e Planning Commission on November 14,
1990, and was given final approval by the City Council o~q October 15, 1997. A previous application
to develop the project site (DR 97-11) was approved by'.the Planning Commission on July 9, 1998;
however, the application was appealed to the City Council and subsequent y den ed on September 3,
1997.
Desiqn Parameters: The current design substantially differs from the previously denied project in the
following ways:
1. All 40 homes will be unique. Considering propose:d architectural features. exterior colors and
materials, garage orientation. etc.. no two homes will be the same.
2. There are essentially five different floor plans; however, when considering garage orientation,
cross lot versus downhill foundations. and reverse.footprints, there are 14 different floor plans.
3. Five distinct architectural styles will be provided including: French Country, Spanish Colonial,
Italian Tuscan, Prairie, and Traditional.
4. The structures range in size from 3,143 square fe~t to 4,942 square feet with an average size
of 4,068 square feet.
5. Aft exterior architectural features have been made standard, rather than optional. Design
features that were previously optional (including bonus rooms, larger garages, porte-cocheres,
balconies and decks, portals, driveway and entry gates, etc.) were evaluated on a lot-by-lot,
case-by-case basis and plotted accordingly.
6. There are 12 lots (30 percent) with garage doors th,~t front-on to the street. On 10 of those lots,
that front-on condition is located 13 to 20 feet behind the side wall of a garage that sides-on to
the street.
i.
7. There are 19 lots (46 percent) with garage doors qnented towards the street; however, these
garage doors are located behind ;a porte-cochere br entry gate and are situated 40 to 45 feet
behind the front of the structure.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Maior Issues: There are no major design issues to present to the Committee. The proposed structures
meet the requirements of the Hillside Development RegL~lations and the Conditions of Approval for
Tract 14771.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues.
1. Lot 19 does not meet the side yard setback.,
"Fk" '
DRC COMMENTS
DR 98-13
August4,1998
Page 2
2. Lot 4 does not meet the side yard setback for the porLe-cochere.
3. Provide door and window surrounds on all elevations.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Committee forward the project to the Planning Commission for their
consideration.
Desi~n Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Dan Coleman for Tom Grahn
Recommended approval subject to condition to meet setbacks.
Return walls not proposed to maintain "custom lot feel" and buyer preference.
Residents:
1. Am them 5 floor plans? Yes.
2. Is this the same use? Yes.
' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
' PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY AUGUST 12, 1998 7:00 PM
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chamber
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Chairman McNiel __ Vice Chairman Macias
Commissioner Barker __ Commissioner Tolstoy __
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-
controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without
discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for
discussion.
A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-40 FOR TRACT 13812
WEALTH V. LLC - The review of the detailed site plan and building
elevations for a recorded final subdivision map consisting of 107 single
family lots on 31.47 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4
dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located
west of Etiwanda Avenue, between Highland and Summit Avenues -
APN: 225-441-01 through 11 and 225-431-01 through 83.
IV. 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. Aft such opinions
shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after
speaking.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW 98-13 FOR FINAL TRACT NO. 14771, A DESIGN REVIEW OF
THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR 40
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 25.35 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED EAST
OF HAVEN AVENUE AND NORTH OF RINGSTEM DRIVE IN THE VERY
LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER
ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN:
1074-511-27 THROUGH 31 AND 1074-621-01 THROUGH 35.
A. Recitals.
1. The Heights at Haven View Estates, LLC., has filed an application for the Development
Review of Final Tract No. 14771, 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 August 12, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held
a meeting to consider the application.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part "A," of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting on August 12, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission
hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives ofthe 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 heZ2p2o~3corporated herein by this reference.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-13-THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEWESTATE:
August12,1998
Page 2
Plannin.q Division
1 ) All applicable conditions of approval folr Tract Map 14771 shall apply.
2) The placement of units on Lots 4 and 19 shall be revised to meet all
applicable setbacks.
3) Door and window surrounds shall be p!rovided on all elevations.
En.qineerin.q Division
1) All conditions of approval for Tract Mal5 14771 shall apply.
4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certi:fy the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY O,F AUGUST 1998.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
Aq'FEST:
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 regular, ly 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 August 1998 by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 14771
SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW 98-13
APPLICANT: THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES, LLC
LOCATION: NEC RINGSTEM DRIVE & TACKSTEM STREET
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACTTHE 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 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 rerieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
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, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and
grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and Development Code
regulations.
2.Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions
of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Buildin9 Code and
State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shail be
submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division
Ii n
to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected fo, r comp ace prior to occupancy.
4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorpo at'ng all Conditions of Approval shall be
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to tle issuance of building permits.
n I n h II for
5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation., and street improHeme t pa s s a be coordinated
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 ot subdivision, or approved
use has commenced, whichever comes first.
6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with ~ll sections of the Development Code,
all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
7. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be
located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete
or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satin;faction of the City Planner. For single
family residential developments, transformers shall be pl~ced in underground vaults.
8.All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner,
including proper illumination.
9. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be peimanenfiy maintained by the property
owner, homeowners'association, orother means accept~ble to the City. Proofofthis landscape
maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and Ci~ Engineer review and approved prior
to the issuance of building permits.
D. Building Design
1. An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units and
for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other alternative energy systems are demonstrated
to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. All swimming pools installed at the time of initial
development shall be supplemented with solar heating. Details shall be included in the building
plans and shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of
building permits.
2. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations hpgraded with architectural treatment,
detailing and increased delineation of surface treatmen:t subject to City Planner review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
3. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowner's Association shall be submitted for City
Planner and Building Official review and approval prior tq issuance of building permits.
E. Landscaping
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope ~lanting 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 of5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1
slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with. appropriate ground cover for erosion
Project No. DR FOR TRACT 14771
Completion Date
control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be
installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
3. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater /__
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger size
shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks
in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or
larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in
staggered dusters 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. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting.
6. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included ~/__
in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and
coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the
Engineering Division.
7. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the __/__
perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.
6. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the __/__
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
9. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of __/__
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
F. Environmental
1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock __/__
Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash
deposit on any property.
2. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Alquist-Priolo Special __/__
Studies Zone for the Cucamonga Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner,
prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property.
3. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway project /
in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any
property.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
Site Development
~roject No. DR FOR TRACT 14771
I
1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Unifc m Building Code, Uniform Mechanical
Code, Un form Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements and
all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at th~ time of issuance of relative
perm ts Please contact the Building and Safety DiviSion for copies of the Code Adoption
Ordinance and applicable handouts. I
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to
existing unit(s), the applicantshall pay development fees'at the established rate. Such fees may
~nF ,
include, but are not limited to: City Beautlficat o ee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation
Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees.
3. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all
supportive information, shall be obtained from the S~n Bemardino County Department of
Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Offic, ial prior to the issuance of Septic Tank
Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits.
4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hour~ of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday
through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday.
H, New Structures
1. Roofing material shall be installed as for wind-resistant 'oof covering at wind velocity not less
than 90 mph.
I. Grading
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordanc~ with the Uniform Building Code, City
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices.; The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved grading plan.
2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to
perform such work.
3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the
time of application for grading plan check.
4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approve~ prior to issuance of building permits.
5. In hillside areas. residential developments shall be graded and constructed consistent with the
standards contained in the Hillside Development Regulations Section 17.24.070.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909i 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
J. 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, DETERMINING THAT NO
SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NECESSARY FOR
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-13 FOR FINAL TRACT NO. 14771, A
DESIGN REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING
ELEVATIONS FOR 40 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 25.35 ACRES OF
LAND, LOCATED EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE AND NORTH OF RINGSTEM
DRIVE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2
DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 1074-511-27 THROUGH 31 AND 1074-621-01
THROUGH 35.
A. Recitals.
1. The Heights at Haven View Estates, LLC., has filed an application for the Development
Review 98-13, 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 August 12, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held
a meeting to consider the application.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE. it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part "A," of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting on August 12, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission
hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at the northeast corner of Tackstem
Street and Ringstem Drive with a street frontage of 1,020 feet along Tackstem Street and 1,360 feet
along Ringstem Drive and is presently vacant; and
b. The property is bordered on the nodh by properly owned by the City of Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power, on the east by property owned by the San Bernardino
County Flood Control District, and the propedies to the south and west consist of vacant and
developed single family residential land; and
c. The application contemplates the construction of 40 single family homes on 25.35
acres of land which is consistent with the Very Low Residential land use designation of the General
Plan; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
ENV. REVIEW FOR TRACT 14711
August 12, 1998
Page 2
d. On November 14, 1990, the Planning C!mmission approved Tentative Tract 14771
and issued a Negative Declaration. ]
3. The Commission hereby finds that the ~lenvironmental materials presented and
environmental concerns raised at th~ hearing on this ~esign review matter did not relate to the
discretionary matter before the Commission, the lot -sp,ecific design of the residences in question.
4. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting the Commission further finds that, in any event, none of the criteria in Section
15!62 of the California Environmental :Quality Act Guide, fines requiring subsequent environmental
review exist or are present with respect to the Commission's action on the Development/Design
Review application.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall cert!fy the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY O,F AUGUST 1998.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCH(5 CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buffer, Secretary of the Planning Commission oftfie City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regulariy introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamon~la, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 12th day of August 1998 by the,' following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 12, 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Cecilia Gallardo, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-04 -
RUSSELL STOUT & ASSOCIATES - The development of a retail building
totaling 7,000 square feet on a 39,750 square foot parcel in the Neighborhood
Commercial District, located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and
Base Line Road - APN: 1076-191-09. Related file: Conditional Use Permit
84-13.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq:
North - Developed retail center, multi-family residential; Neighborhood Commercial
and Medium-High Residential
South - Developed retail center; Neighborhood Commercial
East Mobile home park; Low-Medium Residential
West Developed retail center; Neighborhood Commercial
B. General Plan Desiqnations:
Project Site - Neighborhood Commercial
North Neighborhood Commercial
South - Neighborhood Commercial
East Low-Medium Residential
West Neighborhood Commercial
C. Site Characteristics: The site is a 39,750 square foot parcel located within an existing
commercial shopping center. The center houses a gas station, fast food restaurants, and
retail shops. The subject parcel has been hydroseeded for erosion control and
landscaped with trees. There is an existing plaza area with a pedestrian connection on
the northern portion of the property that links the site to the rest of the shopping center.
ITEM J
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 98-04 - RUSSELL STOUT & ASSOC.
August 12, 1998
Page 2
D. Parkinq Calculations:
Number of Number of
Square Park!ng Spaces Spaces
Type of Use Footaqe Ratio Required Provided
Shopping Center 47,000 4.5/1 ,p00 209 209
ANALYSIS:
A. General: The shopping center was developed under Conditional Use Permit 84-13 which
created a Master Plan for the development of the site. The Master Plan addressed
conceptual building locations overall circulation, points of ingress/egress, parking layout
and provided conceptual elevations which incldded architectural style, various product
types, form, bulk, height, and materials. The subject parcel is one of two properties within
the shopping center left undeveloped. The tenant for the proposed pad building is
"Hollywood Video." A bank was previously appioved for this pad (Development Review
87-10). The Hollywood Video store and its parking area will be compatible with the
adjoining shopping center.
B. Desiqn Review Committee: On June 2. 1998, the Design Review Committee (Bethel,
Macias, and Buller) reviewed the project. The or, iginal proposal did not fit the established
architectural theme of the center. The Committee recommended that the architecture be
revised to be more consistent with the existing b, uildings and the approved Master Plan.
On June 30, 1998, the applicant returned to the Committee (Bethel, Macias, and Fong)
with revised drawings that included a continuous tile roof element, a deeper colonnade,
recessed arches with trellis', additional landscapiOg, and decorative front entrance paving.
Building colors and material will match those in the existing center. The Design Review
Committee recommended approval subject to the conditions contained in the attached
Resolution of Approval. ~
C. Siqns: The applicant is requesting 24-inch "Holl'ywood" and 18-inch "Video" lettering for
the tenant signs. The Uniform Sign Program forjthe shopping center limits the maximum
height of signs to 18 inches. Planning CommisSion policy has been to allow an 18-inch
maximum letter height for shopping centers, except for major anchor tenants. The
shopping center owner supports 24oinch letters. The applicant has submitted an
application to amend the Uniform Sign Progra,m. The Design Review Committee was
supportive of amending the Uniform Sign Progra,rn for the center to include provisions that
would allow a single user pad tenant to have ,24-inch signs if the architecture of the
building was enhanced to incorporate the desigr~ elements outlined in the original master
plan. :
D. Technical/Gradinq Review committees: The Technical and Grading Committees
reviewed the project and recommended approval with the conditions contained in the
attached Resolution of Approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 98-04 - RUSSELL STOUT & ASSOC.
August 12, 1998
Page 3
E. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been completed. Staff has determined
that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. If the
Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval through adoption of the attached
Resolution of Approval with Conditions and issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Respectfully submitted,
City Planner
BB:CG:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Elevations/Floor Plan
Exhibit "D" - Landscape Plan
Exhibit "E" - Design Review Committee Comments dated June 2 and
June 30, 1998
Exhibit "F" - Initial Study Pad II
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Cecilia Gallardo June 2, 1998
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-04 - RUSSELL STOUT &
ASSOCIATES: The development of a retail building totaling 7,000 square feet on a 39,750 square foot
parcel, in the Neighborhood Commercial District located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue
and Base Line Road - APN: 1076-191-09. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 84-13.
Desiqn Parameters:
The project site is located within an existing commercial shopping center that houses a gas station, fast
food restaurants, and retail shops. North and east of the site are residential properties. The shopping
center was developed under Conditional Use Permit 84-13 that created a Master Plan for the
development of the site. The Master Plan addressed conceptual building locations, overall circulation,
points of ingress and egress, parking layout, and provided conceptual elevations which included
architectural style, various product types, form, bulk, height and materials. The subject parcel is one
of two properties within the shopping center left undeveloped. The tenant for the proposed pad building
is "Hollywood Video." A bank was previously approved for this pad (DR 87-10).
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Major Issues: The original proposal did not fit the established architectural theme of the center. Staff
has worked with the applicant which resulted in a number of revisions; however, the following key
design issues remain:
1. Architecture: The architectural style of the building should be compatible with the architectural
theme of the existing center and be in conformance with the Master Plan
approved for the site. Attached is a copy of the existing elevations for the
shopping center, which include design elements such as tile roofs, exposed rafter
tails, curvilinear gables and colonnades. The architecture should be revised to
be more consistent with the existing buildings, and the approved Master Plan as
follows:
a) A colonnade (covered pedestrian walkway) should extend around the entire
building. The plans show the colonnade only at the tower, on the west and
south end of the building. The applicant is proposing a l-foot pop-out
"arch" around the remainder of the building to simulate a colonnade. The
addition of a colonnade would provide further treatment to the north and
east elevations.
b) The tile roof should be continuous around the entire building. The tile roof
element is not present on the east elevation.
2. Signs: The applicant is requesting 24-inch "Hollywood" and 18-inch "Video" lettering for
the tenant signs. The Uniform Sign Program for the shopping center limits the
maximum height of signs to 18 inches. Planning Commission policy has been to
allow an 18-inch maximum letter height for shopping centers, except for major
anchor tenants. The shopping center owner supports 24-inch letters; however,
has not submitted an application to amend their Uniform Sign Program. (See
attached letters regarding signage.)
DRC COMMENTS
DR 98-04- RUSSELL STOUT & ASSOCIATES
June 2,1998
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. Additional landscaped areas, including trees, shou!d be provided wherever possible. Areas of
special concern include areas adjacent to the north and east sides of the building.
2. Provide additional landscaping in decorative pots a,'t the west and south entrances.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the project be revised for further Committee review.
Attachments
Desiqn Review Committee Comments:
Members Present: Bill Bether, Rich Macias, Brad Bulle~
Staff Planner: Cecilia Gallardo
The Committee recommended the project be brought back to the Committee with the following
revisions: ;
1. Redesign the roof element of the towers.
2. Include additional architectural details to the east eievation to provide 360 degree architecture.
If this cannot be provided with a colonnade or a' continuous tile roof, then trellis and vine
plantings are to be provided within the arched recessed areas of the east elevation.
3. Resolve tower element location along the south ele. vation to provide greater interface between
subject building and potential project to the east.
4. The committee was supportive of amending the Uniform Sign Program for the center to include
provisions that would allow a single user pad tenani to have 24-inch signs if the applicant could
demonstrate the necessity for them given the site location, and if the architecture of the building
was enhanced to incorporate the design elements Outlined in the original master plan.
Resolution No. 84-!34 ~
· Page 2
4. Provide texturized pedestrian pathways across
circulation aisles to create an integrated
pedestrian circulation system. In addition,
sidewalk connections shall be provided to the public
sidewalks on Archibald and Base Line.
5. Provide locking bicycle facilities in a convenient
location. Details shall be included in the
landscape plans to the satisfaction of the City
Planner.
6. Provide pedestrian connection near Building "B" to
the adjacent residential project. A lockable gate
may be permitted for security purposes if master
keyed for the adjacent residents in Tract 11797.
7. Pedestrian amenities shall be provided within the
plaza, including, but not limited to, outdoor eating
areas, canopy shade trees, raised planters and
benches, and drinking fountain. Details shall be
included in the landscape plans to the satisfaction
of the City Planner.
8. Special landscaping treatment shall be provided at
the intersection including a raised planter and
annual color ground cover.
9. Provide decorative tile treatment as an
architectural accent throughout project and in place
of red-orange Del Taco ceramic tile. Samples of the
decorative tile and roof tile shall be submitted to
and approved by the Planning Division prior to
issuance of building permits.
10. Building "B" shall be revised to include an arched
colonade treatment on the front (west) elevation and
covered trellis structures on the north and south
sides perpendicular to the building.
ENGINEERING DIVISION
1. Project shall be limited to a maximum of two (2)
drive approaches per street in locations to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
2. Cross slopes on circulation aisles shall be maximum
4%, except where specific aisles do not have
adjacent parking.
3. Ribbon gutters across drive entrances are to be at
an absolute minimum and all drainage must exit the
site in standard under-sidewalk drains.
FAX TRANSMISSION
CITY OF RANCHO CUC~ ,MONGA
] 0500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
To: ,Terry S. Ray Date: ~ April 8, ]998
Fax #: (918) 396-]398 Pages: ~ 1, including this cover sheet.
From: Dan Coleman?~ :
Subject: DR 98-04 - 24 ~TCH SIGNS
COMMENTS:
Thank you for your letter of April 6, 1998 regarding yore- desire for 24 inch high letters for the
proposed Hollywood Video. Your letter will be includedl in the staff report to the Design Review
Committee. Please be advised that we have not received .~any request from the shopping center
owner to amend their Uniform Sign Program to allow 24 inch letters.
We received the revised development plans yesterday anal are reviewing them for completeness.
If complete, the project would be scheduled for the next hvailavle Design Review Committee
meeting which is on May 5, 1998.
If you have any further questions regarding the processing of this application, please contact the
project planner, Cecilia Gallardo at (909) 477-2750.
Dan Coleman
Principal Planner
City ofRancho Cucamonga
RE: Proposed Hollywood Video
Archibald and Baseline
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Dear Dan:
As the proposed tenant for this building, we have been informed that there is a potential
issue with obtaining 24 inch Hollywood and 18 inch Video lettering which is identical to
the store at Etiwanda and 1-15. Because the building is 7,000 square feet, two signs of
anything less would be very disproportionate and not adequate identity. We hope you
will consider the above signage. Hollywood Videos real estate committee has decided
not to move ahead with the site if your city finds our signage unacceptable.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
L ebe
~dent
Western Zone
HOLLYWOOD V|DEO
Beaverton, Oregon 97005
Dan Coleman
Principal Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
April 6, 1998
imately $5,000. per month for each month the property remains unsold. (It is in escrow
for $500,000. and our carrying costs, or loss of interest plus taxes. POA dues, liability
insurance, etc.. are approximately: 1% per month.i
If your department's position with regard to the 242 inch sign letters remains implacable,
I respectfully request that this letter in its entirety be presented to the Rancho
Cucamonga Design and Review Board for inclusion into the minutes of its meeting
scheduled for April 14, 1998 and that we receive a copy of those minutes.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of myicomments.
Very truly yours,
J,e.r S~nd & Co-Trustee
C~uss Stout
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Cecilia Gallardo June 30, 1998
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-04 - RUSSELL STOUT &
ASSOCIATES: The development of a retail building totaling 7,000 square feet on a 39,750 square
foot parcel, in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the northeast corner of Archibald
Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 1076-191-09. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 84-13.
Desiqn Parameters:
The project site is located within an existing commercial shopping center that houses a gas station,
fast food restaurants, and retail shops. North and east of the site are residential properties. The
shopping center was developed under Conditional Use Permit 84-13 that created a Master Plan for
the development of the site. The Master Plan addressed conceptual building locations, overall
circulation, points of ingress and egress, parking layout, and provided conceptual elevations which
included architectural style, various product types, form, bulk, height, and materials. The subject
parcel is one of two properties within the shopping center left undeveloped. The tenant for the
proposed pad building is "Hollywood Video." A bank was previously approved for this pad
(DR 87-10).
Backqround:
The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on June 2, 1998, and focused on Site Plan and
design issues. The Committee requested the applicant incorporate architectural revisions to provide
enhanced elevations. (See attached June 2, 1998, Committee Action Comments.)
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Major Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this
project::
1. The revised Site Plan and elevations incorporate the Committee and staffs comments, including
relocating the south tower element, providing a continuous tile roof, and incorporating accent
paving at the main entrance on the west side of the building. The revised plans also show a
deepened arcade for the west and south elevations, similar to the existing colonnade in the
shopping center. On the nodh and east elevations, a series of recessed arches are proposed
to simulate an arcade, with an 18 inch arch and column pop-out. The recessed arches will have
a contrasting inset color with trellis and vine planrings.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Provide landscaping in decorative pots that can accommodate a small tree along the west and
south elevations.
2. Relocate or replace existing trees to be removed.
3. Additional landscaped areas, including trees, should be provided wherever possible.
4. Lumber size for exposed rafter tails to match those in the existing center.
5. Use wall mounted light fixtures that are compatible and compliment the building design. H.V.
lights are not acceptable. Provide sconce lights for upward or downward lighting.
6. Recess a portion of the arch on the west and south elevation towers.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 98-04 - RUSSELL STOUT & ASSOCIATES
,June 30, 1998
Page 2
7. increase height of the column bases to be consistent with the shopping center,
8. Building colors and materials to match those in e~isting center.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications as
recommended above.
Desi,cln Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fond
Staff Planner: Cecilia Gallardo
The Committee reviewed the proposed project and recon~mended approval subject to the secondary
issues identified by staff as well as the following:
1. Provide spandrel glass for the exterior office wall ~t the south elevation.
2. Provide recessed arches with trellis' and adjacent landscape strip on the west elevation, north
of the entrance.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
'1. Project File: Development Review 98-04
2. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit 64-13
3. Description of Project: Environmental Assessment and Development Review 98-04 -
Russell Stout & Associates - The development of a retail building totaling 7,000 square feet
on a 39,750 square foot parcel, in the Neighborhood Commercial district, located at the
northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 1076-191-09.
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Russell Stout & Associates
4635 Cass Street
San Diego, CA 92109
5. General Plan Designation: Neighborhood Commercial
6. Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
North - Zoned neighborhood commerciai and developed with a shopping center; Zoned
medium-high residential and developed with multi-family units.
South - Zoned neighborhood commercial and developed with a shopping center.
East - Zoned neighborhood commercial and undeveloped; Zoned low-medium residential
and developed with a mobile home park.
West - Zoned neighborhood commercial and developed with a commercial shopping
center.
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:
Cecilia Gallardo
(909) 477-2750
10. Other agencies whose approval is required:
Cucamonga County Water District
Rancho Cucamonga Fire District ~ ] ~.
/ "F"'
L
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 98-04 Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
.
The environmental factors checked below would be po, tentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impa:ct," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages,
( ) Land Use and Planning (X) TranSportation/Circulatiod ( ) Public Services
( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems
( ) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resodrces ( ) Aesthetics
(X) Water ( ) Hazards ~ ( ) Cultural Resources
( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise , ( ) Recreation
( ) Mandatory Findings of Sig,nificance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
(X) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, will be prepared.;
I find that although the proposed project could ha, vea significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the 15roject, or agreed to, by the applicant. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be~ prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a sigfiificant 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 analy, zed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards. and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant tO that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signed: C'~ia Gall~rdo
Assistant Planner
May 11, 1998
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 98-04 Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation
is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to
mitigate the significant effects identified.
Potenlialty
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposah
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Induce substantial gro~h in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in
or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 98-04 Page 4
Signr~cant
d) Seiche hazards? ( ) (X)
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) (X)
f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) (X)
g) Subsidence of the land? ) ( ) (X)
h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
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., temperatui'e,
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 dit~ection
of water movements? ( ) (X)
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters', either
through direct additions or withdrawals, Or
through interception of an aquifer by cut,s 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)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 98-04 Page 5
Comments:
a) The development of the site would increase paved surfaces which would increase
discharge of surface water. The existing shopping center has installed drainage
facilities according to City standards to handle the increase in surface water.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal.'
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) (X)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) (X)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ( ) (X)
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) (X)
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ( ) ( ) ( ) (×)
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? ( ) ( ) (×)
Comments:
a) The addition of a video rental store to the shopping center will resalt in an increase
of vehicle trips to the site. However, the site and the public streets are designed to
handle the increase.
Initial Study for ~ City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 98-04 ~ Page 6
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the propo~sal
result in impacts to.'
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare sp ies~ or their
ec
habitats (including, but not limited to: plahts,
fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritag~ trees,
eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Locally designated natural communities ie.g.,
eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etg.)? ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, a~d
vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?: ( ) ( ) (X)
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Wouid the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservatic~n
plans? ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future ',value to
the region and the residents of the State~? ) ( ) ( ) (X)
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release;of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation;)? ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation. plan? ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ; ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 98-04 Page 7
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon or result in a need for new or aflered
government seNices in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protedion? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Other governmental se~ices? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial a~erations 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)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 98-04 Page 8
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)
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the propos~h
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 culturalF
values? ~ ( ) (X)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses!within
the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ) (X)
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood c~r
regional parks or other recreational faciliiies? ( ) ( ) ) (X)
b) Affect existing recreational oppodunities? ( ) ( ) ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 98-04 Page 9
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Potential to degrade: Does the proiect have the
potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-
term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact
on the environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-
term impacts will endure well into the future.)
( ) ( ) (X)
c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? CCumulatively 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 tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to appficable 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):
FROM: RUSSELL STOUT ~ ASSSCIATES PHONE NO. : 619,5812812 Au9. 05 1998 OI:~IPM P2
SENT BY: R CUCA.MCf'~GZ, CC~.~ ~EV; B- 5-98 8:43A~,~; g094772847
Initial Study for i City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 98-04 : Page 10
- I
(X) General Plan EtR
(Certified April 6. 1981)
(X) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1988 General Plan Update
(SCH ff88D20115. certified January zl, 1;g8g)
APPLtCANT CERTIFICATION
I certify thet I am the applicant for fie project descrlbe¢l In tins Ini'ciat Study ~ acknowledge that ~
have read this Initiat Study and the:proposed mitigation measures- Further. I have revised the
project plans Or proposals and/or hereby agree to the p,' rofx)sed mitigation measures ~o avoid the
effects or mitigete the effects to a p ' re clearly ho significant environmental effects would
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 2f091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: Development Review 98-04 Public Review Period Closes: August 12, 1998
Project Name: Project Applicant: Russell Stout &Associates
Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and
Baseline Road - APN: 1076-191-09.
Project Description: The development of a retail building totaling 7,000 square feet on a 39,750 square
foot parcel in the Neighborhood Commercial District. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 84-13.
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an
Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is
proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
[] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment.
[] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this
proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or
mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Im pact 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.
AuRust 12, 1998
Date of Determination Adopted By
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPRQVING DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW NO. 98-04, THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RETAIL BUILDING
TOTALING 7,000 SQUARE FEET ON A 39,750 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL,
IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND BASE LINE ROAD,
AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 1076-191-09.
A. Recitals.
1. Russell Stout and Associates has filed an application for the approval of Development
Review No. 98-04, as described in the title of this Resolution. Heroinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 12th day of August 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 the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting on August 12, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission
hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to a grass pad on a property located at the northeast corner
of Base Line Road and Archibald Avenue with a street frontage of 110 feet and a lot depth of 170
feet which is developed with a shopping center, including full street improvements, parking lot, and
landscaping; and
b. The application applies to property located within an existing shopping center,
Conditional Use Permit No. 84-13, which was approved by the Planning Commission as a master
plan addressing building locations and design; and
c. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with a commercial
shopping center and multi-family residential, the property to the south consists of a retail center, the
property to the east is a mobile home park, and the property to the west is developed with a
shopping center; and
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above,
this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and
August 12, 1998
Page 2
b. That the proposed use is in accord wit,h the objectives of the Development Code
and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and
c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of
the Development Code; and
rw
d. That the proposed use, togethe ith 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.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration,
together with all written and oral reports included fqr the environmental assessment for the
application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a s gn ticant effect upon the environment and ado ,Pts a Negative Declaration based upon the
findings as follows:
a. That the Negative Declaration has beer~ 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; andi 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 environme'ntal effects will occur.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows:! In considering the record as a whole, the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, the~re is no evidence that the proposed project
will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife
depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration the staff
reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public
hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in
Section 753.5(c-1~d) of Title 14 of the California Code qf Regulations.
5. Based upon thq findings and conclusions set forth in paragrap, hs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and ~very condition set forth
below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Planninq Division
1 ) Provide landscaping in decorative pots;that can accommodate a small
tree along the west and south elevations.
2) Trees within the existing plaza shall be preserved in-place or replaced
in kind.
3) Additional landscaped areas, including trees, shall be provided
wherever possible.
4) Lumber size for exposed rafter tails shall match those in the existing
Center.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-04 - RUSSELL STOUT & ASSOC.
August 12, 1998
Page 3
5) Use wall mounted light fixtures that are compatible and compliment the
building design rather than the high voltage lights. Provide sconce
lights for upward or downward lighting.
6) Recess a portion of the arch on the west and south elevation towers.
7) Increase height of the column bases to be consistent with the shopping
center.
8) Building colors and materials shall match those in the existing center.
9) Provide spandrel glass for the exterior office wall at the south
elevation.
10) Provide recessed arches with trellis' and adjacent landscape strip on
the west elevation, north of the entrance.
En~ineerinq Division:
1 ) A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate
landscape and lighting districts shall be filed with the City Engineer
prior to issuance of building permits. If applicable, formation costs shall
be borne by the developer.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 1998.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel. Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buffer, 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 12th day of August 1998, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: Development Review 98-04
SUBJECT: Hollywood Video
APPLICANT: Russell Stout & Associates
LOCATION: Northeast corner Archibald Avenue and Base Line :~oad
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS: ;
A. General Requirements completion Date
1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense a'ny 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 o( 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.
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 ~zith the approved plans which include
site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and qolors, landscaping, sign program, and
grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and the 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 !ime as all Uniform Building Code and
State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with'. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be
submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection DistriCt and the Building and Safety Division
to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy.
1
4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be /
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for /__
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved
use has commenced. whichever comes first.
6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, __/__
all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
7. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc.. shall be __/__
located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete
or masonry walls. berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single
family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults.
8. All building numbers shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper
illumination.
D. Shopping Centers
1. A uniform hardscape and street furniture design including seating benches, trash receptacles,
free-standing potted plants, bike racks. light bollards, etc., shall be utilized and be compatible
with the architectural style. Detailed designs shall be submitted for Planning Division review and
approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
2. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours.
3. The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash and
debris remain for more than 24 hours.
4. Signs shall be conveniently posted for "no overnight parking".
5. Textured pavement shall be provided across circulation aisle, pedestrian walkway, and plaza.
They shall be of brick/tile pavers, exposed aggregate, integral color concrete, or any combination
thereof. Full samples shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits.
6. The lighting fixture design shall compliment the architectural program. It shall include the plaza
area lighting fixtures, building lighting fixtures (exterior), and parking lot lighting fixtures.
7. All future projects within the shopping center shall be designed to be compatible and consistent
with the architectural program established.
E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans)
1.All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall
contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb).
2. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances,
and exits shall be striped per City standards.
3, Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commerdial and office facilities with 25 or more /
parking stalls, Designate two percent or one stall, whichever ~s greater, of the total number of
stalls for use by the handicapped. I
F. Landscaping ~
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope p, nt'ng and mode home landscaping
in the case of residential development. shall be preparedpya 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 subdlwslon~.
2. ' Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in
accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08, 110, apd so noted on the grading plans. The
ocat on of those trees to be preservedin place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be
shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's
recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, ~and trimming methods.
3. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one~' 15-gallon tree for every three parking
stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar' noon on August 21.
4, Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to, and along structures at a rate of one
tree per 30 linear feet of building.
5. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of
Xefiscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cu~amonga Municipal Code.
G. Signs
1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptupI only and not a part of this approval.
Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall, require
separate application and approval by the Planning DivisiOn prior to installation of any signs.
H. Other Agencies
1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to deterSnine the appropriat~ type and location
of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall ~provide a solid overhead structure for
mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the
overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of
building permits. ~
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
I. Site Development
1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical
Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and
all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in e~ffect 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 commercia! or industrial development or addition
to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate.
P~oject No. DR 98-04
Completion Date
Such fees may include. but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee,
School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees.
3.Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and
prior to issuance of building permits.
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.
J. New Structures
1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering
use, area, and fire-resistiveness.
2. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for required occupancy separation(s).
3. Roofing material shall be installed as for wind-resistant roof covering at wind velocity not less
than 90 mph.
K. Grading
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City
Grading Standards. and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved grading plan.
2.A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to
perform such work.
3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
L. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project.
2. Fire flow requirement shall be 3,000 gallons per minute.
X a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire
department personnel prior to water plan approval.
X 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. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants,
if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a 4"
and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the
Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers.
4. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be
submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is
available, pending completion of required fire protection system.
Project No DR9g-04I
Completion Date
5. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required fe all hydrants and installed prior to final
inspection.
6. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required, as noted below:
X Other: as per Ordinance #15 if over 7500 square f,eet.
Note: Special sprinkler densities are required i 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.
7. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: ,
X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. __ /__
8. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall /
be submitted prior to final building plan approval. ContaCt the Fire Safety Division for specific
details and ordering information.
9. Plan check fees in the amount of $677.00 shall be paid pi'ior 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:
M. Security Lighting
1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minim. um maintained 1-foot candle power.
These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored ceIL
2. AiIbui~dingssha~~haveminimaisecurity~ightingt~eIiminatedarkareasar~undthebui~dings~with
direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting ~;hall be consistent around the entire
development. '
3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures.
N. Security Hardware
1, One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within
40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used.
O. Windows
1. Store front windows shall be visible to passing pedestrians and traffic.
P. Building Numbering
1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting colbr and shall be reflective for nighttime
visibility.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 12, 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERM IT 91-24 - MASI - A review of a request to place the La
Fourcade arch in a recessed area at the west elevation instead of placing it above
the building entry at the east elevation of Building 5.
ABSTRACT: The applicant requests the Commission to review and approve the relocation of the
La Fourcade arch to the recessed area at the west elevation of Building 5.
BACKGROUND: The arch was preserved as mitigation for the demolition of the historic La
Fourcade store (see Exhibits "G" & "H"). Preservation ofthe arch was required bythe City Council.
The La Fourcade arch was approved for placement above the building entry of Building 5, as shown
in Exhibit "C." Building 5 is presently being improved and expanded. The applicant stated he
anticipated the shell building to be completed by end of August. In early July, the applicant informed
staff that he believed the arch does not go well with the architecture of the building and, therefore,
would like to place it at the west elevation. Because the restoration and placement of the La
Fourcade arch is a historic preservation mitigation, staff recommended that the applicant submit a
formal request for the proposed change (see Exhibit "A").
ANALYSIS: In considering this request, it is essential for the Commission to review the history and
purpose of the Vintner's Walk. The Commission needs to determine whether such a change in
location would compromise or enhance the essence and flow of the Vintner's Walk.
A. Reasons for Applicant's Request and the Proposed Chanqes: The applicant, in his letter
dated July 14, 1998, stated that the La Fourcade arch is not consistent with the architectural
scale and style of Building 5. He believed that the arch and its' history can be better displayed
along the main entry drive to Masi Plaza on the west side of the building in a pop-out area with
a recessed niche. He proposed to install a pedestal to place the plaque with the written
history of the La Fourcade family within the sidewalk next to the recessed niche. Also, he
proposed to add murals to each of the four recessed areas at the west elevation, which will
pictorially display the La Fourcade period and the history of wine making. Furthermore, he
stated that the entry arch is in structural disrepair, has dry rot, and would be difficult to safely
attach above the building's entry door. He stated that the area above the doorway could be
used for placing a sign or logo forthe micro-brewery restaurant. Exhibits "D" & "E" show the
proposed placement of the arch and the conceptual theme for the four murals.
ITEM K
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 91-24- MASI
August12,1998
Page 2
B. Brief History and Purpose of the Vintner's Walk: The Vintner's Walk (Exhibit "B-2") is the
result of a mitigation for the removal of structure.~ deemed Historic Point of Interests by the
City Council in September of 1991. The mitigation .=quired the applicant to incorporate details
of the site's history through commissioned pubic art and development and placement of
i..
interpretive public displays. A subcommittee con,s~stlng of members from the Planning and
Historic Preservation CommissiOns was set up in 1992 to review the applicant's proposal for
fulfilling the mitigation. The concept of a Vintner's Walk was then developed. It is
approximately 160 feet long between Denny's arid Building 5. The walk is punctuated by
overhead metal pipe trellises; a statue; display Of numerous (36) plaques inscribed with
Vintner's names, wineries; and the dates of their ~stablishment on a continuous seat wall; a
display of five plaques inscribed with the text and graphics depicting the history of wine
making and the La Fourcade period; a display of the La Fourcade arch (preserved from the
demolished store at the corner 'of Rochester Avenue and Foothill Boulevard) above the
building entry of Building 5; and the display of a st9ry board about the La Fourcade family in
the form of a plaque inside Building 5. The purpose of this Vintner's Walk is to help people
better understand the history of the street corner a.~d the La Fourcade store by reading about
it along and at each end of the walk. ,.
C. Evolution of Buildinq 5 Desiqn: Building 5 was 6riginally designed specifically for the Old
Spaghetti Factory. The building was designed ito create a niche at the main entrance
specifically to accommodate the La Fourcade arch (see Exhibit "G-1 "). On March 12, 1998,
the City Planner issued an approval for the new bui!ding design (Development Review 97-42)
after the application had successfully completed the design review process. The west
elevation included storefront windows at the time Of approval. Because the Compass Creek
restaurant and micro-brewery is taking two-thirds of the building, the storefront windows at the
west elevation have to be removed. The City Planner approved the changes for the west
elevation with the condition that apop-out area with a recessed niche be added to the building
plane and that murals be added to the blank walls within the recessed areas, as shown in
Exhibit "C-2."
D. Current Status of Vintner's Walk and the La Fourcade Arch:
1. Vintner's Walk: The mitigation described in ,Section C was to be installed prior to the
occupancy of Denny's or Building 5, whichev~er came first. Denny's has been open for
more than a year. To date, the applicant has 'installed the overhead metal pipe trellises;
the hardscape; the bulk of the landscaping Within the walkway; the statue; the plaques
inscribed with Vintner's names, wineries, and dates along the seat wall; and the
pedestals forthe display of the history ofwine making. The plaques forthe wine making
have yet to be installed. The La Fourcade arch and the related story plaques are not
installed because Building 5 is still under construction.
2. The La Fourcade Arch: Presently, the arch i~; stored inside a structure on the property
owned by the Masi family, which is located ndrth of the City's parking lot at the east side
of RochesterAvenue. Exhibit "G" shows the arch and its condition. (Colored photoswill
be available at the meeting for the Commission's review.) The mitigation approved by
the Council stated that the arch, or a replica of it, shall be considered for incorporation
into the public art or interpretative exhibit (see Exhibit "F").
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 91-24 - MASt
August 12, 1998
Page 3
E. Options for Commission's Consideration:
1. La Fourcade Arch above Entry: Having the arch above the building entry at the east
elevation with the story plague on a pedestal next to it, as well as a plaque inside the
building, will create a terminus for the story telling from one end (Denny's) to the other
end (Building 5). It is a comfortable distance (160 feet) for people to walk through and
read the stories from the different plaques.
2. La Fourcade Arch in a Recessed Niche: Moving the arch to a recessed niche in a pop-
out area at the west elevation, together with the murals, would extend the Vintner's
Walk. The recessed niche would shield the arch from weathering more than it being
placed above a building entry. However, the west elevation is the service entrance and
the back side of Building 5. Generally, patrons of the restaurants, Denny's and the
micro-brewery, would not walk around to the back of a building. The issue is how to
encourage patrons to walk around to view the arch, the story plaques, and the murals.
This part of the walk would not be as inviting as the one between the two buildings.
STAFF'S CONCLUSION: Because the mitigation stated that the arch be incorporated into public
art or interpretative displays, moving it to the west elevation in a recessed niche would technically
meet that intent. Staff believes that the best choice location for the arch is above the building entry.
If the applicant is concerned with the condition of the arch being beyond repair, a replica could be
built and still meet the intent of the mitigation.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the arch stays above the building entry as originally
approved. If the Commission determines that the placement of the arch at the west elevation is
acceptable, then the Commission should direct the applicant to complete the four murals, install
the arch in the recessed niche, and install the pedestal with the story plaque, prior to the release
of occupancy for the first tenant and install a new decorative arch element above the building entry
prior to release of occupancy for the shell of Building 5. The decision of. the Commission can be
rendered by minute action.
City Planner
BB:NF:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant dated July 14, 1998
Exhibit "B" - Detailed Site Plan and the Vintner's Walk
Exhibit "C" - Approved Elevations of Building 5 (DR 97-42)
Exhibit "D" - Proposed Changes to the East and West Elevations
Exhibit "E" - Proposed Murals Concept
Exhibit "F" - City Council Resolution No. 91-275
Exhibit "G" - Photos of the La Fourcade Arch
Exhibit "H" - Drawings of the La Fourcade Arch
To: Nmncy Fong. Plamning Division t~te: Jui>' i4. 1998
Cit>' of R;,ncho Cucamonga
From: Jack Mast
Mast Comn~erce Center Panners
~e: Building ~5 - Conditional Use Permit -~Loeation of LaFourcade EatD' Arch
Dear Nanc>':
\Ve proposed to move the LaFourcade entry arch tS the niche of the western side of the
building as sho`.,,'n on tile attached elevations. rather than o`. er the entrance to the Mast
Family \Viacry extension. The reasons for the prol~osed relocation are as
1 ) Tile LaFourcade entry arch is not consistent wi!h the architecture scale and style of the
expanded \Viacry building. The entry arch ,.,,'as intended for a snlalter residential building
,,vith an attached store. Additionall>'. the entr> arc.n is incomplete in that tile ceptral niche on
the entry arch is missing a sculpmred figure. Judgi',ng ~'om historical photos. titat entr>'
sculpture was probably a wooden Madonna. This .qcutptural piece would be necessary if the
arch ,,`,'as featured as pan of the entrance: ho,,`.ever.,the religious aspect. we think. is
inappropriate in a commercial building. ,
2) The entr>' arch and its histot>' can better be disdla>'ed along the main entr>' drive to Y, lasi
Plaza on the west side of building 5 in the second ;"niche" from the north, as shown on tile
attached elevatiom two murals would flank the niche on either side in dedication to
LaFourcade. The niche to the right of the entry arch ,,voukl depict the niche as how it
originall>>>' looked on the building at the sw corner o'f Foothill and Rochester when it
originall>' built. TIle identification plaque would be= relocated along the sidewalk on the
entr>' drive ficing tile entry arch and flanking mural. A better stor>' can be told in this way.
The `.`.'hole scene would also be visible to more people passing b>'.
3) The entr>' arch is in structural disrepair and has dry-rot and would be difficuh to safely
attach above the winery entr>' door. The entr>' arch:can better be preserved closer to the
ground and tied into the architectural niche. The efttry arcIt would be mounted on a concrete
pedestal and the pedestal covered in tile cut-stone u~ed on the building.
4) The area above tile doorway on the winer>' entrance is better utilized for the name and
i -
logo of the micro-brewery..-ks the architectural eley~tttons show, v,'e would retain the
flanking columns and lintel over the door;vay: we ~{'ou!d additionall>' provide cut-stone over
the entire rice off tile ~`.inery entrance.
Xanc}Fon~
PaSe Two
Jui? !a. 1098
it siDt!ld be ren~.en~.bered that origins. all}' the Historical Preservation Com--:~.ission did
require us to save tI:e entry arch: we were requLred to do an archiEectk'.ral docksmeditation of
it. It was our idea to place it over the doorway of the win~ry buildi~g.
However. at tha~ time in 1991. we did not have an} design plans ibr the winery building or
an intended use. We did not ~Dw the co~dition of the arch at;d did not consider tNe
historical copx¢xt. We also did not have a concrete plat~ to celebrate LaFourcade. In
retrospect. it really required mor~ consideration.
We believ~ ~he above is a much better approach.
Sincerely,
Ydck Masi
DET I
MURAL 1 MURAL 2 MURAL 3 MURAL 4 MURA 5 '"
CtJP~l",2--~MURAL LAYOUT
~.,~ ,~rr"Pz" /,,¢~"r ~z,~A-"r
'~!~~ n n n n I n n
O~mT 2. -"-"-
COPqt-2.-q :
L
Masi Plaza
Thumbnails for Murals, pac~e 1 · Art bY Raymond persin~er
Masi Plaza
Thumbnails for Murals. Page 1 . Art b~/Raymond persinger
RaVr'nond PersingerCc~/-~.,
Isslo
Visit us on the web:
http:lfv~ww.SiteAr!ist.comiPersinger
J
RESOU3I~ON NO. 91-275
A RESOU3I~ON OF Trl CiTY C!7aWCIL OF THE Ci'iY OF Pj~NC~O
CUCAMDNGA, CALIFORNIA, APFRDVING HISTOtlC FOINT OF
INI'~iEST 91-02 DESIGNATING THE LAFDURCADE STORE, I_OC/X'~/3
kT 11871 ~I, BOULEVARD, AS A POINT OF INI'k/{EST AND
uti<i'IF!CATION OF A ~I'i'iGAiI'klJ NEGA~ DECLARAT/O~ FOR
D]3vIOLiTION OF TrIE SlRUCILTRE - APN: 229-011-10
A. Recitals.
(i) -The City has filed an application for a Point of Interest as
described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution,
the subject Point of Interest is referred to as the "application."
(ii) On Se[yteraber 5, 1991, the Historic Preservation C~i~idssion of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga cor~ucted a duly noticed public hearing on the
application and concluded said hearin~ on that date.
(iii) On September 18, 1991, the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cu~ co~]ucted a duly nctie~d public hearing on the application and
concluded said hearing on the date.
(iv) All leqal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this
Pasolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NCW, ~uRE, the City Council of the City of Rancho CucamDnga does
hereby find, determine and resolve as follows:
1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set
forth in the Recitals, Part "A, " of this Resolution are true ar~ correct.
2. The application applies to approximately one acre of lar~,
h3sic~lly a rectar~ar configuration, located on the southwest correr of
Foothill Boalerard and Pachestar (~e) Avenue intersection.
3. Paced upon the ~h~tantial evidence presented to this Council
during the akcve-referenced public h~arir~ on September 18, 1991, incl~g
written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, ar~ pursuant
to Section 2.24.090 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Ccde, and pursuant to
the Historic Preservation C~,,~ssion policy regarding lar~mark designation
over an o~ner's objection, this Council hereby makes the follc~ing firdjn~s
and facts:
A. Historical ara Cultural Significance:
Firaing: 1. The proposed Point of Interest w~s c3nnect, ed
personality.
Resolution No. 91-275
Page 2
Fact/s: John B. L~Flourcade estabti~.hed an advanced
and elabDr~te wLneT. aking and grape-handling
business i~2 an era marked by failed at~m~yts
at such endeavors in the Rochester/Cucamonga
" 1
area. Se~ung y well known t~out the
County, LaFourcade represents an important
e4xnh and!antrepreneurial spirit of th/s
valley.
Finding: 2. ~he architect or builder was important.
Fact/s: In chcosing J. N. Johnson to design and
construct his winery o~lex, T~Fourcade was
one of fe~ !local property owners in the late
teens-earl~ 1920s to emp. loy a contractor who
~s very well known in the County. Johnson
constructed many large and imp. ressive public
and private baildings in San Bernardino,
R~)ards, ar~ Colton.
B. H/storic Arch/tectur~l and~ EDgineering Significance:
Fireling: 1. 1~ne corstruction r, ateria]~ or engineering
methods used in tb~ p~ oposed Point of
Interest are unusual or significant or
uniquely effective.
Fact/s: Although i~ has been altered, . the main
entrance of' the building wh/ch is marked by
a parapet and flanked witch Corinth/an
pilasters, :re~ains as a testament to a
design palette orearid by LaFourcade
Johnson ~mich w~s unique to th/s area.
C. Neigh~orhocd ard Gec~phi~ Setting:
Finding: 1. ~he proposed Point of Interest in its
location represents an established and
familiar visual feature of the neighborhood,
o~i~i~nity, 0r city.
Fact/s: As a gas station, store, ar~ restaurant, the
subject ~t~cture stan~s as a 70-year-old
notable fzLxture in the c~l~nity's
landscape.
4. Ibis Council hereby finds that t_h.e project has been reviewed and
considered for c~i~liance with the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970. If properly mitigated, the requested d~molition of the LaFouzrade Store
w~u_ld not require further envirormentel re?iew ar~ a mitigated Negative
Declaration will be issued for su&h demolition.
, ~
.~asolL~ion No. 9!-275
Page 3
5. Based .upon the' fird~mgs and ~nclusioD~ set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, 3, and 4 above, t_h/s Council hereby resolves that parsuant to Cl~apter
2.24 of the Rancho Cucamonqa Municipal CEde, .the City Council of the City
of Pancho Cucamonga hereby approves, on the lSth day of Septamfmer 1991, Point
of Interest 91-02 for the laFourcade Store. ~he Omancil further adupts the
following Conditions of Approval mitigating the request~ demolition:
1) No den~lition permits shall be issued for the existing
structures prior to the property owner's writtan acknowl-
edgment and a~c~=mtance of the Cultural Pasource Mitigation
M~ares ~_r the mitigated Negative Declaration;
2) ~qe develu~ent of the site shall incorpDrate details of
the site's history, in particular the IaFourcade pericd,
~ the incorporation of the follcI~ir~ n~ires:
oa~ssioned public art ard development ard placement of
interpretire public displays. ~he final specifications of
such m~lres shall be reviewed by the F_istoric Prese_rv~-
tion Ccmmlission and forwarded with a rec~iendation to the
Planning C~i~idssion during developrent/design review
hearings on any development p.rcposal for this site. Final
approval of the appropriate public art ar~ interpretive
d i~lDlays shall occur prior to the issuance of building
4) ~e developer shall contribute $10,000 to the Chaffey-
Garcia House Barn project, which will be used to develop a
museum/cultural center depicting and exhibiting the
agricultural heritage of the area. ~e City Council may,
upon the input of the Historic Fretion C~aidssion,
allocate these funds to another similar type of preserva-
tion project, including bat not necessarily limited to, the
Historic Fretion Site and Lard-Banking Fund, depending
upon the tim/rig of the c~i~liance with this mitigation.
~his contrikution shall be provided prior to the issuance
of blilding permits of any .~base of the Masi C~erce
Resolution No. 91-275
Page 4
5) ~he site developer sha!l~spom~r four Oral History inter-
views of ind/viduals kn~7_~ledgeable of the LaFcurcade/Masi
era of significance. ~hese interviews, T~/Ch shall net
exceed a cost of $5,00~.00, shall he conducted by a
consultant appr~ved by Cit~y staff.
PASS~ID, APPMJVED, and AEOPlta3 this ~Sth day of September, 1991.
AYES: Alexander, Buqu~t, Stout, Willjams, Wright
NOES: None
ABS~INT: None
Dennis L. ~cut, Mayor
J. city cl k
I, DEBRA J. A~AMS, ~l'rf CT,FRK of', the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
california, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution w-as duly Passed,
app. rcved, and adupt~d by the City Council ~f the City of Ranc. ho Cuclmong~,
California, at a regular n~eting of said Cit~2 Council held on the 18th day of
~Sept~, 1991.
Executed th/s 19th day of Se.Dtember., 1991 at Ratio Cucamong~,
California.
~Ad~j City clerk
View Looking --~OCJ-"V'I-I . Da~e of'Photo
14%6" ~~//~/~I
~ -LAFOURCADE PARAPET
_ r ,:~, .-~,_,,~,-, ~_ ~ >
EELEV~TION
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 12, 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buffer, City Planner
BY: Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary
SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
BACKGROUND: The resignation of Bill Bethel leaves a vacancy on the Design Review Committee.
Once Committee membership has been determined, the Committee may also wish to reconsider
the meeting time and day. Currently meetings are held at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday evenings of the
week prior to Planning Commission meetings.
The current membership is as follows:
COMMITTEE ALTERNATES fin order)
Rich Macins Peter Tolstoy
Larry McNiel
A history of Design Review Committee membership since January 1993 is attached as Exhibit "AY
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should determine appropriate membership for
the Design Review Committee.
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:GS/gs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Design Review Committee Membership History
iTEM L
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
January 1993 to Plresent
~ ALTERNATES
COMMITT:EE (in order)
January 1993 -October 1993: John Melcl~er Peter Tolstoy
Wendy Vall~ette Suzanne Chitlea
Larry McNiel
October 1993 - December 1993: Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy
John Melc.ber Suzanne Chitlea
Wendy Vallette
December 1993 - June 1994: Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy
John Melcher Heinz Lumpp
Dave Barker
June 1994 - December 1994: Heinz Lum'pp Peter Tolstoy
John Melcher Larry McNiel
; Dave Barker
December 1994 - Auqust 1995: Heinz Lum~p Peter Tolstoy
Larry McN~el Dave Barker
: John Melcher
Auqust 1995 to January 1996: Heinz Lumpp Dave Barker
John Melcl~er Peter Tolstoy
Larry McNiel
January 1996 to Aufiust 1996: Heinz Lum,pp Peter Tolstoy
Larry McNiel Dave Barker
John Melcher
Au.qust 1996 to January 1997: Rich Maci,as Bill Bethel
Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy
! Dave Barker
January 1997 to present: Bill Bethe:l Peter Tolstoy
Rich Macias Dave Barker
Larry McNiel
Exhibit
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '
STAFF RF, PORT
DATE: August 12, 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON VICTORIA ARBORS (FORMERLY THE LAKES)
PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to update the Commission on the status of Victoria Arbors.
The City's environmental consultant, LSA, has been working on the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) since April of 1998. Because of unforseen problems with the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA),
the completion of the draft EIR has been delayed from July until the end of August. Since there is
a 45-day review period for public agencies, staff does not anticipate scheduling the EIR for
Commission review until the second meeting in November at the earliest.
Staff and the applicant's team have been meeting regularly to review the progress of the EIR and
to evaluate technical issues such as drainage, circulation, etc., that affect the design of the master
Tentative Map for Victoria Arbors. To date, the applicant has not formally submitted the master
Tentative Map application because of issues regarding the locations of the school, park, and open
space. Staff intends to have a series of workshops with the Commission once the master Tentative
Map is submitted. The workshops, which may be held in September and October, will focus on
subjects such as the locations for the school and park, size of open space, subdivision design,
infrastructure phasing, land use alternatives, etc. Staffalso plans to hold aneighborhood meeting
before forwarding the master Tentative Map for Commission review. The applicant intents to
process separate applications for the design review of homes after the master Tentative Map is
approved
~mi~l~lj~ ~
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:NF/jfs
ITEM 0