Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998/08/31 - Agenda Packet- ~, CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION + ~ AGENDA MONDAY AUGUST 31, 1998 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Aliegiance Roll Call Chairman McNiel __ Vice Chairman Macias __ Commissioner Barker __ Commissioner Tolstoy __ II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 8, 1998, Adjourned Meeting July 22, 1998 July 22, 1998, Adjourned Meeting August 12, 1998 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controversial They wilt 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 98-11 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES - A design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Phase 2 of Tract 14380, consisting of 22 single family lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, south of North Overlook Drive - APN: 225-451-54 and 225-461-01 through 04 and 43 through 59. B. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-16 FOR AMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 15727 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES-The review of a guard house, gates, and private roadway improvements for Amended Tentative Tract 15727 on a total of 82 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Fourth Street, west of Archibald Avenue and bordered by Sixth Street on the north. APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33. Related files: Tentative Tract 15727 and Vacation of Underlying Public Right-of-Way. C. VACATION OF UNDERLYING PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH AMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 15727 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES - A request to find the vacation of various public rights-of-way within a gated residential community in conformance with the General Ran - APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 26, 32, and 33. Related files: Tentative Tract 15727 and Development Review 98-16. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public headngs in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. AI) such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND AMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 15727 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES - An amendment to Tentative Tract 15727 for the purpose of developing a gated residential community with private streets of 342 single family lots and a 5-acre public neighborhood park on a total of 82 acres of land in the Low- Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Fourth Street, west of Archibald Avenue and bordered by Sixth Street on the north. An Environmental Impact Report was certified for Tentative Tract 15727 and staff has concluded that no additional impacts will result from the development of the amended map and that no additional environmental review is required. A Negative Declaration for the amended tentative tract will be prepared. APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33. Related files: Development Review 98-16 and Vacation of Underlying Public Right-of-Way. Page 2 VARIANCE 98-02 - CHARLES JOSEPH AND ASSOCIATES - A request to reduce the required interior side ~operty line setback and rear properly line setback to zero feet where the Development Code requires minimum setbacks of 5 feet and 20 feet respectively and to reduce the number of trees planted along exterior building wails where the Development Code requires one tree per 30 linear feet of building wall exposed to public view for a public storage project on 4.2 acres of land in the General Commercial District, located at the southwest corner of Arrow Highway and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 209-041-09. Related files: Conditional Use Permit 98-17, and Preliminary Review 98-05. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13796 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map including design review forthe development of 111 condominium units on 7.92 acres of land in the Medium Residential designation (8-14 units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located on the south side of Mountain View Drive, east of Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-151-32. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14207 - HERITAGE PARK DEVELOPMENT - A request ~or an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map including design review for the development of 28 single family lots on 19.8 acres of land in the Very Low Density Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Beryl Street, south of Heritage Park - APN: 1062-051-01. Related files: Variance 91-03 and Tree Removal Permit 91-05. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. H. TIME EXTENSION FOR VARIANCE 91-03 - HERITAGE PARK DEVELOPMENT - A request to reduce the minimum corner lot width- from 100 feet to 90 feet and the minimum lot area from 20,000 square feet to 14,502 square feet on Lot 26; to reduce the minimum lot depth from 150 feet to 146.19 feet and 145.75 feet on Lots 11 and 14, respectively; and to reduce the minimum average lot size from 22,500 square feet to 22,228 square feet within Tentative Tract 14207, consisting of 28 single family lots on 19.8 acres of land in the Very Low Density Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Beryl Street, south of Heritage Park - APN: 1062-051-01. Related files: Tentative Tract 14207 and Tree Removal Permit 91-05. Page 3 I. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15209 - BELL COURT INDUSTRIAl - A subdivision of 2.18 acres of land into 2 parcel~in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 10838 and 10868 Bell Court- APN: 209-491-37. VI. NEW BUSINESS J.- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-12 - UNSWORTH: The development of a 45,990 square foot industrial building on 2.5 acres of land in Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northwest terminus of Bell Court, west of Red Oak Street - APN: 209-491-050. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general pubtic to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS IX. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an l l :OO p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. I, Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on August 26, 1998, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. / Page 4 VICINITY MAP i/ I I I I ~' .z.~ , , ) · k CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' ~k~ STAFF REPORT DATE: August 31, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Tom Grahn, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-11 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES - A design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Phase 2 of Tract 14380, consisting of 22 single family lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, south of North Overlook Drive - APN: 225-451-54 and 225-461-01 through 04 and 43 through 59. SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site is located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Wilson Avenue. Tract 14139 is located directly to the north and Tract 12659 is located directly to the south. The project site is currently vacant and was rough graded several years ago. The current phase is located directly adjacent to Phase 1 of the tract which is currently under construction. Phase 1 was approved through Development Review 96-27 which was approved by the Planning Commission on January 22, 1997. ANALYSIS: A. Backqround: On September 28, 1988, the Planning Commission approved Tract 13527 for the subdivision of 88 acres into 252 single family lots. Prior to tract recordation and design review, Tract 13527 was broken down into smaller tracts (e.g., Tracts 14379, 14380, 14381, and 14382). Tracts 14379 and 14380 have been recorded. Tract 14380 contains a total of 80 lots, Phase 1 includes 20 lots, and Phase 2 contains 22 lots. The remaining 38 lots will be subject to future development review applications. B. General: This project will utilize the three floor plans currently being developed in Phase 1 and will also provide a fourth floor plan for consideration. Both single- and two-story units are proposed in the four floor plans which range in size from 2,820 to 4, 143 square feet. The four floor plans have three elevations each that were designed to reflect the architectural styles of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Proposed architectural styles include: Ranch, Bungalow, San Juan, Santa Barbara, and Country. C. Desiqn Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on two separate occasions. On July 14, 1998, the Committee (Bethel, Macias; Fong) reviewed the project and recommended the following: ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-11 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES August 31, 1998 Page 2 1. Provide a hip roof element above the bathroom window projection on the second floor of the Plan 4 elevation. 2. Provide shutters on the front elevation of Plan 4B. 3. Revise the openings on the turret element of the Plan 4A elevation. 4. On future development phases of Tract 14380, the developer shall make every attempt to provide single-story units on all corner lots. On August 4, 1998, the Committee (Macias, McNieh Fong) reviewed the project on a consent calendar basis. The Committee reviewed the proposed revision to the turret element of the Plan 4A elevation and recommended approval of the project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Design Review 98-11 through adoption of the attached Resolution. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:TG:Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" - Detailed Site Plan/Grading Plan Exhibit "C" - Elevations Exhibit "D" - Design Review Committee Comments dated July 14, 1998 Resolution of Approval ,I LOTS 16-20, 59-75 · ,X~.t ~0 ~.:~'-~'i~ /.-,.;.,,.-.,'~c~.~ / - ........ ' ........ 24th Street-- ~ J SCALE=I'~20' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA · SCALE:I" 20' PHASE 2 ~,,:,,.~T~,~,,~- ........ PRECISE GRADING PLAN · ~R._O,~T ELEVATI N 'B' FRONT ELEVATION ' SAN JUAN FRONT ELEVATION B~GALOW 2 """' ROOF PLAN REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION BUNGALOW RIGHT ELEVATION (,~ ~,TO.O_~sBL_A"~__;";t" ~,,EA..R,ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION _ RANCH RIGHT ELEVATION ~': ~' LEFT ELEVATION ROOF PLAN ~;.= ~EAR ELEVATIOM .,' FRONT ELEVATION S~ ~AN '~ RIGHT ELEVATION ....' -,.-,,,,, ~-- LEFT ELEVATION /~/~ FRONT ELEVATION ;"" .... 'B" ~ - _~, .I , ,,,, .. ,,., ...., , ~ ...... ,; RANCH ~ E~T ELEVATION ~ COUNTY FRONT ELEVATIgN lAW SANTA BARBARA REVIVAL 11 f]O [] rOOF PLAN REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION S~A B~A ~IVAL RIGHT ELEVATION ' J ___ ;, - -J t " ' , ...... ROOF PLAN ~.-...- REAR ELEVATION F~Z ELEVATION RANCH RIGHT ELEVATION ~' Z -,,.." LEFT ELEVATION ROOF P/AN ......... REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION COUNTRY RIGHT ELEVATION """" LEFT ELEVATION 17 FIRST FLOOR PLAN OPTIONAL BEDROOM 5 I' SECOND FLOOR PLAN ~-;;~-"__~.z~,~,,~,~c,'~ 19 RANCH FRONT ELEVATION :-"'~*'~ COUNTRY " FRONT ELEVATION ~""*~'~ SANTA BARBARA REVIVAL ROOF PLAN ~EA~ ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION SA~A BARBARA RIVIV~ ~IGHT EL~VATJ~,~N © LEF' ELEVATION ~ ,. R~,ELEVATIQN :~ · ~,~ ~ .............,.... ..... ~ FRONT ELEVATION RANCH RIGHT ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION .RIGHT ELEVATION ,~'_,__. ._ LEFT ELEVATION FLOOR PLAN FIRST ~LOOR PLAN .......... ' ~.,, ~, LIBRARY OPTION eEonoo= 4 ',~ ~ - BEDROOM 6 OPTION "' ~ I · t BED.OO,~ ~ OPT~O. REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION ., .E~,.oo,., · opT,o. RIGHT ELEVATION ~_~F PLAN LEFT ELEVATIOM SECOND FLOOR PLAN ~.~/~,~, ,,. _ .~· ........~ ~' 2 ' ~!P~.LFt°°" P~" '~L--~~:' _. ~:~:::::=~'~T::*%~ .... REAR ELEVATION RIGHT ROOF PLAH LEFT ELEVATION FIRST FLOOR PLAN ~7:::~"~::'[,~.".-'c,.:'Z:~'~ .... REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION ROOF PLAN LEFT ELEVATION DESIGN REVIEW CO~IMENTS 7:00 p.m, Tom Gral~n July 14, 1998 DESIGN REVIEW 98-11 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES - A review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Phase 2 of Tract 14380, consisting of 22 single family lots in the Low Residential District: (2--4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Street, south of North Overlook Drive - APN: 225-451-54, and 225-461-1 to 4 and 43 to 59. Project History: On September 28, 1988, the Planning Commission approved Tract 13527 for the subdivision of 88 acres into 252 single family lots. Prior to tract recordation and design review, Tract 13527 was broken down into smaller tracts (i.e., Tracts 14379, 14380, 14381, and 14382). Tracts 14379 and 14380 have been recorded. Tract 14380 contains a total of 80 lots, Phase 1 includes 20 lots, which are~currently under construction, this phase includes 22 lots. The remaining 38 lots will be subject to future development review applications. Phase 1 of this development includes 3 floor plans. with 3 elevations each. Each floor plan is provided a garage orientation footprint for either a!!front-on or side-~n garage door entrance. The project was designed to reflect 5 of the 7 architectural styles established by the Industrial Area Specific Plan, including the Bungalow, Ranch, San Juap, Country, and Santa Barbara Revival architectural styles. Examples of those styles are included on the attached exhibits. This current design review application will 'utilize those 3 floor plans from Phase 1 and will also provide a 4th floor plan for consideration. The fo!lowing comments are directed at that new floor plan. 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. Revise unit mix to provide single story massing adjacent to the corner side yard areas of lots 59 and 71. 2.- Plan 4, Elevation A, San Juan style: a. Incorporate a gable roof element. b. Provide a boxed out banding along the base. 3. Plan 4, Elevation B, Country style:: a. Provide shutters and continuous window trim. b. Provide an eave overhang with wood out lookOrs. c. Incorporate gable-on-hip elements to the roof line. DRC ACTION DR 98-11 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES July 14, 1998 Page 2 ': Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project subject to the modifications as recommended above. Attachment: Design Review 96-27 - Plans 1, 2, and 3 Front Elevation Only Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Tom Grahn The Design Review Committee (Bethel, Macias, Fong) reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to the following: 1. Provide a hip roof element above the bathroom window projection on the second floor of the Plan 4 elevation. 2. Provide shutters on the front elevation of Plan 4B. 3. Revise the openings on the turret element of the Plan 4A elevation. This element shall be revised and reviewed by the Committee on a Consent Calendar basis. prior to Planning Commission consideration. 4. On future development phases of this Tract (TR 14380), the developer shall make every attempt to provide single story units on all corner lots. A41 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-11 FOR PHASE 2 OF TENTATIVE TRACT 14380, A DESIGN REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR 22 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, SOUTH OF NORTH OVERLOOK DRIVE IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 225-451-54 AND 225-461-01 THROUGH 04 AND 43 THROUGH 59. A. Recitals. 1. Mastercraft Homes has filed an application for Development Review 98-11 for Tract No. 14380. 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 31, 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 31, 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, the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, 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 the Etiwanda North Specific Plan; and d. That the proposed design, togetherwith the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-11 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES August 31, 1998 Page 2 ..: Planninq Division: " 1 ) Provide a hip roof element above the bathroom window projection on the second floor of the Plan 4 elevatibn. 2) Provide shutters on the front elevation of Plan 4B. 3) On future development phases of Tract 14380, the developer shall make every attempt !o provide single,story units on all corner lots. Enqineerinq Division: 1) Provide written verification from CCWD that a cross lot drainage facility (12-inch pipe) can be located within their easement (Lot 68). 2) Private drainage easements shall be recorded for all lots intended to accept cross lot drainage within DR 98-11, prior to issuance of building permits for Lots 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, and 71. 3) Private drainage easements shall be recorded for Lots 56 and 57, intended to accept cross lot drainage from DR 98~11 in a subsequent phase of Tract 14380, prior to issuance of building permits. 4) Install a 12-inch pipe in each private drainage easement, with the grading permit, and a low capacity curbside drain outlet (Standard 107-A). On Lots 64 through 68, the facilities shall include the off-site inlets, if rights of entry are obtained to construct them. 5) Lot line adjustments within DR 98-11 shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. 6) All missing public improvements within the Phase 2 boundaries shall be installed per the approved improvement plans, Drawing 1435. It will be necessary to recheck the plans for conformance to current City Standards, since more than a year has elapsed since their approval. Anticipated revisions,shall include, but shall not be limited to, drive approach and curbSide drain outlet relocations and street tree revisions. 7) Bond substitutions for all of Tract 14380 shall be completed prior to issuance of building permits for this phase. 8) This phase extends ~he local streets more than 600 feet from the intersection of North Overlook Drive ,and Etiwanda Avenue, so a second means of access shall be provided. Completion of the Cambria Drive/Cervantes PlaceNVilson Avenue connection with aggregate base only is acceptable until subsequent phases develop. 9) Install a block wall along the northwest property line of Lots 61 through 69, or equivalent facilities to protect these lots from off-site runoff, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-11 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES August 31, 1998 Page 3 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 31ST 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 31st day of August 1998 by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: TRACT 14380, PHASE 2 SUBJECT: DR 98-11 APPLICANT: MASTERCRAFT HOMES LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF ETIWANDA1 SOUTH OF NORTH OVERLOOK DRIVE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 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 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 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 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 Ranoho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distriot and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected fo~ compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to th'e 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 g~'ading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of ~ 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 building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 8. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each support post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two Y~-ihch 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. 9. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. 10. Slope fencing along side properly lines may be wrought iron or black plastic coated chain link to maintain an open feeling and enhanceMews. 11. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. 12. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. 13.Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other,stone veneers may be manufactured products. : D. 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 de monstrated 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 iPlanner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment, detailing and increased delineation of!surface treatment 'subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 3. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such 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. 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 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. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the / /__ perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 8. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the / design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 9. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: F. Site Development 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical __/__ Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National 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. i 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residenti~ 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, Pa~k Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official. after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 4. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certifi~tion 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 pdor to issuance of building permits. 5. 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. 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 property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City __/__ __ Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to / perform such work. , 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. __/ __ APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. General Fire Conditions 1. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, / UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909)477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: J. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be,of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime / /__ visibility. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: August 31, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-16 FOR AMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 15727 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES - The review of a guard house, gates, and private roadway improvements for Amended Tentative Tract 15727 on a total of 82 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential Distdct (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Fourth Street, west of Archibald Avenue, and bordered by Sixth Street on the north - APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zonincl: North - Single family residential tract; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - Drainage facilities, vacant, and apartments; City of Ontado - Open Space, Single- Family Residential (5.1-11 dwelling units per acre), and Multi-Family Residential (11-16 dwelling units per acre) East - Single family residences and vineyards; Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 16 (Industrial Park) West - Single family residence and vacant land; Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre); City of Ontario - Limited Industrial B. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) North - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - City of Ontado - Proposed Recreation/Open Space/Park, Low-Medium Residential (5.1-11 dwelling units per acre), and Medium Residential (11-16 dwelling units per acre) East - Industrial Park West - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), City of Ontado - General Industrial C. Site Characteristics: The project site gently slopes southward at less than 2 percent gradient. The site has been graded and construction has started on the first two phases. ITEM B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-16 FOR 'IF 15727 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES August 31, 1998 Page 2 - - ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is requesting that Teqtative Tract 15727, which was approved in November 1996, be amended to allow for the development to become a private, gated community. Development Code Section 17.08.,040.O.3 requires private streets be approved by the Planning Commission. The 82-acre site lies at the juncture of the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel and Fo'urth Street and i~ bordered on the north by Sixth Street. The main focus of staffs design review is the "r .etro fitting" of gated community standards on a residential project that was not designed as a private community. The two Golden Oak Road entdes are proposed to have entry and exit gates. The main entry is to be off Fourth Street and includes a guard house (with porte cochere) with a remote control operated gate system. A secondary access is off Sixth Street and has only a remote control gate. The Planning Commission will be separately considering the Amended Tentative Tract 15727 under the public headrig portion of the meetingi B. Desifin Review Committee: 'The design, mateiials, and colors of the gates and the guard house were approved by the Committee (Macias, McNiel, Fong) on August 4, 1998 (Exhibit "A"), with the following changes: 1. The north gate is approved as shown in the amended design submitted to the Design Review Committee on August 4, 1998. 2. One call/card box is required per entry lane (two at the Fourth Street gate and one at the Sixth Street gate). 3. The landscaping along FOurth Street and Golden Oak Road shall be installed as shown on approved plans on file with the Engineering Division. Reductions in the amount of cobblestone hardscape and increases .in the amount of plant matedal may be considered and approved by the City Engineer and City Planner, at their discretion, while maintaining the general landscepin,g/hardscape design concept. 4. The gate house and gate elevations and design/materials were approved as submitted. Native dyer rock, as used on the existing wall pilasters, was approved for use on the gate house. C. Technical Review Committee: The technical issues focused on the Amended Tentative Tract process. The conditions reflect the recommended changes to the responsibility of infrastructure maintenance. With the pdvatizati0n of the streets, all infrastructure maintenance (streets, storm drains, street landscaping, etc.) within the gates is transferred to the Homeowners' Association (HOA) through the Covenants, Conditions, & Restrictions (CC&Rs). In addition, provisions are included for emergency access by Fire and Police services and for school bus access, again via the HOA and CC&Rs. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-16 FOR 'IT 15727 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES August 31, 1998 Page 3 FACTS FOR FINDING: The Commission must make all of the following findings in order to approve this application: A. That the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and B. That the design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and C. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and D. That the design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans or wildlife or their habitat; and E. That the tentative tract is not likely to cause sedous public health problems; and F. That the design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, fo~: access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision; and G. This application would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and certified by the City Council by separate Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Design Review 98-16 through adoption of the attached Resolution. Brad Buller City Planner BB:AW:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Design Review Committee Action Comments dated August 4, 1998 Exhibit "B" - Gated Entry Plan Exhibit "C" - Fourth & Sixth Streets Entry Plans Exhibit "D" - Fourth & Sixth Streets Conceptual Landscape Plans Exhibit "E" - Fourth & Sixth Streets Illustrative Landscape Plans Exhibit "F" - Fourth Street Gate Elevation Illustrative Landscape Plans Exhibit "G" - Fourth Street Guard House Front Elevation Resolution of Approval DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Alan Warren August 4,1998 DESIGN REVIEW 98-16 FOR AMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 15727 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES - The review of a guard house, gates, and private roadway improvements for Amended Tentative Tract 15727 on a total of 82 acres of land, located in the LoW-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) District, at the intersection of Fourth Street and th:e Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel and bordered by Sixth Street on the north. APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND AMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 15727 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES - An amendment to Tentative Tract 15'727 for the purpose of developing a gated residential community of 342 single family lots and a 5-acre public neighborhood park on a total of 82 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) District, at the intersection o:f Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel and bordered by Sixth Street on the north. An Environmental Impact Report was certified,for Tentative Tract 15727. APN:210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and33. Desiqn Parameters: The applicant is requesting that Tentative Tract 15727, which was approved in November of 1996, be amended to allow for the development to become a private, gated community. Development Code Section 17.08.040.0.3 requires private:streets to be approved by the Planning Commission. Since the Design Review Committee reviewed the tract design and made recommendations to the Planning Commission, it is appropriate that the Committee review the gated community proposal. The main focus of staff's review is the "retro fitting" of gated community standards on a residential project that was not designed as a private community. Conceptually, staff does not have a concern with this project becoming a "gated community." The main entry is to be off Fourth Street and includes a Guard House (with porte cochere) in addition to the code/card operated gate system. The secondary access is off Sixth Street and has only: a code/card gate. The 82-acre site lies at the juncture oftfie Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel and Fourth Street, and is bordered on the north by Sixth Street. The project site gently slopes southward at less than 2 percent gradient and has been rough graded and construction started on Phases 1 and 2. Early in 1997, the site was rezoned to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was completed to assess impacts of the land use change and the residential development potential. The' EIR addressed all significant impacts of the tentative tract and the installation of private, community gates will not result in any additional significant impacts. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following issues wili be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. The proposed gate designs are modifications ,to the City's design standards for gated communities. The main entry off Fourth Street does appear to accommodate large moving vans, furniture trucks, school buses and fire equipment around the porte cochere. The orientation of the call box (facing which aisle) is not shown. Staff recommends that a call/card box be provided for each vehicle entry as provided in the Residential Design Guidelines. Resident entry is to be via radio controlled devices (similar to garage door openers). Exhibit "A" ~)4 DRC COMMENTS DR 98-16 & TT15727 August 4, 1998 Page 2 2. The gate off Sixth Street has a 20-foot wide entry drive aisle and a 14-foot wide exit aisle. The Fire District regulations call for each aisle to be at least 20 feet wide. Widening the aisle to the east would result in a three-foot planting area behind the curb adjacent sidewalk. To satisfy the aisle width standard, staff suggests that the applicant consider moving the gate area southerly and use some of Lot 196 (Lot 1 on the Site Plan/Grading Plan) to widen the exit drive aisle. The proposal to bring the curb within I foot of the west property line works with existing grades at the north end of the area to be widened, but in the gate ~ocation, at least 3 feet is needed to daylight a 2:1 slope at the property line. In the same area, the plans show mechanical gate opening devices on both sides of the exiting aisle, but only one along the entry aisle. If an opening device is needed on the west side of Golden Oak Road, sufficient area between the curb line and the adjoining west property line is available for its placement. Again additional area may be acquired from Lot 196. The applicant has been advised of these concerns and may have solutions ready for the committee's consideration at the meeting. Also, the Sixth Street gate does not have a separate visitor lane. Staff recommends that this gate have a sign identifying it as a resident only (no visitors or delivery) entrance. Sign should be subject to the Sign Ordinance regulations and City Planner approval. 3. The tentative tract map shows a potential residential circulation plan for the adjoining northwestern properties. One Street joins Golden Oak Road just north of the northern gates. No other street joins up with the tract's street system although Old Post Drive stubs at the western boundary. This street is intended, under the existing tentative map, to join up with a street in the future residential development to the west. The southern most cul-de-sac in the future plan scales out to 600 feet in length which satisfies the maximum City Standard and Old Post Road is not extended into the future plan. The City may, however, wish to preserve emergency access and drainage easements to Old Post Drive, toallowfiexibilityforfuturedevelopmenthere. Staffrecommendsthattheamendedtentativetract provide emergency access and drainage easement agreements for the adjacent property at this point. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. All drainage easements along the northern property lines should not be granted to the City (as listed on the Amended Tentative Tract) but to the adjacent property owners. 2. The applicant states that school bus access will be made available to the community via the same method as provided for police and fire services. In addition, a bus stop will be provided at the northeast corner of Golden Oak Road and Brook Drive. This feature will be identified with a bus stop sign and paving between the adjacent side Walk and curb line. Staff believes these are acceptable provisions for the school bus issue. Approval of the plan should be conditioned in the CC&R's to provide bus access into the community for the school district(s). 3. The gates and cul-de-sac fencing (at Glenaire and Springbrook Courts) are to be tubular steel and finished in a dark, forest green color. Staff believes this design will present attractive gate entries and recommends that the gate/fence color be non-glossy. The gates and fences should not exceed 6 feet in height (above grade), but may extend to the height of the stone cotumns (no higher than 8 feet) as a design feature as shown on the main Fourth Street entry. DRC COMMENTS DR 98-16 & T1"15727 August 4, 1998 Page 3 4. The guard house is designed with stucco and a c6bblestone base. Staff recommends that thE; structure be finished with a native fieldstone ba~e and with colors and materials previously approved for the tract phases, subject to approval by the City Planner. 5. The illustrative landscape plans for the gate are,as appear appropriate. Final design will b~; coordinated with the approved landscape plans for Fourth Street and Golden Oak Road and subject to City Engineer and City Planner approv;al. 6. All conditions of the approved tentative tract )'nap shall apply to the amended map, by reference, in addition to those conditions required for these applications by the Design Review Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council. The final tracts will be required to join all districts. including the landscape maintenance district, as required by 'R' 15727. The installation, and acceptance by the City, of a public, 5-acre park, with all standard neighborhood park facilities (as presently provided for with publiC: improvement bonds), prior to the occupancy of 30 percent of the units or prior to building permit issuance of 70 percent of the units, whichever occurs first is also required. The public park is not to be included within the private, gated community. 7. The card/code access system shall be in compliance with Fire District and Police (Sheriff) Department requirements. The Fire and Police Departments will be provided with the necessary equipment to gain emergency access into the community. Staff Recommendation: With the exception of the north gate configuration, staff' believes that the gated community proposal is acceptable for approval. If the applicant is able to provide, at the meeting. an acceptable solution to the north gate design issues, staff;would recommend that the amended tentative tract, private community plan, and gate facilities be approved subject to the conditions contained in this report and final City Engineer, City Planner, and Fire Chief approval. If, however, an acceptable solution is not evident. then siaff recommends that the item be continue to the next meeting to give the applicant time to develop an improved design. Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Alan Warren Of the items discussed n the staff comments. the applicant agreed to include in the project the following numbered items listed in this report, aS conditions of approval: Maior Issues - Items 2 and 3 per applicant's letter dated August 3, 1998. Applicant requested Item 1 to be reduced to one call/card box. The Committee decided that as this item is a Planning Commission policy. it is more appropriate for the full Commission to consider any changes. This item remains as a condition. but the applicant was advised to bring the issue up at the Planning Commission hearing. Secondary Issues - No. 1 as listed in the Design Review Committee comments and explained to the applicant applies only to the drainage easements from the neighboring properties to the north. DRC COMMENTS DR 98-16 & TT15727 August 4, 1998 Page 4 Items 2, 5, and 7 per applicant's letter dated August 3, 1998. Item 3 the sample gate material and color, dark green, baked glossy finish, was acceptable. Item 6 related to the Landscaping Plan along Golden Oak Drive and fourth Street. The applicant wishes to change the amount of "hardscape-cobble" in the landscaped area due to the fact that they are willing to have the Homeowners' Association take over the maintenance. The Committee stated that a reduction in the amount of hardscape would be acceptable with a comprise amount worked out with staff. The Committee recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. The north gate is approved per the amended design submitted to the Committee on August 4, 1998. 2. One call/card box is required per entry lane (two at the Fourth Street gate, one at the Sixth Street gate). 3. The landscaping along Fourth Street and golden Oak Drive shall be installed as shown on approved plans on file with the Engineering Division. Reductions in the amount of cobblestone hardscape and increases in the amount of plant material may be considered and approved by the City Engineer and City Planner, at their discretion, while maintaining the general landscaping/hardscape design concept. 4. The gate house and gate elevations and design/materials were approved as submitted. Native river rock, as used on the existing wall pilasters, was approved for use on the gate house. fn × GI)LDEN OAK PARK THE HAWTHORNES ..... (ia~cd Enl~ Plan / · C) 4th STREET ENTRANCE TRACT No 15727-8 6fh STREET ENTRANCE - RESIDENTS ONLY PRELIMINARY T . :;~ -E, ;.-.- ':; '~ ";' % ~ ,~ " -~,..,,'~;,5';,.'"',' . ,.,.~: ~ ~ GOLDEN OAK PARK ' 6th Street Entrance THE HAWTHORNES TRACT 15727 s.=,,,o ',' · .o'-o' j..° ~_.. :99. Revised:July=6,_1998 Conceptual Landscape Plan .°~.. July20. 1998 Revised ,Jdy 30,1998 cou. LOT 40 LOT 49 LOT 39 Golden Oak Road 0 r: LOT 2~/~- '~ ,~ LOT 28 LOT 39 \ Illustrative ~ ~'"',;~ ~,~~~ G~-- '~k "~"d~ Landscape Plan ~ ~'L ~ ~ Golden Oek Road ~ ~ 4th + 6th Strccts Elevation at Gates ~~_ ~!:,~!._,~A- Illustrative Landscape Plan Golden Oak Road lintrance from 4th Street Elevation at Guard House Elevation FRONT ELEVATION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-16 AUTHORIZING GATED PRIVATE STREETS FOR AMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 15727, IN THE LOW-MEDIUM DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOURTH STREET, WEST OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE, AND BORDERED BY SIXTH STREET ON THE NORTH, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORTTHEREOF-APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33. A. Recitals. 1. Gdffin Industries has filed an application for Development Review 98-16 for the design review of Amended Tentative Tract No. 15727, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 31st day of August 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application and Amended Tentative Tract 15727. 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 dudng the above- referenced meeting on August 31, 1998, including wdtten 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, togetherwith 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, to allow private gated streets in Amended Tentative Tract 15727 subject to each and every condition set forth below: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-16 FOR TT 15727 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES August 31, 1998 Page 2 Planninq Division 1) Approval of the application is cone{itioned on approval by the City Council of Amended Tentative Trac! 15727. 2) Emergency access, vehicle and ped, estrian, shall be provided in the CC&Rs in a manner acceptable to the Police and Fire Departments. 3) A school bus stop shall be provided at the northeast comer of Golden Oak Road and Brook Drive. This feature will be identified with appropriate bus stop signing and paving between the adjacent side walk and curb line.; The CC&Rs shall provide for convenient school bus access into the community for the school district(s) in a manner similar to Police and Fire Department access. 4) The gates and cul-de-sac fencing (at Glenaire and Springbrook Courts) shall be tubular steel and finished in a dark forest green color. The gates and fences shall not exceed 6 feet in height (above grade), but may extend to the height of the stone columns (no higher than 8 feet) as a design .fea!ure as shown on the main Fourth Street entry exhibit. 5) The guard house shall be constructed with stucco and a cobblestone base. The structure shall be finished with a native fieldstone base and with colors and materials previously approved for final tract phases, subject to approval by the City Planner. 6) The final landscape design shall be coordinated with the approved Landscape Plans for Fourth Street aqd Golden Oak Road and subject tO City Engineer and City Planner approval. 7) A call/card box shai! be provided for each vehicle entry. 8) Each gated entry/exit shall conform to minimum City, Police and Fire Department standards. 9) The landscaping along Fourth Street and Golden Oak Ddve shall be installed as shown on approved plans on file with the Engineering Department. Reductions in the amount of cobblestone hard scape and increases in the amount of plant material may be considered and approved by the City Engineer and City Planner, at their discretion, while maintaining ,the general landscaping/hard scape design concept. En.qineerinq Division 1 ) Install ultimate street improvements on the north side of Fourth Street from Archibald Avenue to Cucamonga Creek Channel including curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, a bus bay west of the existing entry monument, the intersection curb return, relocation of the most southerly catch basin on Archibald Avenue, and any traffic signal upgrades. Off-site street trees may be deferred until development of PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-16 FOR 3'I' 15727 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES August 31, 1998 Page 3 _ the adjacent property. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover the cost of permanent off-site improvements from future development of the adjacent property, If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within six months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 2) Widen the west leg of the Fourth StreetJArchibald Avenue intersection to accept three westbound through lanes from the Major Divided Artedal section, east of Archibald Avenue. Transition to a Major Arterial width (two westbound lanes, single left turn lane) a sufficient distance west of the intersection, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3) Relocate up to eight 66 KV power poles as needed to accommodate the Fourth StreetJArchibald Avenue intersection widening and lane drop. 4) The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except for the 66 KV electrical) on the project side of Fourth Street shall be undergrounded from the first pole on the east side of Archibald Avenue. to the first pole on the west side of the Cucamonga Creek Channel, prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. All services crossing Fourth Street shall be undergrounded at the same time. 5) Install full frontage improvements along Sixth Street, from the east tract boundary to the west side of Golden Oak Road. Provide a cross gutter across Golden Oak Road and a temporary AC curb return on the west side, within the existing right-of-way. Widen the south side of Sixth Street as needed, west of Golden Oak Road, install AC berm, and reconstruct affected drive approaches to contain street flows, as determined by the final drainage study. Extend the widened section and berm from Golden Oak Road to Hellman Avenue. Transition to existing pavement east of the east tract boundary, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover the cost of permanent off-site improvements from future development of the adjacent property. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within six months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all dghts of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 6) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of existing utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except for the 66 KV electrical) on the opposite side of Sixth Street shall be paid to the City, prior to building permit issuance for the 104th house or any phase that includes that house. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length of the project frontage. Unnecessary power poles on the south side of Sixth Street shall be removed. 7) Install Golden Oak Road full width, including sidewalk and street lights, from Fourth Street to Sixth Street, with Phase 1 development. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-16 FOR TT 15727 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES ' August 31, 1998 Page 4 . Sidewalks along the park frontag~ shall be curb adjacent. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover the cost of permanent improvements w,'est of the centedine on Golden Oak Road and north of a projection Of the southerly BCR for the park drive approach. from future developinent of the adjacent property. If the developer fails to submit for said ieimbu rsement agreement within six months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 8) Install traffic signals at Fourth Street and Golden Oak Road and at Sixth Street and Golden Oak Road. The traffic signal at Fourth Street shall be operational prior to occupancy of the 100th unit. The traffic signal at Sixth Street shall be operational, prior to occupancy of the 150th unit or opening of the park, whichever occurs first. 9) Each development phase shall haye two points of access and no temporary "dead end" streets shall be longer than 600 feet, 10) Prepare a final drainage study which addresses the following, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: a) Deleted b) Substantiate that the existing facilities in Fourth Street can accommodate all flows reaching them in the ultimate (developed) condition and tha,t Fourth Street is not adversely impacted by the lack of a storm ,drain lateral to pick up the sump east of Golden Oak Road. D'eterm ne the size of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) needed to replace existing corrugated metal pipe (CMP). c) Provide a section through the flqw line high point in Golden Oak Road, south of Sixth Street, tO determine whether any Q100 flows will go south in Golden Oak Road. d) Provide hydrologic and hydraulic calculations. On-site storm drains shall be sized to accommodate all tributary areas in the ultimate (developed) condition. e) Revise the preliminary drainage study to reflect the Hearthside Court catch basin between nodes 15 and 16. Also include pages 8 and 9 missing from the printout for Catchment Area C. f) Determine the. width of the surface overflow easement needed on Lot 14 to convey Q100 flows for the area tributary to the sump at the Springbrook Drive/Cedar Glen Place knuckle. 11 ) Construct all storm drains within the tract boundaries (private) and/or Fourth Street, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The developer may request a developer-to-developer reimbursement agreement, against future development within the vacant tributary area. for oversizing said facilities. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within six months of the improvements PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-16 FOR TT 15727 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES August 31, 1998 Page 5 being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. No master plan storm drain fee credits will be given and the developer shall pay drainage fees in effect when building permits are issued. 12) Replace the existing CMP in Fourth Street, between Archibald Avenue and Golden Oak Road, with appropriately sized RCP. Reconstruct both catch basins as determined by the final drainage study and install energy dissipation devices at the pipe outlet on the south side of Fourth Street. 13) The surface overflow drainage easement on Lot 14 shall be graded to convey Q100 overflows in the event of blockage in a sump catch basin and provisions shall be made for overflows to pass through any walls placed across the easement. Grade Lots 14 and 15, adjacent to the surface overflow drainage easement, to drain to Fourth Street through improved devices. Also design Lots A, B, C, D, and E to convey surface overflows. 14) Deleted 15) A parkway beautification master plan, including sections reflecting tree clearances required by Southern California Edison, shall be developed for Fourth Street, which expands upon the existing designated street trees and follows existing City Standards, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The Fourth Street frontage landscape treatment shall conform to said beautification master plan. 16) Interim facilities to drain the north property line will not be publicly maintained. They shall be located on individual lots and there shall be no public drainage easements. Private cross lot drainage easements shall be provided as required by, and the design of the facilities shall be approved by, the Building Official. 17) Deleted 18) Deleted 19) The park on Lot G shall be installed. with all standard neighborhood park facilities as presently provided forwith public improvement bonds for Tract 15727-3, pdor to occupancy of 30 percent of the units or prior to building permit issuance for 70 percent of the units, whichever occurs first. The park design, including grading, shall be approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission prior to final map approval. Parcels provided for park development shall be a minimum of 5 acres, based on the net yield for useable park open space. All dedicated park lands are to be located on non-restricted developable, unencumbered lands. This included, but is not limited to: clear title, no easements, no seismic faults, no grades greater than 10 percent and free from flood hazard. The public park is not to be included within the private gated community. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-16 FOR TT 15727 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES August 31, 1998 Page 6 , 20) All maps which have recorded to date shall be rescinded and new final maps recorded reflecting the inierior private streets. All common areas for streets, storm drain facilities, sidewalks, street lights, and utilities shall be contained in a co.mmon easement. The surface overflow drainage easement on Lot: 14 shall be private. 21) Revise Sheets 17 and 21 of Drawing No. 1628 to show the gated entrances. 22) All interior street and storm drain plans which have already been approved shall be revised to include the word "Private" in the title block. 23) Traffic signal plans at Fourth Street and Golden Oak Road shall be revised to reflect one leg of the iptersection being pdvate. Any decorative pavement and its effect On conduit specifications shall be indicated. Provide easements for the City to maintain the equipment. 24) The existing public storm drain easements created by separate document shall be vacated and repiaced with private easements. 25) Existing public landscape easements, created by separate documents, shall be vacated and Shown on the revised maps as private landscape easements in favor of the Homeowners' Association. The following easements shall be revised consistent with the approved;~Landscape Maintenance District Grading Plans: Lot 23 in Tract 15727-2; Lots 1 and 6 in Tract 15272-3; and Lot 26 in Tract 15727-5. 26) Developer shall accept public drainage, from Golden Oak Park and Golden Oak Road north of the north project entry, and public and/or private drainage from adjacent undeveloped properties into the private street and storm drain system. 27) Thelinebetweenpublicandpdvatemaintenanceshallfollowthecurb on the east (park) side of the north entrance. 28) A copy of the CC&Rs approved by the City Attorney is required prior to approval of the final map. 29) The project CC&Rs shall indicate Homeowners' Association maintenance including, but not limited to, interior private streets and storm drains, street lights, sidewalkS, landscaping within easements ' and lettered lots along Golden Oak Road, perimeter landscaping along Fourth Street, etc. The CC&Rs shall acknowledge future acceptance of landscaping between the private curb and a future perimeter wall on the west side of the north project entrance upon development of the adjacent property. The CC&Rs shall allow adjacent properties to join the private community if they so desire. If adjacent properties do not choose to join, they shall be permitted to use reciprocal emergency access and/or drainage easements. 4. The Secretary to this Co=remission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-16 FOR TI'15727- GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES August31,1998 Page 7 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Bred 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 31st day of August 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CATY OF RANCtlO CUCAMONGA _ STAFF REPORT DATE: August 31, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Betty A. Miller, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: VACATION OF UNDERLYING PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY WITH AMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 15727 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES - A request to find the vacation of various public rights-of-way within a gated residential community in conformance with the General Plan - APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 26, 32 and 33 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: On October 9, 1996, the Planning Commission recommended approval of and on November 20, 1996, the City Council approved Tentative Tract 15727 for 342 single family lots and a five acre neighborhood park. To date the developer has recorded three of a proposed eight final maps and has two others in plan check. Public improvement plans have been approved for all storm drains, all landscape maintenance district annexations and those streets necessary for phases one through three. The park plans are still in plan check. On tonight's agenda, the developer is proposing to amend the tentative tract approval to allow a private gated community in lieu of public streets. The conditions of approval for the mended tentative tract require the developer to revise the street and storm drain plans by adding the word "private" on all applicable sheets and showing gated entrances at both ends of Golden Oak Road. Existing recorded maps shall be rescinded and new final maps will be recorded whereon all interim public rights-of-way dedicated by the prior maps will be abandoned. Concurrently we will be vacating landscape and storm drain easements dedicated by separate document and rededicating them as private easements. The General Plan allows for subdivisions to develop with private streets. In this particular area the General Plan does not indicate any through circulation elements. Therefore, abandoning the public rights-of-way is in conformance with the General Plan. ITEM C PLANNING COM]V[ISSION STAFF REPORT TENTATIVE TRACT 15727 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES August 31, 1998 ~ Page 2 _. RECOMMENDATION I Staff recommends that the Planning Commission mak~ the finding through minute action that the proposed vacation by the City of rights-of-way for interior streets, storm drains and landscape easements within Amended Tentative Tract 15727 is in conformance with the General Plan. This finding will be forwarded to the City Council for further processing and final approval. Respectfully submitted, Dan J Senior Civil Engineer DJ:BAM:sd Attachments: Vicinity/Tentative Tract 15727 (Exhibit "A") ~ oo~ ! q N CITY OF rrEM: RANCHO CUCAMONGA TrrL~,: L/~'~ i~f/r~ .7~c~ [~Z7 ~G~~G D~ON ~~: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: August 31, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND AMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 15727 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES - An amendment to Tentative Tract 15727 for the purpose of developing a gated residential community with pdvate streets of 342 single family lots and a 5-acre public neighborhood park on a total of 82 acres of land in the Low- Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre),on the north side of Fourth Street, west of Archibald Avenue. and bordered by Sixth Street on the north. An Environmental Impact Report was certified for Tentative Tract 15727 and staff has concluded that no additional impacts will result from the development of the amended map and that no additional environmental review is required. APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning: North - Single family residential tract; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - Drainage facilities, vacant, and apartments; City of Ontado - Open Space, Single- Family Residential (5.1-11 dwelling units per acre), and Multi-Family Residential (11-16 dwelling units per acre) East - Single family residences and vineyards; Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 16 (Industrial Park) West - Single family residence and vacant land; Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre); City of Ontado - Limited Industrial B. General Plan Desi.qnations: Project Site - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) North - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - City of Ontario - Proposed Recreation/Open Space/Park, Low-Medium Residential (5.1-11 dwelling units per acre), and Medium Residential (11-16 dwelling units per acre) East - Industrial Park West - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), City of Ontario - General Industrial C. Site Characteristics: The project site gently slopes southward at less than 2 percent gradient. The site has been graded and construction has started on the first two phases. 1TEN D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AMEND. TO 'I'1' 15727 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES August 31, 1998 Page 2 _ ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is requesting that Tent, ative Tract 15727, which was approved in November 1996, be amended to allow for the~ development to become a private, gated community. Development Code Section 17.08.040.O.3requires private streets be approved by the Planning Commission. The 82-acre site lies at the juncture of the Cucamonga Creek: Flood Control Channel and Fourth Street and is!bordered on the north by Sixth Street. The main focus of staffs review is the "retro fitting" of gated community standards on a residential project that was not designed as a pdvate community. The two Golden Oak Road entries are proposed to have entry and exit gates. The main entry is to be off Fourth Street and includes a guard house (with porte cochere,) in addition to the remote control operated gate system. The secondary access is off Sixth Street and has only a remote control gate. B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed the design issues of the Amended Tentative Tract under Design Review 98-16 application. The location of the north and south gates are accommodated in the expansion of the Golden Oak Road entries as indicated on the Amended Tentative Tract. The, Committee recommended approval of the design of the gates on August 4, 1998. C. Technical Review Committee: ThetechnicalissUesfocusedontheAmendedTentativeTract process. The conditions reflect the recommended changes to the responsibility of infrastructure maintenance. With the pdvatization of the streets, all infrastructure maintenance (streets, storm drains, street landscaping, etC.) within the gates is transferred to the Homeowners' Association (HOA) through the CoVenants, Conditions, & Restrictions (CC&Rs). In addition, provisions are included for emergency access by Fire and Police services and for school bus access, again via the HOA and CC&Rs. Rather than amending the odginal tentative tract resolution, a completely new resolution has been drafted that incorporates all of the original conditions (amended as needed) along with new conditions that specifically address the pdvate community issues. D. Environmental Assessment: The site was rezoned early in 1997 to Low-Medium Residential and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was completed to assess impacts of the land use change and the residential development potential. The EIR addressed all significant impacts of Tentative Tract 15727 and the installation of pdvate community gates with the amended map will not result in any additional significant impacts. A Negative Declaration. is recommended. FACTS FOR FINDING: The Planning Commission must make the following findings in order to approve this application: A. That the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and B. That the design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and C. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AMEND. TO q-r 16727 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES August 31, 1998 Page 3 D. That the design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans or wildlife or their habitat; and E. That the tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and F. That the design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision; and G. That the application would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and certified by the City Council by separate Resolution. 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. Staff has received requests from the State Department of Transportation and the South Coast Air Quality Management Distdct for copies of the Negative Declaration. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of Amended Tentative Tract 15727 through adoption of the attached Resolution Recommending Approval with Conditions and recommend adoption of a Negative Declaration by the City Council. Brad Buller City Planner BB:AW/jfs Attachments: Exhibit"A" - Amended Tentative Tract15727 Map Exhibit "B" - Initial Study, Part II Resolution Recommending Approval with Conditions City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Amended Tentative Tract 15727 2. Related Files: Tentative Tract 15727, GPA 95-03A, ISPA 95-04, DDA 95-02 3. Description of Project: An amendment to Tentative Tract 15727 for the purpose of developing a gated residential community with pdvate streets of 342 single family lots and a 5-acre public neighborhood park on a total of 82 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), on the north side of Fourth Street, west of Archibald Avenue and bordered by Sixth Street on the north. An Environmental Impact Report was certified for Tentative Tract 15727 and staff has concluded that no additional impacts will result from the development of the amended map and that no additional environmental review is required, A Negative Declaration for the amended tentative tract will be prepared. APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33. 4. Project $ponsor's Name and Address: Griffin Industries 24005 Ventura Boulevard Calabasas, CA 91302 8. General Plan Designation: Low to Medium (4-8 dwelling units per acre) 6. Zoning: Low to Medium (4-8 dwelling units per acre) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project is surrounded by single family residential homes, an Industrial Park and Industrial. 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: (909) 477-2750 Alan Warren '10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None initial Study for of Rancho Cucamonga Amended Tentative Tract 15727 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED _, ~ The environmental factors checked below would be p~tentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact" "Potentially Significant impact Uniess Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Im,'pact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages, (x) Land Use and Planning (x) Transportation/CirculatiOn (x) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral ResOurces ( ) Aesthetics (x) Water ( ) Hazards (x) Cultural Resources (x) 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 ana, lyzed 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 anatyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. (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 ca, se because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or m!!igated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Refer to "Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 16, Redesignation Signed .EIR" ~No/ ,b~.~ em Alan Warren Associate Planner August 4, 1998 j Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Amended Tentative Tract 15727 Page 3 EARLIER ANALYSES Eadier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiedng, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D), The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the eadier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): ( ) General Plan EIR (Certified Apdl 6, 1981) ( ) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) ( ) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981 ) ( ) Industdal Area Specific Plan, Subarea 18, EIR (SCH ff93102055, certified June 15, 1994) ( ) Victoda Planned Community EIR (Certified May 20, 1981) ( ) Terra Vista Planned Community EIR (SCH #81082808, certified February 16, 1983) ( ) Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR (SCH #87021615, certified September 16, 1987) ( ) Etiwanda Specific Plan EIR (SCH #82061801, certified July 6, 1983) ( ) Etiwanda North Specific Plan EIR (SCH fffi9012314, certified April 1, 1992) (X) Other: R~nt~hn ~Ht~rnnn,n~ IntlH~fri~l Ar~ -~pecific Plan, Subarea 16. Redesignation EIR (SCH# 95112019, certified November 20, 1996) ( ) Other: ~ ot Rancho Cucarnor~ga Initial Study for V v Pa~,,~ 4 Amended Tentative Tract 15727 ,., APPLICANT CEIrhFICATION I carLily fiat I am the apl~icant for the proled descd.b~d in this Initial Study, I acknowledge tllat rlave read t~is Initial Study and the propored mi'dgation measures, Further, I have revised the Droject plans or proposals and/of rlereby agree to ~elproposed mitigation measures to avoid the effs:~. or mitigate the effects |o a point where c~early: no signffiC~nt environmental effects w~uld : oa.: City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quafity Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Pubtic Resources Code. Project File No.: Amended Tentative Public Review Period Closes: September 2, 1998 Tract 15727 Project Name: Project Applicant: Griffin Industries Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the north side of Fourth Street, west of Archibald Avenue and bordered by Sixth Street on the north - APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33. Project Description: An amendment to Tentative Tract 15727 for the purpose of developing a gated residential community with private streets of 342 single family lots and a 5-acre public neighborhood park on a total of 82 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 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 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 cleady 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. September 2, 1998 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 15727, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 342 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A 5-ACRE NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC PARK ON 82 ACRES OF LAND WITH GATED PRIVATE STREETS, IN THE LOW-MEDI UM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOURTH STREET, WEST OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE, AND BORDERED BY SIXTH STREET ON THE NORTH, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORTTHEREOF-APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, AND 33. A. Recitals. 1. On October 9, 1996, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 96-67, thereby recommending approval, subject to specified conditions, of Tentative Tract No. 15727, which provides for the development of 342 single family lots and a neighborhood park on 82 acres of land within the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre). 2. On November 21,199~, the City Council approved, subject to specified conditions, Tentative Tract No. 15727 by the adoption of Resolution 96-165. 3. On June 24, 1998, a request was filed by Griffin Industries to amend Tentative Tract No. 15727 to allow for gated, private streets for the entire residential portion of the tract. 4. On August 26, and continued to August 31, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said headn9 on that date. 5. All legal prerequisites pdor 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 26, and August 31, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to pi'operty generally located on the north side of Fourth Street, west of Archibald Avenue and bordered by Sixth Street on the north, with a street frontage of 625 feet on Sixth Street and 1,835 feet on Fourth Street, a lot depth of 2,565 feet, and which is presently partially improved with new single family homes; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with single family residential, the property to the south consists of apartments and open space flood control facilities, the property to the east is primarily vacant and underdeveloped and is designated for industrial park uses, and the property to the west is largely underdeveloped; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. AMEND,]'I'15727- GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES August31,1998 Page 2 c. The project, together with conditions: of approval, will comply with all applicable standards of the Development Code; and d. The application proposes development at 4.68 dwe ling units per acre, which is within the unit density range of the development dist~'ict for the properties; and e. The project is an infill piece with singlq family residential development to the north at similar density ranges and; hence, is a logical addition to the neighborhood. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findir%gs of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the Amended Tentative Tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific planS; and b. That the design or improvements of the Amended Tentative Tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and c. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and d. That the design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans or wildlife or their habitat; and e. That the Amended Tentative Tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and f. That the design of the Amended T, entative Tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision; and: g. That the application would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and an Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified by the City Council by separate Resolution. 4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and that the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 16 Redesignation Environmental Impact Report, that assessed the environmental impacts of Tentative Tract 15727, was certified on November 20, 1996, by adoption of City Council Resolution No. 96-63. 5. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, plus the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 16 Redesignation EnvirOnmental Impact Report, together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration by the City Counci 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 promu gated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. AMEND. 3'1' 15727 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES August 31, 1998 Page 3 reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur, c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission dudng the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 6, Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above: this Commission hereby recommends approval of the subject application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Plannin~ Division 1) All applicable Mitigation Measures listed in Table 11-1 of the "Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 16 Redesignation Environmental Impact Report," as certified by the City Council, shall be completed as described in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program. The mitigation measures include, but are not necessarily limited to the following items listed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit "A"): T-l, AQ-1, AQ-2, N-l, N-2, SW-1, SW-2, SW-3, SW-4, LU-1, LU-2, LU-3, LU-4, LU-5, P-l, FP-1, S-1, W-l, SD-1, SD-2, SD-3, SD-4, and CR-1. 2) A Master Plan of Walls and Phasing Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the recordation of the final tract map. 3) Drainage easements provided on Lots 16, 35, 45, 55, 65, and 227 through 230 shall be improved as follows: a) The drainage easement at the end of "F" Street shall be totally on Lot 35, the drainage easement at the end of "H" Circle shall be totally on Lot 45, the drainage easement at the end of "1" Circle shall be totally on Lot 55. and the drainage easement at the end of "J" Circle shall be totally on Lot 65. b) The drainage easements on Lots 16, 35, 45, 55, 65, 227, 228, 229, and 230 shall be improved with irrigation systems and extensive plantings, the continuous length of the easements, prior to the final inspection on each lot and subject to City Planner approval. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. AMEND. 'R' 15727 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES August 31, 1998 Page 4 c) Lots 16, 227; 228, 229, and 230 shall be improved with 6-foot high property line walls adjace:nt to each drainage easement from the rear property line to a, pont in alignment with the front house wall nearest the prope~y line and with an 18-inch high property ne wall from the front property line to the beginning of the 6-foot property line wall, All walls shall comply with an approved MaSter Plan of Wa IIs, :subject to Planning Commission approval, and installed prior to !final inspection on each lot. d) Mini sumps shall be provided along the northerly extent of the cul-de-sacs (within a right-of-entry easement of the northem properties) at Circles "J," "1," and "H" and "F" Street (between Lots 35 and 36, 45 and 46, 55 and 56, and 65 and 66), and the northerly extent of "R" Street (~ear of Lots 227, 228, 229, and 230). 4) Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed along Fourth Street in landscape easements in compliance with a Conceptual Landscape Plan previously approved by the Planning Commission for public right- of-way landscape easements. The City Planner and the City Engineer may consider and approve some reductions in the cobble hardscape work and increases in the plant material counts while maintaining the general landscaping theme planned for the north side of Fourth Street. Landscaping shall be included along the future parkway area on the west side of Golden Oak Road, between Sixth Street and the boundary of the private community, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Planner. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed along Golden Oak ROad in landscape easements to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 5) Where rear lot drainage to a public facility can be achieved along "A" Street, the lot should be lowered wi;~h a rear lot grade break and depressing the pad the maximum amount possible below the street fronting the lot. 6) Lots 35, 36, 45, 46, 55, 56, 65, and 66 shall have a minimum width of 75 feet and a minimum side yard structural setback from the out parcels to the northeast of 30 feet with RV parking accommodations. Noise attenuation features will be included in the house walls facing the out parcels to ensure interior ambient noise levels required by the Development Code. 7) Pedestrian access is to be provided from "A" Street to the adjacent cul-de-sacs. ,~ 8) A disclosure statement shall be incorporated as a deed restriction on all residential lots informing future owners of the industrial zoned land to the east of the tract on both sides of Archibald Avenue. 9) The applicant shall fully mitigate the project's school facilities impacts by entering into a mitigation agreement with the Cucamonga School Distdct prior to the issuance of any building permits. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. AMEND. TT 15727 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES August 31, 1998 Page 5 . 10) Pdvate streets. under the ownership of a Homeowners' Association may be gated as approved by Design Review 98-16. 11) The Covenants, Conditions, and Restdctions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 12) Reciprocal emergency access and drainage easement agreements shall be provided for the adjacent property to the west in the area where "Old Post Road" ends at the west property line. 13) Emergency access, vehicle and pedestrian, shall be provided in the CC&Rs in a manner acceptable to the Police and Fire Departments. 14) A school bus stop shall be provided at the northeast comer of Golden Oak Road and Brook Drive. This feature will be identified with appropriate bus stop signing and paving between the adjacent sidewalk and curb line. The CC&Rs shall provide for convenient school bus access into the community for the school district(s) in a manner similar to Police and Fire Department access. 15) Each gated entry/exit shall conform to minimum City, Police, and Fire Department standards. Enqineering Divisiori 1 ) Install ultimate street improvements on the north side of Fourth Street from Archibald Avenue to Cucamonga Creek Channel including curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, a bus bay west of the existing entry monument, the intersection curb return, relocation of the most southerly catch basin on Archibald Avenue, and any traffic signal upgrades. Off-site street trees may be deferred until development of the adjacent property. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover the cost of permanent off-site improvements from future development of the adjacent property. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within six months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 2) Widen the west leg of the Fourth Street/Archibald Avenue intersection to accept three westbound through lanes from the Major Divided Arterial section, east of Archibald Avenue. Transition to a Major Arterial width (two westbound lanes, single left turn lane) a sufficient distance west of the intersection, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. AMEND. TI' 15727 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES August 31, 1998 Page 6 _ . 3) Relocate up to eight 68 KV power poles as needed to accommodate the Fourth Street/Archibald Avenu~ intersection w dening and lane drop. : 4) The existing overhead utilities (telecommun cat ons and electrical, except for the 66 KV electrical) on the project side of Fourth Street shall be undergrounded from the: first pole on the east side of Archibald Avenue, to !he first pole on the west side of the Cucamonga Creek Channel, prior to public. improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. All services crossing Fourth Street shall be undergrounded at the same time. 5) Install full frontage:improvements aiong Sixth Street, from the east tract boundary to the west side of Golden Oak Road. Provide a cross gutter across Golden Oak Road and a temporary AC curb return on the west side, within the existing right-of-way. Widen the south side of Sixth Street as needed, west of Golden Oak Road, install A.C. berm, and reconstruct affected drive approaches to contain street flows, as determined by the final drainage study. Extend the widened section and berm!, from Golden Oak Road to Hellman Avenue. Transition to existing pavement east of the east tract boundary, to the satisfaction of the ~City Engineer. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover the cost of permanent off-site improvements from, future development of the adjacent property. If the developer fails to submit for said r,eimbursement agreement within six months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all dghts of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 6) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of existing utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except for the 66 KV electrical) on the opposite side of Sixth Street shall be paid to the City pdor to building permit issuance for the 104th house or any phase that includes that house. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length of the project frontage. Unnecessary power poles on the south side of Sixth Street shall be removed. 7) Install Golden Oak Road full width, including sidewalk and street lights, from Fourth Street to Sixth Street, with Phase I development. Sidewalks along the park frontage shall be curb adjacent. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover the COSt Of permanent improvements west of the centerline on Golden Oak Road and north of a projection of the southerly BCR forthe park drive approach, from future development of the adjacent property. If th.e developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within s~x months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 8) Install traffic signals!,at Fourth Street ,and Golden Oak Road and at Sixth Street and Golden Oak Road. The traffic signal at Fourth Street shall be operational :prior to occupancy of the 100th unit. The traffic signal at Sixth Street shall be operational prior to occupancy of the 150th unit or opening of the park, whichever occurs first. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. AMEND. 'T'l' 15727 * GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES August 31, 1998 Page 7 9) Each development phase shall have two points of access and no temporary "dead end" streets shall be longer than 600 feet. 10) Prepare a final drainage study which addresses the following, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: a) Deleted b) Substantiate that the existing facilities in Fourth Street can accommodate all flows reaching them in the ultimate (developed) condition and that Fourth Street is not adversely impacted by the lack of a storm drain lateral to pick up the sump east of Golden Oak Road. Determine the size of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) needed to replace existing corrugated metal pipe (CMP). c) Provide a section through the flow line high point in Golden Oak Road, south of Sixth Street, to determine whether any Q100 flows will go south in Golden Oak Road. d) Provide hydrologic and hydraulic calculations. On*site storm drains shall be sized to accommodate all tributary areas in the ultimate (developed) condition. e) Revise the preliminary drainage study to reflect the Hearthside Court catch basin between nodes 15 and 16. Also include pages 8 and 9 missing from the printout for Catchment Area C. f) Determine the width of the surface overflow easement needed on Lot 14 to convey Q100 flows for the area tributary to the sump at the Springbrook Drive/Cedar Glen Place knuckle. 11) Construct all storm drains within the tract boundaries (private) and/or Fourth Street, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The developer may request a developer-to-developer reimbursement agreement, against future development within the vacant tributary area, for oversizing said facilities. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within six months of the improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. No master plan storm drain fee credits will be given and the developer shall pay drainage fees in effect when building permits are issued. 12) Replace the existing CMP in Fourth Street, between Archibald Avenue and Golden Oak Road, with appropriately sized RCP, Reconstruct both catch basins as determined by the final drainage study and install energy dissipation devices at the pipe outlet on the south side of Fourth Street. 13) The surface overflow drainage easement on Lot 14 shall be graded to convey Q100 overflows in the event of blockage in a sump catch basin and provisions shall be made for overflows to pass through any walls placed across the easement, Grade Lots 14 and 15, adjacent PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ', AMEND. 'T'F 15727 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES } August 31, 1998 Page 8 to the surface overflow drainage eas'ement, to drain to Fourth Street through improved devices. Also de'sign Lots A, B, C, D, and E to convey surface overflows. 14) Deleted 15) A parkway beautification master plan. including sections reflecting tree clearances required by Southern California Edison, shall be developed for Fourth Street which expands upon the existing designated street trees and follows existing City Standards, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The Fourth Street frontage landscape treatment shall conform to said beautification master plan. 16) Interim facilities to drain the north property line will not be publicly maintained. They shall be located on individual lots and there shall be no public drainage easements: Private cross lot drainage easements shall be'provided as required by, and the design of the facilities shall be approved by, the BUilding Official. 17) Deleted 18) Deleted 19) The park on Lot G shall be installed. with all standard neighborhood park facilities as presently provided forwith public improvement bonds for Tract 15727-3, pdor to occupancy of 30 percent of the units or pdor to building permit issuance for 70: percent of the units, whichever occurs first. The park design, including grading, shall be approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission prior to final map approval. Parcels provided for park development shall be a minimum of 5 acres, based on the net yield for useable Park open space. All dedicated park lands are to be located on non-restricted developable, unencumbered landS. This included, !but is not limited to: clear title, no easements, no seismic faults, no grades greater than 10 percent and free from flood hazard. The public park is not to be included within the private gated community. 20) All maps which have recorded to date shall be rescinded and new final maps recorded reflecting the interior private streets. All common areas for streets, storm drain facilities, sidewalks, street lights, and utilities shall be contained in a common easement. The surface overflow drainage easement on Lot 14 shall be private. 21) Revise Sheets 17 and 21 of Drawing 1628 to show the gated entrances. 22) All interior street and storm drain plans which have already been approved shall be revised to include the word "Private" in the title block. 23) Traffic signal plans at Fourth Street and Golden Oak Road shall be revised to reflect on~ leg of the intersection being private. Any PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. AMEND. TT 15727 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES August 31, 1998 Page 9 _. decorative pavement and its effect on conduit specifications shall be indicated. Provide easements forthe City to maintain the equipment. 24) The existing public storm drain easements created by separate document shall be vacated and replaced with private easements. 25) Existing public landscape easements, created by separate documents, shall be vacated and shown on the revised maps as private landscape easements in favor of the Homeowners' Association. The following easements shall be revised consistent with the approved Landscape Maintenance District grading plans: Lot 23 in Tract 15727-2; Lots I and 6 in Tract 15272-3; and Lot 26 in Tract 15727-5. 26) Developer shall accept public drainage from Golden Oak Park and Golden Oak Road north of the north project entry and public and/or private drainage from adjacent undeveloped properties into the private street and storm drain system. 27) Thelinebetweenpublicandprivatemaintenanceshallfollowthecurb on the east (park) side of the north entrance. 28) A copy of the CC&Rs approved by the City Attorney is required prior to approval of the final map. 29) The project CC&Rs shall indicate Homeowners' Association maintenance including, but not limited to, intedor pdvate streets and storm drains, street lights, sidewalks, landscaping within easements and lettered lots along Golden Oak Road, perimeter landscaping along Fourth Street, etc. The CC&Rs shall acknowledge future acceptance of landscaping between the private curb and a future perimeter wall on the west side of the north project entrance upon development of the adjacent property. The CC&Rs shall allow adjacent properties to join the private community if they so desire. If adjacent properties do not choose to join, they shall be permitted to use reciprocal emergency access and/or drainage easements. 7. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 31ST 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. AMEND. TT 15727 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES August 31, 1998 Page 10 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning CommissiOn of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was ddly and regularly ntroduced, passed and adopted by the Plann ng Commission of the City of RJ~ncho Cucamonga, at a regular meeti'ng of the Planning Commissionheld on the 31st day of Aubust 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: : NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: AMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 15727 SUBJECT: A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 342 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES APPLICANT: CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC LOCATION: FOURTH STREET & CUCAMONGA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A, Time Limits completjon Date 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. 2. Approval of Amended Tentative Tract No. 15727 is granted subject to the approval of General Plan Amendment 95-03A, Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04, & Develooment Distdct Amendment 95-02. 3. The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities Distdct (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct 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 Distdct and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. 4. 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 Qf 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. Project NO. ,AMEND TC. ~ 15727 I Cornpleti~n Date Th~s condffion shall be waived if the C~ty receives notice ~hat the applicant and all affected school districts have entered into ~n agreement to privately ac~:ommodate an as a result of this project. i y and all school impacts 5. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to the issuance of building permits when no map ~s / involved, written certification from the affected water cjistrict that adequate sewer and water ' facilities are or will be available tO serve the pr p ~ed project shall be submitted to the O O Department of Community Development. Such letter mu~t have been issued by the water districl within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of',subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. B. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include / site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and Colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions ~:ontained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. : 2. Prior to any use of 'the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions / / of Approval shall be completed to the.satisfaction of the City Planner. ' ' 3. 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 throug.h the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 7. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner rev ew and approval in accordance with the / / adopted Street Naming Policy pdor to approval of the finai map. ' 8. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall not preh b t the keeping the equine / / animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of sai~ animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping ,said anima s without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors of homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&R's. 9. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or dwelling / unit shall have the dght 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 ot~ 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. Project No. AMEND TO Tr15727 Completion Date 10. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for City Planner and ~ity 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. C. Trip Reduction 1. Telecommuting center shall be provided for single-family development of 500 or more units or contribute toward the development of one in an amount satisfactory to the City Council. 2. Transit improvements such as bus shelters, bus pullouts, and bus pads shall be provided. D. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in this case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or pdor final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans, The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and tdmming methods. 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 appearenca 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 S-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. Pdor to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 5. Front yard and comer side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 6. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping. and sidewalks shall be included __ / in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 7. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the / perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 8. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the / design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. Project No AMENDTOTISi15727 Complltlon Date 9. Landscaping and irrigatio.n shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of / Xedscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho C'.ucamonga Municipal Code. E. Environmental 1. 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, verity the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures containecj in the final report. F. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. POstal Service to determine the appropriate type and location / of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of'the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approva prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFE'ITY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: G. Site Development 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical /.._. Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, 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. ' H. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall i~be in accordance w th 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 iicensed 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: I. Dedication and Vehicular Access : 1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, / / community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, oca feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. sc - 3~6 4 Project No, AMENDTOTF15727 Completion Date 2. Dedication shall be made o_f ~he following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): 50-60 total feet on Fourth Street 44 total feet on Sixth Street 3. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards, 4. Private drainage easements for cress-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 quitclaimed 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. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along the bus bay on Fourth Street, to previde a minimum of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. Curb adjacent sidewalk shall be used along the bus bay. 8. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site preperty interests necessary to construct the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do so, the developer shall. at least 120 days pdor to submittal of the final map for appreval, enter into an agreement to complete the imprevements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the preperty interests required for the imprevements. Such agreement shall previde for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site preperty 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 developers cost. The appraiser shall have been appreved by the City pdor to commencement of the appraisal. J. Street Improvements 1. All public improvements (interiorstreets, drainage facilitjes, 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, ddve approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Gum & A,C. Side- Dt'ive Street Street Comm Median I Bike Other Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Fourth Street / / c / / e f Sixth Street Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for th is item. (e) Class II Bike Lane in street. (f) Bus bay per Standard 119, west of entry omphstion Date monument on Fourth Street. (g) Sixth Street sidewalk a~ong Park frontage shall be curb adjacent. ' 3. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees ~. street lights and intersection safety / lights on future signal po es, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil ..... Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved ~y the City Engineer. Secudty shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public ana/or pdvata street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building p~rmits, 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 Engineers 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 satisb, ction 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 int~raections 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, amaximumof200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on ,all comers of intersections per City / / Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. ' f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with / / adequate detours dudng construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of gradin~ 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 pdor to submittal for first plan check. / / 4. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all private streets shall be provided for review / / and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being performed on the private streets, fees ' shall be paid and construction permits shall be obtained from the City Engineers Office in addition to any other permits required. !' 5. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon ~ize or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in / / accordance with the City's street tree program. Project No. AMEND TOT('15727 Completion Date 6. Intersection line of sight de_signs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections. including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. K. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. L. Drainage and Flood Control 1. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 2. A permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control Distdct and the Army Corps of Engineers is required for work within their rights-of-way. 3.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. 4. Private storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in a sump catch basin on the private street. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electdc 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 Bemardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required pdor to final map approval or issuance of permits. whichever occurs first. N. General Requirements and Approvals 1. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way: Southern California Edison and the City of Ontario. 2. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. 3. 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. Project No AMENDTOTT~I15727 corn ~ II ,. p ,~on Date APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: O. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements Shall apply to this project. / 2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. / a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/develOper and witnessed by fire depadment / personnel prior to water plan approval. b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall / be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed / and operahie pdor to deftvery 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 pdor to water plan approval. Required hydrants, / if any, will be determined by the Fire Distnct. Firs Distdc~ standards require a 6' riser with a 4" and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraBed to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brendp and mode numbers. 5. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) ~hall be required for all hydrants and installed pdor to final / inspection. ; -- -- 6. All roadways within project shaft comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: X Other: See Ordinance No. 22 redardincl cul-de-sads. lenaths. and turnaround. / 7. Plan check fees in the amount of $125.00 shall be paid prior to final plan approval. / Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hoed systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 8. Plans shall be submitted and approved pdor to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, / UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. 9. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shaft be kept',tdmmed to a minimum of 14 feet, 6 / / inches from ground up so as not to impede fire apparatus, 10. A Knox rapid entW key vault shall be installed pdor to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall / be submitted pdor to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 11. Gated/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire / Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 12. A $132 Fire Distdct fee and a $1 per "plan page" micr0fiim fee will be due to the Rancho / Cucamonga Fire Protection District prior to Building and Safety permit issuance. sc-3~ 8 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF RF, PORT DATE: August 31, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: VARIANCE 98-02 - CHARLES JOSEPH AND ASSOCIATES - A request to reduce the required intedor side property line setback and rear property line setback to 0 feet where the Development Code requires minimum setbacks of 5 feet and 20 feet, respectively, and to reduce the number of trees planted along extedor building walls where the Development Code requires one tree per 30 linear feet of building wall exposed to public view for a public storage project on 4.2 acres of land in the General Commercial District, located at the southwest comer of Arrow Highway and Hermosa Avenue-APN: 209-041-09. Related files: Conditional Use Permit98-17 and Preliminary Review 98-05. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Backqround: Associated with this application is Conditional Use Permit 98-17 for the development and operation of a public storage project. The proposed design of the project relies upon the subject variance request. Therefore, staff originally felt that the vadance request should be brought before the Planning Commission prior to processing the Conditional Use Permit. Should the Commission deny the variance request, the applicant can either appeal the decision to the City Council or withdraw the Conditional Use Permit application and be refunded the filing fees. Staff is now recommending a continuance to allow time for the applicant to explore design alternatives. The applicant has provided a letter of justification with reasons to support the variance. Staff is unable to justify each of the required five findings for variance approval. However, staff is of the opinion that a public storage project may be appropriate, if not an advantageous use, for the subject property. Public storage projects tend to involve far less operational activity than other uses allowed in the General Commercial district such as shopping centers. The public storage facility would tend to seal off the perimeter of the site with building walls. It is the design, location, and treatment of the building wails along the south and west property lines adjacent to single family homes that is of contention. The requested vadance would allow construction of these walls with no setback; while the Development Code requires a minimum setback of 20 feet to provide an adequate buffer from residential development. The situation is made worse by the fact that the site is of a higher elevation than the adjacent home sites. The proposal includes a 10-foot high building wall on top of a 6-foot high retaining wall (for a total height of 16 feet) at the south and west property lines. Walls of such height would clearly have a negative impact on adjacent homes which, in many cases, have the minimum 15-foot deep rear yards. iTEM E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VAR 98-02 - CHARLES JOSEPH & ASSOC. August 31, 1998 Page 2 _. While staff is unable to support the variance as submitted, it may be possible to revise the project design to minimize the impact of the pro~ject on adjacent homes. Possible design alternatives could include ower ng the building walls along the south and west property lines, an offer by the applicant to the adjacent property owners to increase the depth of their rear' yards via the Lot Line Adjustment process, re-plotting of the buildings so that the south and west property lines do not have continuous build, ing walls along them, lowering the grade of the site, or some combination of these. The Commission may wish to deliberate on possible alternatives and direct the applicant accordingly! B. NeiGhborhood Meeting: The applicant held a ne!ghborhood meeting on August 19, 1998, to which all property owners withiq 300 feet of the s.ubject site were invited. One property owner attended the meeting. He was concerned about the appearance of the wall but appeared to be in favor of the project as a whole. CORRESPONDENCE: This item Was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and noti~.es were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Plan, ning Com mission continue the public headng for Vadance 98-02 to allow the applicant to provide a!ternative designs as described above. Brad Buller City Planner BB:BLC/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Variance Exhibit Exhibit "C" - Site Section Exhibit "D" - Vadance Justification Letter ARROW ROUTE .,,.. l" / OFFICE/ ~ MNGR'S UNIT FUTURE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT : ; ?' ...... ~ ;~ ci"~ 1 AIM~L SELF STORAGE ~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA August 3, 1998 RECEIVED Planning Commission City ofRancho Cucamonga AUG 0 P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-080'7 City ¢ R~tnC~0 planning Dt~t RE: Aim All Storage SWC Arrow Highway/Hermosa Avenue Variance #98-02 Dear Gentlemen: As you may be aware, our Firm is performing Development Liaison services for the referenced project. On July 21, 1998, a Variance application was filed for the project following considerable review and evaluation of project requirements and constraints, and after a number of discnssions and meetings with City and Law Enforcement petsDreXel. The Rancho Cucamonga Development Code provides:that the Planning Commission is authorized to grant Variances to achieve the provision of flexibility from the strict application of development standards when special circumstances outlined in Section 17.04,040 exist. This authority extends to conditions as the Commission may deem necessary to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses; to preserve the Public Health, Safety, and Welfare; and to enable the Commi.qsion to make the findings required by Section 17.04.040-E. As our project goals and objectives are to provide a high qnalh~ enhancement for the neighborhood and community, we believe the Variance requested is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Development Code: When considering a Variance, there are findings under State law that must be substantiated by facts. These findings involve the unique or special circumstances of a particular property or the use of the designation. We believe that there are special or tmique circumstances with the development of this site that are different from other sites under similar zoning designations. The following facts are provided to support the required findings: 1. Strict or literal interpretation of and enforcement of the specified regulation, in this case, the provision of the interior side property line setback and rear property line setback of 5 feet and 20 feet, respectively, would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. City Center' 10681 Foothill Blvd., Suite 395 ~ Rancho Cucarnonga, CA. 91730 %" The proposed project is a self-storage facility designed for use of the rear walls of storage buildings serving as perimeter walls for the project. Provision of the 20 foot property line setback would result in creation of a potential attractive nuisance "crime corridor" directly adjacent the residential properties located south and west of the project site. A meeting held at City Planning offices with Law Enforcement representatives responsible for project review was concluded with their concurrence of our assessment and their concern with such a requirement at this particular site. The provision of the 5 foot interior side property line setback will create the strong potential for landscape maintenance conflict with the project recently approved at the NEC of our project site. The approved Unocal project consists of a car wash, convenience market, quick lube and gas pumps. Approval conditions require the installation of landscaping around the entire perimeter of that project site. To require the proposed project to install and maintain an additional 5 foot landscape corridor adjacent to that being provided appears to be redundant rother than necessary to the overall site landscaping needs. The project proponent is prepared to provide landscaping of a type and quality across the Arrow Highway and Hermosa Avenue project ~ontage that will be to the satisfaction of the City. 2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and conditions that are applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. Due to identified Law Enforcement and Public Safety concerns as outlined above, provision of the 20 foot rear property line setback would serve to exacerbate the potential for criminal activity adjacent the project site and neighboring residential properlies. These challenges are unique to the particular site and proximate area. 3. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified requirements would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone. Vandalism and/or criminal activity that could be reasonably expected to occur with the creation o f the referenced setback corridor would likely result in adverse financial impact for the applicant as well as adjoining residents. Vandalism and/or criminal activity is commonly found in areas where the detection or observation of such activity is unlikely. This is a strong mason why many cities have eliminated alleys between and behind land uses. The City is currently abandoning alleys in the old North town area, which is located within one-half mile of this site for the very reasons outlined above. We believe the applicant should be relieved of requirements that have been identified as being potentially detrimental to the ownership and operation of this and the adjacent Unocal business. 2 4. The granting of the Variance will not constitut,~ a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. The issues identified during the due diligence site assessment that were the basis of the filing of the Variance application were determined to be unique to tl~s~ site. This assessment determined that the specified development requirements could ser~e to adversely impact compatibility with surrounding uses, particularly those conflicts that could arise from attractive nuisance impacts on the surrounding area. 5. The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the Public Health, Safety, or Welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the area. As indicated in the preceding facts for findings, the Variance application filing was based upon concern over adverse Public Health, Safety, or Welfare impacts that could he materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. We believe this c0ncem has been validated by feedback received from Law Enforcement personnel reviewing the project requirements that would be applicable to the this site. ':Their supplemental comments expressing concern over Officer Safety exposures that' could exist with the construction of the referenced corridor add further credence to our stated concerns. In addition to the foregoing, the applicant believes the;re are benefits to the surrounding property owners with approval of the requested Variance. The proposed serf-storage use is far more compatible than a General Conhnercial use as the property is currently zoned. Hours of operation, traffic and noise impacts are more greatly reduced for self-storage than for General Commercial use. The proposed project design and site configuration will serve to provide improved sound attenuation for the residents from Arrow Highway and Hermosa Avenue traffic noise. The zero interior property line setback sought for the property line on the South and West side of the Unocal project will serve to provide superior sound attenuation for the Unocal business operation. The proposed project design and site configuration will also serve to reduce the observed vandalism on the rear yard walls of the adjacent residential properties, which is evidenced by the extensive graffiti paint-out that occurs on these walls.. Also, by having a structure along property line, it will make it extremely difficult for undesirables ,to jump the rear yard walls in order to gain access to the adjacent existing homes. As was discussed with Law Enforcement representatives, recorifiguring the site to have the exterior perimeters serve as drive aisles could compromise the desired level of security that would be enjoyed under ~e proposed site plan, and could still allow for the wall graffiti and undesirable access to residential rear yards to continue. In addition, use of the exterior site perimeter for drive aisles would compromise the internal sound attenuation benefit that would he derived from perimeter buildings that would enclose an interior business and circulation operation. 3 We are most cog~iTant of the need to work closely with the City and the existing neighbors to our proposed project. In this regard, we will be hosting a neighborhood meeting for the purpose of sharing our project design operation and address'rag as many concerns as may be possible to address as part of this process. Our intent is to be a welcome addition to the neighborhood and the community. We are asking for your support of our Variance to assist us with building what we believe will be a quality addition to the City. Thank you for your courtesy and assistance with consideration of the requested Variance. Should you have any questions or need of additional information, please feel free to contact me at your earliest opportunity. Charles J, Buquet Cha~es Joseph Associates cc: Michael Giurbino, Aim All Storage 4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: August 31, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13796 - LEWIS HOMES MANAGEMENT CORP. - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map including design review for the development of 111 condominium units on 7.92 acres of land in the Medium Residential designation (8-14 units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located on the south side of Mountain View Drive, east of Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-151-32 BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract 13796 was approved by the Planning Commission on September 8, 1993. Since that time, the State granted automatic time extensions for several years dudng the recession. This extended the expiration ofthe subject Tentative Tract to September 8, 1998. The applicant is requesting a one-year time extension, which will extend the tentative map until September 8, 1999. ANALYSIS: According to Section 66452.6(e) ofthe Subdivision Map Act, the City may extend the time at which a Tentative Map approval expires by up to three years. However, the Planning Commission approval also included a design review for construction of condominium units on the lots. Approval of the time extension would also apply to approvals for the design review. The Development Code limits time extensions for design review approvals to one-year increments. 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 proposal with current development cdteda outlined in the Development Code. Based on this review, the Tentative Tract meets the development standards for the Medium Residential District. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The applicant has prepared Part t of the Initial Study. Staff completed Part II, the Initial Study, and found that conditions in' the area have not changed appreciably since the Tentative Tract received approval in 1993. Staff feels that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and recommends the Planning Commission adopt a Negative Declaration, consistent with the Negative Declaration adopted for the original project approval. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public headng 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. 1TEN F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TE FOR TT 13796 - LEWIS HOMES MANAGEMENT CORP. August 31, 1998 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Plinning Commission grant a one-year time extension for Tentative Tract Map 13796 and the associated Design Review through adoption of · ~ . the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative D,eclarabon. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:RVB/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit "B" - Time Extension Letters dated October 5, 1993, & June 18, 1996 Exhibit "C" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "D" - Tentative Tract Map Exhibit "E" - Site Plan Exhibit "F" - Open Space/Park Credit Plan Exhibit "G" - Grading Plan Exhibit "H" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "1" - Entry Details Exhibit "J" - Building Elevations Exhibit "K" - Initial Study Part II Resolution of Approval - Tentative Tract Map Time Extension Resolution of Approval - Design Review Time Extension LEWIS HOMES MANAGEMENT CORP. 1156 N. Mountain Avenue/P. O. BOx 670/Upiancl, California 91785-0670 909/985-0971 FAX: 909/949-6700 July 1,1998 Mr. Dan Coleman Principal Planner City ofRancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mr. Coleman: Lewis Development Co., an affiliate of the Lewis Homes group of companies, requests that Tentative Tract 13796 be placed on the Planning Commission's agenda for a one-year extension in order to retain the possibility of development. Market conditions have thus far precluded construction of this project. Should you have any questions, please phone me at (909) 946-7514. Sincerely, Patrick R. Loy Director of planned C Development PRL:dg/prl5 T H E a _~C ~ ae. I~ DA C Q CLT CAHQ QA _. October 5, 1993 Jary Cockraft Lewis Homes P.O. Box 670 Upland, CA 91785 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT I~3796 Dear Applicant: In response to California's ailing economy, the Subdivision Map Act was recently amended by Senate Bill 428. This bill extended by 24 months the expiration date of any tentative 'subdivision map that had not expired by September 13, 1993. Said extension is in addition to any other extension as provided: for in the Map Act. Therefore, your project is hereby extended pursuant~ to SB 428 as follows: File # New Expiration Date: TT 13796 September 8, 1997 SB 428 also extends any Conditional Use Permit or Development/Design Review application granted in conjunction with your tentative subdivision map. The extensions granted by SB 428 are automatic: no application for extension or fee is necessary. If you should have any questions, please ,do not hesitate to contact this office at (909) 989-1861. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT P DIVIS Dan eman Principal Planner DC:SM:mlg Mayor Denms L Stout ~ Councilmember William J. Alexander Mayer Pro-Tecq Charles J. 8uquet H ~.~+~ "" /' Councilmember D~ane WHliams Jack Lain, ALCP, C~ty Manager ~ Councilmemaer Rex Gut~errez T H E C I T Y O F NC H--O C UC A MONC A June 18. 1996 Mr. Jary Cockro~ Lewis Homes P.O. Box 670 Upla. nd, CA 91785 SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13796 Dear Applicant: In response to the severe impact of the recession on developers, the Legislature recently amended the Subdivision Map Act by Assembly Bill 711 (Aguiar). This bill extends by 12 months the expiration date of any tentative subdivision and parcel map that had not expired on or before Mary 14, 1996. This extension is in addition to any other extension as provided for in the Map Act. Therefore. the new expiration date for your project is as follows: File # New Expiration Date: TT 13796 September 8, 1998 AB 771 also extends any Conditional Use Permit or Development/Design Review application granted in conjunction with your tentative subdivision map. The extensions granted by AB 771 are automatic; no application for extension or fee is necessary. If you should have any questions. please do not hesitate to contact this office at (909) 477-2750. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT :"' PLANNING DIVISION City Planner BB:DC:mlg cc: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer Ma,/sr W;Iham J Ajexancer ~' Counci!memOer Paul Bione T- ,,r-% Councilmember James V Cur3t3~3 ~c,,3 C, ,,": Cen:e' c:,,/e · PO. Box 507 · 2c,%no C~"'q~ga, CA 91729 · (~%"q) 989-185i · FAX (?Co) ~7 549'; E'/,l~;b/'l' 'C ~ ,~ -~ ' TENTATIVE TRACT HAP ~ . I . , I TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13796 ~ , I[ FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES ) ~e ~"">'~"'~ t.~TAIN E/.t'I~/~t/. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO. STATE OF CALIFORNZA. 7.5 ACRES NET 4 LETTERED LOTS ,,'! ,,, : ,' ,, / ,---, r~ ' ...... ~ ';. ~ "' '; C "' ':; ..... : .... ' ' :: LOT 4 :. ~=_ ,_ -. ~ ~ __.~ -." DETAILED SITE PLAN TENTAT I VE TRACT NO, 1:3796 E FOR CONDOPIINIUn PURPOSES ) IN THE CiTY OF RANCHO CUC^~IDNGA APRIL, 1993 7,9 ACRES GROSS 6NUUB[RED LOTS :: ~',: : :__~ ,,' ,, 'TRACT NO, 1495 CONDOMINIUMS opt. s..o~ ~ P^.~ c.Eo. ~x.,.,T 3'-- TENTAT l VE TRACT NO. 13796 ~ COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, -. .=...=-~-:~ ~:,~ ~:~,~,.,= CONDOMINIUMS TRACT NO. 1495, '~UR~: TENTATIVE) ~ '=~ :,ill - TENTATIVE TRACT NO, 13796 ,7.5 ACRES NET 4 LETTERED LOTS .,' ~ ,, ~/ : : : : :~ : ', ,_; ,' : / ............ ' ...................... PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE CONCEPT ,' .~-~.. .-,~,~,, TENTATIVE TRACT 13796, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~,~e,~,,~,,t~ : ..... REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATSON REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION ,Z~ LEFT SIDE ELEVATION FLIGHT ~IDE ELEVATION LEFT 81DE ELEVATION FPQNT ELEVATION 81DE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION REAR ELEVAT((~N LEFT 81DE ELEVATION RIGHT BIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Tentative Tract 13796 Time Extension 2. Related Files: Tentative Tract 13796 3. Description of Project: ~ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13796 - LEWIS HOMES MANAGEMENT CORP. -A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map including design review for the development of 111 condominium units on 7.92 acres of land in the Medium Residential designation (8-14 units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located on the south side of Mountain View Ddve, east of Milliken Avenue- APN: 227-151+32 4. Project Sponsors Name and Address: Lewis Homes Management Corp. 1156 N. Mountain Avenue Upland, CA 91785 5. General Plan Designation: Medium Residential (8-14 units per acre) 6. Zoning: Medium Residential (8-14 units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community 7. Surrounding Land Uses and' Setting: North vacant; Terra Vista Planned Community, Low-Medium Residential (4-8 units per acre) South - vacant, Terra Vista Planned Community, Medium-High Residential (14-24 units per acre) East single family detached houses; Terra Vista Planned Community, Low- Medium Residential (4-8 units per acre) West Apartments; Terra Vista Planned Community, Medium Residential (8-14 units per acre) 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: · City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner, (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga 'l'l' 13796 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 (X) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (X) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (X) Aesthetics (X) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality (X) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) MandatoP/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 eadier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1 ) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Rebecca Van Buren Associate Planner July 22, 1998 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga 'FI' 13796 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," "Pot ,~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 proposal a) Conflict with general p!an 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 proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of majo~ 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 q'1' 13796 Page 4 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 buildings. The grading will be supervised by a licensed soils engineer or registered geologist to ensure compliance with building code requirements. This impact is not considered to be significant. 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (X) (). b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?, ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TT 13796 Page 5 i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater othe~ise available for public water supplies? ) ( ) ( ) (x) commen~: a) The absorption rote w~ll be altered because of the pawng and hardscape proposed. All watem will be conveyed to appropriate drainage facilities designed to handle the flows. This is not considered to be a significant impact. 5. AIR QUALI~. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or proje~ed air quality violation? ) (X) b) Expose sensitive mceptom to pollutants? (X) c) Alter air movement, m0istum, or tem~mtum, or cause any change in climate? (X) ' d) Create objectionable odom? ( ) (X) 6. T~NSPORTATIONICIRCU~TION. Would the proposal result m: a) Increased vehicle tdps or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) H~ards to safe~ from design features (e.g., sha~ cuwes or dangerous inteme~ions) or ' ' incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( (X) c) Inadequate emergency ac~ss or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) ( (X) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or offisite? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ~ confli~s with adopted~ policies suppoffing alternative transpo~ation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle rocks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Rail or air traffic impa~s? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TT 13796 Page 6 Comments: a) The proposed development will result in 111 condominium units which will generate additional passenger car and truck tdps. The proposed density of development and its traffic impacts were factored into the design of the street system and evaluated in the Environmental Impact Report for the Terra Vista Planned Community, As a result, the project is not expected to cause traffic congestion. 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 coredors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The site is not contained in maps indicating sensitive habitat areas by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposak 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 TT 13796 Page 7 9. HA~RDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substan~s (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Possible inte~erence with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) The creation of any health h~ard or potential health h~ard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 10. NOISE. ~11 the proposal reSufl in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Exposure of ~ople to' severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 1 t. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or msufl in a need for new or altered government se~ices in any of the following areas: a) Fire proteflon? ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Police proteflon? ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Schools? ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Maintenan~ of public facilities, including roads? ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Other governmental seaices? ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga 'FI' 13796 Page 8 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal resuff in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) fi Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal a) Affe~ a scenic vista or s~nic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effe~? () () () (X) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Commen~: c) New light and glare will be created on the pmpe~y with development of the vacant site. A condition of approval requires an on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram d the entire pmpe~y, be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division and the Police Depa~ment prior to the issuance of building peaits. The plan will be checked to ensure it meets City policies relative to avoiding the casting of ex~ss light and glare onto adjacent pmpe~ies. This impact is not considered to be significant. ~4. CULTU~L RESOURCES. Would the proposak a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga 'IF 13796 " Page 9 c) Affe~ historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Have the potential to ~ause a physical phange which would affe~ unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Restd~ existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) t 5. RECREATION. Would the pmposak a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional pa~s or other recreational facilities? ( ( ) ( ) (X) b) Affe~ existing recreational oppo~unitieS? ( ( ) ( ) (X) s.~ 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the proje~ have the potential to degrade the quali~ of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlib 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 mstd~ the range of amm or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate impodant examples of the major periods of Calibmia histo~ or pmhisto~? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Shoff te~: Does the proje~ have the potential tO achieve sho~-te~, to the disadvantage of Iong-te~, environmental goals? (A sho~-term impa~ on the environment is one which occum in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long*term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga q']' 13796 Page 10 c) Oumulative: Does the proje~ have impa~s that am individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project am considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projeds, the effe~s of other current projects, and the effects of probable future proje~s.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Subs~ntial adveme: Does the proje~ have environmental effe~s which will cause substantial adveme effe~s on human beings, either dim~ly or indire~ly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) EARLIER ANALYSES Earl ier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program El R, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an eadier 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 Ddve (check all that apply): (X) General Plan EIR (Certified Apdl 6, 1981) (X)Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH t~t88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (X) Terra Vista Planned Community EIR (SCH ff-81082808, certified February 16, 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. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would OCCUr. Signature: Date: Print Name and Title: i City of Rancho Cucamonga ' NEGA:TI,VE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 a~d 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Tentative Tract 13796 Public Review Period Closes: August 31, 1998 Project Name: Project Applicant: Lewis Homes Management Corp. Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the south side of Mountain View Drive, east of Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-151-32 Project Description: A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map including design review for the development of' 111 condominium units on 7.92 acres of land in the Medium Residential designation (8-14 units per acre) of the Tetra Vista Planned Community. 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 f<jllowing 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 eqvironment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration meansthatan EnvirOnmental Impact Reportwill 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. NOTICF The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. August 31, 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 (NO. 13796) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 111 CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON 7.92 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8-14 UNITS PER ACRE) WITHIN THE TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE, EAST OF MILLIKEN AVENUE APN: 227-151-32. A. Recitals. 1. Lewis Homes Management Corp. has filed an application for a time extension for the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 13796, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On September 8, 1993, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 93-75, thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Tentative Tract No. 13796. 3. On August 26, and continued to August 31, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said headng on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites pdor 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 headng on August 26, and August 31, 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. 3. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TE FOR TT 13796 - LEWIS HOMES August 31, 1998 Page 2 a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as a~nended, 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 w th regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and al!erations which have been ncorporated 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 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 Negat ve Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public headng, the Planning Commission hereby rebuis the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-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 Tentative Tract 13796 ;! Lewis Homes Management Corp. September 8, 1999 5, The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 31 st 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 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A TIME EXTENSION FOR A PREVIOUSLYAPPROVED DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13796 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 111 CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON 7.92 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8-14 UNITS PER ACRE) WITHIN THE TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE, EAST OF MILLIKEN AVENUE APN: 227-151-32. A. Recitals. 1. Lewis Homes Management Corp. has filed an application for a time extension for the approval of Design Review of Tentative Tract Map No. 13796, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On September 8, 1993, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 93-76, thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, the Design Review for Tentative Tract No. 13796. 3. On August 31, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed meeting on the application and concluded said meeting 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 meeting on August 31, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The previously approved 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 plans, 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 limits established by $tate law and local ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TE FOR DR FOR TT 13796 - LEWIS HOMES August 31, 1998 Page 2 _ 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions !set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension for: , Desi,qn Review Applicant; Expiration TT 13796 Lewis Homes Manag'ement Corp. September 8, 1999 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE:CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretar 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 R~ncho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 31st day of August 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: August 31, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner BY: Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14207 - HERITAGE PARK DEVELOPMENT - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map including design review for the development of 28 single family lots on 19.8 acres of land in the Very Low Density Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Beryl Street, south of Hedtage Park - APN: 1062-051-01. Related files: Variance 91-03 and Tree Removal Permit 91-05, TIME EXTENSION FOR VARIANCE 91-03 - HERITAGE PARK DEVELOPMENT - A request to reduce the minimum corner lot width from 100 feet to 90 feet and the minimum lot area from 20,000 square feet to 14,502 square feet on Lot 28; to reduce the minimum lot depth from 150 feet to 146.19 feet and 145.75 feet on Lots 11 and 14, respectively; and to reduce the minimum average lot size from 22,500 square feet to 22,228 square feet within Tentative Tract 14207, consisting of 28 single family lots on 19.8 acres of land in the Very Low Density Residential Distdct (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Beryl Street, south of Heritage Park-APN: 1062-051-01. Related files: Tentative Trect14207 and Tree Removal Permit 91-05. BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract 14207 and Variance 91-03 were approved by the Planning Commission on May 22, 1991. Since that time, the City granted two one-year time extensions, the first on June 9, 1993, and the second on March 11, 1996. Following each of the City-granted time extensions, the State also granted automatic time extensions which ultimately extended the approval of the Tentative Map and related Variance until May 22, 1998. Pdor 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. Since the applicant has received City-granted extensions totaling two years, this is the final time extension that may be granted. ITEMS G & H PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 'I'I' 14207- HERITAGE PARK DEV. August 31, 1998 Page 2 -. Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension and compared the proposal with current development cdteda outlined in the Development Cod~. Based on this review, the Tentative Tract meets the development standards for the Very LoW Residential District. The circumstances justifying the request for a Variance, specifically, the pr:e-determined street alignments, continue to impact the property in the same manner as when the 'project was originally approved. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:~ The applicant prepared Part of the Initial Study. Staff' completed Part II of the Initial Study and found that certain environmental conditions have changed since the original approval. The property is located in an area identified as potential habitat for endangered or threatened species. The 19.8 acre ~ite contains approximately 11.75 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub and approximately 1.75 acres are undisturbed coastal sage scrub habitat. As a result, habitat assessment and biological protocol surveys were required to determine potential impacts, particularly to the federally-listed threatened California gnatcatcher and the endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat. The results of the surveys indicate the site is not occupied by either of the two listed species. The report states that although the site contains some good quality coastal sage scrub, gnatcatchers tend to' prefer a variation in topography that is not present on the site. The site is not suitable for the San Bemardino kangaroo rat due to the dense cover of sage scrub vegetation, the history of cultivation, the absence of suitable habitat in surrounding lands, and possibly the historical absence of this species in the vicinity. Based on this information, the proposed development of the site will not likely result in adverse effects to endangered or threatened species. The proposed project involves grading to fill a natural drainage ravine which bisects the site in a north/south direction. The ravine was filled upstream of the site with the development of Heritage Park. The ravine contains almost exclusively upland plant species and, therefore, is not a "wetland" but does qualify as "other waters of the United States." ~As a result, the drainage course falls within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish'and Game. The Army Corps of Engineers will likely require a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the California Department of Fish and Ga,me will likely require a Streambed Alteration Agreement under Section 1603 of the State Fish and Game Code. The Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Fish and Game may impose additional conditions or mitigation measures in their approvals of water-related permits. All other environmental conditions in the area have not changed appreciably since the project was approved in 1991. Staff feels the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and recommends the Planning CommissiOn adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mitigation measures shall include: A condition of approval shall be attached to the time extension which requires the applicant to comply with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 1603 of the State Fish and Game Code. CORRESPONDENCE: This item w~s advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notic~,s were mailed to all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the project site. A letter with signed petitions was received and is attached as Exhibit "1." Because it was received t~o late for analysis before distribution of the report, staff will give an oral presentation at the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 'Fl'14207- HERITAGE PARK DEV. August31,1998 " Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant a one-year time extension for the Tentative Tract Map, Design Review, and Variance through adoption of the attached Resolutions and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:RVB:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Letters from Applicant dated February 18 and Apdl 23, 1998 Exhibit "B" Time Extension Letters dated June 10, and October 12, 1993, and January 13, 1997 Exhibit "C" Site Utilization Map Exhibit "D" Tentative Tract Map Exhibit "E" - Site and Landscape Plan Exhibit "F" - Grading Plan Exhibit "G" - Building Elevations Exhibit "H" Initial Study Part II Exhibit "1" Letter with Petitions Resolution of Approval - Tentative Tract Map Time Extension Resolution of Approval - Vadance Time Extension Resolution of Approval - Design Review Time Extension February 18, 1998 C/ty of Ranchc P/aoning DiCv~canTonga Pl~g Depa~ent sr°n 10500 Ci~c C~nt¢r Drive P. O. Box 807 ~cho Cuc~ong~ CA. 91729 A~n: Mr. Brad Bullet, CiW Planner Dear Mr. Buller, Subiect: Request Extension on the TENTATIVE TRACT 14i07 We acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated February 11, contents of which is duly noted. Enclose is the check at total of $1,214.00 as required for the captioned subject. Should we need to furnish more information in order to ease the application process, please then kindly inform us either by phone or by mail. Your assistance m this regards is highly appreciated, and we look foP~'ard to heating from you at your earliest convenience. .. Thank you very much. '. . . . ' ............... Sincerely yours, ~:~t,,~S~ E:(iZ!t/:~7 T~';,C7 .C.vTY OF R~NgNi) q. Lq-477-ST~e DE;'ART~ENT OF FZN,~NCE Sophie Chen REG-RECEiPTRI-38~217~ Heritage Bark Development Co. . CAS)-IS: ZQ:E 85:08 0~ 9232 Kermerly Street ..................... '= .............. = 18t3 PLAnNiNG FEES !I,2~4.8'j Temple City CA. 917~0 REQ'jEiT EXTE~ .EHT TRACT 14297 [Tel: (818) 291-2343] 8~!-Le>7S5',,3-;8~8-~3~ II .............. TOTgL ~UE ~:ECEZVED ~HEFz!TASF, P,~RY, D-';~ELOP CFECK: ?C[~:L TEN~ERE9 C.NAHGE DU~ April 23, 1998 ~PR '~ 7 '~ Pl~g Depa~ent C.~tv , ,- ' 10500 Ci~c Center Drive , pla~B~ OiViS~O~ P. O. Box 807 echo Cucgonga, CA. 91729 AUn: Mr. Dan Coleman. principal Planner Dear Mr. Colerag, Subject: TENTATIVE TRACT 14207 - Time Extension This letter is to further confirm our telephone conversation this morning pertinent to my previous letter of April 12, on the captioned subject. It is continned that the City of Rzmcho Cucamonga acknowledge the receipt of our application fee on Feb. 23, and the Ci~ of Rancho Cuca.monga would accept our submittal tLme of complete application after the time of said map due date of May 22; the submission date of required information: i.e. Biological Protocol Survey together with Initial Stud>' Part I, is scheduled on mid. June unless othenx~se delayed by the biologist. 1 have m the mean time also ask the biologist to expedite their tusks at earliest possible so that we ' may proceed xdth a full application to the City; nevertheless, mid. June is tentatively scheduled at the biologist's best estimate. Hopefully by mid. June we can complete all required documents so as to meet the City's satisfaction. I thank you very much for your understanding, your kindness is highly appreciated. Much Obliged! Sincerely yours, -,~ Sopt~ie'Chen Heritage Park Development Co. 9232 Kennerly Street Temple Ci~' CA 91780 [Tel: (818) 291-2343] T H E iI2"% C I T Y~.~ 0 F RANCHO CI3CAMONGA June 10, 1993 Mr. John Garcia John M. Garcia & Associates P. O. Box 1978 Upland, CA 919785 SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14207 Dear Applicant: The Planning Corallesion approved~'the above-desCribed project at its meeting of June 9, 1993. Enclosed are copies of documents pertihent to that approval. The decisiorI' of the Planning COmmission is final= following a ten-day appeal period which ends June 21, 1993. Appeals must be filed in writing to the city Clerk, state the reason for the appeal, and be accompanied by a $251 filing fee- Please review any conditions relative to utility undergrounding required in conjunction with your project. .where undergr0unding is a condition of approval, you should establish contact with affected utilities as soon as possible to avoid delays in processing your project. If you have any questions, please contact the Plan c~eck Section of the Engineering Division. subject to certain conditions of As you are aware, your project was approved approval. Please note that conditions may specify completion of certain plans or work prior to the issuance of building permits, final map recordation, or occupancy release. Your timely attentions. to these conditions is necesear3/to avoid delayS' in the completion of your proJect~ If you have any questions concerning specj conditions, please contact the appropriate dep~rtment. Please note that this approval. will expire' in 12 months unless extended by the Planning commission. Requests for extensions must be filed in writing with the City Planner 60 days prior to the expiration date and must be accompanied by payment of the then-prevailing time extension fee. In reviewing requests for time extensions, the Planning commission may approve' the extension as requested, order changes in the project, or deny the request. If you have any questions, please~ feel free to call our office at any time. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION Gail Sanchez Planning Commission secretary GS:ds Enclosure Mayor Dennis L. Stout ~ Councilmember William J, Alexander Mayor Pro-Tern Charles J. Buquet II Councilmember Diane Willlares Jack Lain, AICP, Cify Manager Councilmember Rex Gufierrez T H E C I : C : D A NC HO C UC A XC ,\ October 12, 1993 Mr. Jung Hwang 2200 Montecito Dr. San Marino, CA 91108 SUBJECT: Tentative Tract ~4207 Dear Applicant: In response to California's ailing economy, the Subdivision Map Act was recently amended by Senate Bill 428. This bill extended by 24 months the expiration date of any tentative subdivision map that had not expired by September 13, 1993. Said extension is in addition to any other extension as provided for in the Map Act. Therefore, your project is hereby extended pursuant to SB 428 as follows: File ~ New Expiration Date TT 14207/Vat 91-03 May 22, 1996/May 22, 1996 SB 428 also extends any Conditional Use Permit or Development/Design Review application granted in conjunction with your tentative subdivision map. The extensions granted by SB 428 are automatic: no application for extension or fee is necessary. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office at (909) 989-186~. Sincerely, EVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT P IVIS~~V Principal Planner DC:Sp cc: John Garcia Mayor Denms L Stout a CouncHmember William J Alexanaer Mayor Pro-Tern Charles J Buauet Jack Lain, AICP. City Manager CouncdmemDef Rex Gut~effez T H E C I T O F DANCH. O C,UCA ONC, January 13, 1997 Ms. Sophie Chen Heritage Park Development Company 9232 Kermerly Street Temple City, CA 91780 SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIV] TRACT 14207 Dear Ms. Chen: This letter serves to confirm our conversation last week when we discussed the expiration date and possible remaining time extensions for the above-referenced tentative subdivision map. Assembly B ill 771 (Aguiar) automatically extended all maps and related applications for an additional year, independent of any additional extensions possible under local ordinances. In reviewing our files, this project had used two of the possible three one-year time extensions under City Ordinance at the time the bill was passed, with an expiration date of May 22, 1997. However, in the last time extension correspondence from the City regarding AB 771 dated June 18, 1996, the new expiration date should have been shown as May 22, 1998. Therefore, with one more discretionary time extension possible, the map may potentially not expire until May 22, 1999. If you have any further questions regarding this or any other issue, please feel free to contact me at (909) 477-2750, ext. 2261. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION Steve Hayes, AICP Associate Planner SH:mlg Mayor William J. Alexander Councilmember Paul Biane Mayor Pro-Tem Rex Gutieriez ~ Councilmember James V. Curatalo 27kr . . i , ~ Councilmember Diane Willjams 10500 Civic Centi n CA 91729 · (909) 989-1851 · FAX (909) 987 ~499 CITY OF ': '~' 'L~a ¢ijqUCAMONGA ITEM: ,'rF 1'/9o7 ,.,., TrinE: ~,~ (/+.'t,,.d',~,.... ~ .... EXHIBIT: SCALE: MUSTAN.~__ + C> CITY OF e ~JC [ITEM: LAN~ "' AMONGA P ION TITLE: [,~,,,.,~t~,, t rr,-~-4r~ fll,~,~ ELEVATIONS ~ ., .~. " LEFT SIDE CONC, ROOF TILE ' EXTERIOR PLASTEn MASONlIE LAP SIDING (PAINTED] \ ALUMINUM WINDOWS RIVER ROCK ~ ~ 1;RONT HER ~JGE PJR K E S TJ TES ............" ~ PL AN~,~7~..~ 1 i,r~ha-. ~-' ~.%=7~-RANCH STYLE .5~ .% ....... ~-- ,~. ~!!! ~,CELEVATIONS RIGHT SIDE . ~.o:°°~ ,.~ ~.,~_ '. ~ - - ~ .......~ _, ,~ . M--' := .~ .~ = ~- ~.. _.. ,w ',, i"'1 -. -. ~ ;._ ...... RE4R HER ITAGE PAR K E S T,/I TE S ............ LEFT SIDE HER I T?I GE PzIR K E S Tzt TE S , ....~ ~ ' ~ PLAN 1 STYLE · ~ ~ C"'~' ~ MELITERRANEAN · ~ ~EL~VATIONS 6'X 9' TILE BAND W/WOOD TRIM- : .... ~ .~~ FRONT' HER ITAGE P~tR K ESTATES ! ....! ............. . !1 ' ~ MEDITERRANEAN STYLE ,% EL EVA TIONS + . HERIT~tGE PAR K ESTATES ~~~ s L sr~ rs o~vs LEFT SIDE. HER IT)GE P,4R K E S ~ '=' ..... : ...... ," ' ""~'--'__~ ~ :~ ~.:-(~ RANCH STYLE [I ........ RIGHT SIDE t - ~%-:= ..~, --: ....... HER IT3GE PZR K E ~ T3 TE MEDITERRANEAN STYLE ~' 'ELEVATIONS (pAiNTED] wl LITE$ LEFT SIDE + 1;RONI' HERITztGE P~IR K EST~ITES ; ....! ....... PLAN 2 ME D1 TE R R A NE AN S T YL E E L EVA TI ONS RIGHT ~SIDE~ : HE R 1TAGE PAR K E S TA TE S .....' ........1~ TM ~ , :"' .... ~~LE~/.4t770NS · ' ' ' _--~ IREVERSE) .. LEFT SIDE .^,o.,,E LAP ,,.,.. ,P^,NTEO,. .,,~..~___2 :' I;RONT' HER ITAGE PAR K E S TJ TE S RIGHT SIDE N ,ooo,.,~ ~ , . .. . &-.. '~'~. Rg~R HERITylGE DtR K ESTylTES , ....~ " ........ ="':"'~='::':' .....' ' ......"~' COLONI.4L STYLE · , a~: ° ~,ELEF~I170NS ' ' .... ~ ' ' ~ RIGHT SIDE HER1TztGE PARK ESTATES .....~ City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM -.INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Tentative Tract 14207 Time Extension 2. Related Files: Tentative Tract 14207, Vadance 91-03, & Variance 91-03 Time Extension 3. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14207 - HERITAGE PARK DEVELOPMENT - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map including design review for the development of 28 single family lots on 19.8 acres of land in the Very Low Density Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Beryl Street, south of Heritage Park, north of Wilson Avenue - APN: 1062-051-01. Related files: Variance 91-03 and Tree Removal Permit gl-05. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Sophie Chen Heritage Park Development Company 9232 Kennedy Street Temple City, CA 91780 (626) 291-2343 5. General Plan Designation: Very Low Residential (less than 2 units per acre) 6. Zoning: Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: North Hedtage Park; Open Space South - Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) East vacant and single family residential; Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) West Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Ddve Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner, (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cucamonga County Water District " H " Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TT 14207 Page ? ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS i POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be po;tentially affected by this project, invo v ng at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impa~ct," "Potentially Significant Impact Un ess Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as ind cated by the checklist on the following pages, ( ) Land Use and Planning (X) Transportation/CirculatiOn ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing (X) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (X) Geologicel Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (X) Aesthetics (X) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION ' On the basis of this initial evaluation: ;, ( ) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. (X) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has beeni adequately analyzed in an eadier 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 eadier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that eadier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the:proposed project. Signed: ~. 1.(.,C ~'f~, ~)CLv~ Rebecca Van Buren Associate Planner July 29, 1998 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TT 14207 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. L Potentially 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 proposal a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ) ( ) ( ) (X) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( (X) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga 'l']' 14207 Page 4 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, ot fill? ( ) (X) ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) h) Expansive soils? ;, ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: f) The topography of th~ site will be altered to accommodate the street improvements and residential buildings. The grading will be supervised by a licensed soils engineer or registered geologist to ensure compliance with building code requirements. This in ~act is not considered to be significant. 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 aiteration of surface water quality (e.g. , temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) (X) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) (X) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals,, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge:capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) G*H o Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TT 14207 Page 5 Sign~f~nt . h) Impa~s to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) i) Substantial redu~ion in the amount of groundwater othe~ise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Commen~: a & e) The proposed project involves undergrounding a drainage ravine. The results of a field su~ey (Chainbern Group, June 24, 1998), indicate the drainage course falls within the judsdi~ion of the U.S. A~y Co~s of Engineers (ACOE) and the California Depa~ment of Fish and Game (CDFG). The drainage coume contains almost exclusively upland plant species and, therefore, is not a "wetland" but does quali~ as "other watem of the United States." As such, the ACOE will require a permit under Section 4~ of the Clean Water Act and the CDFG will require a Streambed Alteration Agreement under Seaion 1603 of the State Fish and Game Code. Because of the size and chara~eristi~ of the drainage on the site, the ACOE may allow Seaion 4~ peaits using one of the existing Nationwide Peaits (e.g. NDWP 26). The ACOE will require ~ification (or waiver thereoff under Seaion 401 from the Regional Water Quali~ Control Board. All watem will be conveyed to approp~ate drainage facilities designed to handle the flows. A new condition of approval shall be a~ched to the time extension which requires the applicant to ob~in a petit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from theU.S. A~y Co~s of Engineer, and a Streambed Alteration Agreement under Section 1603 of the S~te Fish and Game Code from the California Depament of Fish and Game, prior to recordation of the tract map. s~ 8. AIR QUALI~. Would the pmposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or cont~bute to an existing or proje~ed air quali~ violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Expose sensitive receptom to po[lutants? ( ) ( ) (X) 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 TT 14207 Page 6 6. T~NSPORTATION/CIRCU~TION. Would the proposal result in: ~ a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) (X) ( ) b) H~ards to safety from design features, (e.g., sha~ cu~es or dangerous inteme~ion'.s) or incompatible uses (e.g., brm equipment)? ( ) (X) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) (X) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or Off-site? ( ) ( ) (X) e) H~ards or baffiem br pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) (X) ~ Con~i~s with adopted policies supposing alternative transpo~ation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Rail or air traffic impa~s? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Commen~: a) The proposed development will result in 28 single family dwelling units which will generate additional passenger car and track tdps. The proposed density of development and its traffic impa~s were favored into the design of the street system. As a result, the proje~ is not eXpe~ed to cause traffic congestion. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.: Would the propOsal msult in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or mm species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and bi~s)? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Locally designated natural communities ,(e.g., eu~lyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., mamh, dpadan, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) ~ldlife dispemal or migration co~idom? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) J Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TT 14207 Page 7 Comments: a) The property 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 surveys were required to determine potential impacts, particularly to the federally-listed threatened California gnatcatcher and the endangered San Bemardino kangaroo rat. The habitat assessment and protocol surveys were conducted by the Chambers Group in June 1998 by a biologist permitted by the U,S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The results of the surveys indicate approximately 11.75 acres of the entire project site are disturbed coastal sage scrub dominant and approximately 1.75 acres along the north end of the drainage course consist of undisturbed coastal sage scrub. The report indicates the habitat on site is not occupied by either of the two endangered species pursuant to surveys conducted according to USFWS protocol, The report indicates that although the site does contain some good quality coastal sage scrub, gnatcatchers tend to prefer a variation in topography that is not present on the relatively flat project site. The site was judged to be unsuitable for the San Bemardino kangaroo rat due to: (1) the dense cover of sage scrub vegetation throughout the site; (2) the history of cultivation on site; (3) the absence of suitable San Bernardino kangaroo rat habitat in the surrounding lands; and (4) possibly the historical absence of this species on the property or in the immediate vicinity. Based on this information, the proposed development of the site will not likely result in adverse effects. There is no knowledge of other unique, rare, sensitive, or endangered species potentially living on the project site. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?. ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TT 14207 ~ Page 8 b) Possible intefferen~ 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 t0 existing sour~s of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Increased ~m h~ard in areas with ~ammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 10. NOISE. Will the pmposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Exposure of people tO severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would;the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered govemment seaices in any of the following a~as: a) Fire proteflon? ( ( ) ( ) (X) b) Poli~ pmte~ion? ( ( ) ( ) (X) c) Schools? ( ( ) ( ) (X) d) Maintenan~ of public facilities, including roads? ( ( ) ( ) (X) e) Other governmental seaices? ( ( ) ( ) (X) 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) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga 1]' 14207 Page 9 b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution bcilities? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) (X) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) (X) ~ Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 13, AESTHETICS, Would the proposak a) Affe~ a s~nic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Commen~: c) New light and glare will ~ created on the prope~y with development of the vacant site. The residential development and associated street lights will be checked to ensure it meets City policies relative to avoiding the casting of ex~ss light and glare onto adja~nt pmpe~ies. This impa~ is not considered to be signi~nt. s~ 14, CULTU~L RESOURCES. Would the proposak a) Distu~ paleontologi~l msour~s? (X) b) Distu~ archaeological resources? (X) c) Affect histori~l or cultural msOur~s? (X) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affe~ unique ethnic cultural values? (X) e) Restri~ existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impa~ area? ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TT 14207 Page 10 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand ~for neighboffiood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Affect existing recreational oppo~unities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the proje~ 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, redu~ the number or restd~ the range of a ram or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate impo~ant examp es of the major pedods of California histo~ or prehisto~? ( ) ( ) ) (X) b) Sho~ te~: Does the:project have the 'potential to achieve sho~-te= to the disadvantage of Iong-te=, environmental goals? (A sh0d-te= impa~ on the environment is one which occum in a relatively bdef, definitive pedod of time. Long-te~ impa~s will endure well into 'the future.) ( ) ( ) ) (X) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impa~s that are individually limited~ but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effe~s of a proje~ am considerable when viewed in conne~ion with the effe~s of past projects, the effe~s of other cu~ent proje~s, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Subs~ntial adverse:~Does the proje~have environmental effe~s which will ~use substantial adveme effe~s on human beings, either dire~ly or indim~ly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TT 14207 Page 11 EARLIER ANALYSES -, Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiedng, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following eadier 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 Apdl 6, 1981) (X) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where cleady no significant environmental effects would OCCUr. Signature: Print Name and Title: City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulate~. for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality ActSection 21091 an~ 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Tentative Tract 14207 Public Review Pedod Closes: August 31, 1998 Project Name: Project Applicant: Hedtage Park Development Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the west side of Beryl Street, south of Heritage Park- APN: 1062-051-01. Project Description - A request for an:extension of a previously approved tentative tract map including design review for the development of 28 single family lots on 19.8 acres of land in the Very Low Density Residential Distdct (less than 2 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 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 cleady np 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 includedr in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review .!t 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. Au.qust 31, 1998 .~ Date of Determination Adopted By Ronald L. Johnson 5715 Arabian Drive Alta Loma, CA 91701 August 20, 1998 ' ~e~ ~ & '~ 7"'i4/ ?P'.5"- ~ 0 7 ~ Ce4 ) Larry McNeil, Chaiman R~cho Cucamonga Pla~ing Commission Hand Delivered City of Rancho Cucmonga 10~ Civic Center ~ve Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91B0 AUention: Re~cca Va~uren, Ass~iate Planner a) Notice of ~blic Hearing, ~26-~, Tentative Tract 14207--Heritage Park Development b) ~vironmen~ Assessment c) Sewer Obligations to Contiguous Non-Sewered Communities Dear Mr. McNeil: This is in regard to the public hearing on August ?_.6, 1998, relating, among other things, to the environmental assessment for tentative Tract 14207-Heritage Park Development. This proposed development of 19.8 acres immediately adjoins to the west Tract 7181, a non-sewered community consisting of 22 homes on Arabian Drive and Mustang Road. The residents of our tract understand that the proposed development will connect to the public sewer system running along Beryl Street, and further that as condition of granting approval to the developer to proceed, the City will require the developer to provide a sewer stub at the property line of the development and our adjoining tract. The well intended aim of such a requirement is to provide our community with access to the public sewer system, thereby enabling the residents to be connected to the far safer and healthier community sanitation system, which is currently operated by the Cucamonga County Water District. The reality, however, is far different. Rather than bringing such communities like ours within the public's sewer system, we understand the reality is just the opposite, namely, that adjoining non-sewered communities continued to be non-sewered, notwithstanding the existence of sewer stubs placed at the property line. This was made quite clear by a representative of the Cucamonga County Water District, who advised that they are not aware of any community which had been faced with this connection "opportunity" of being able to proceed due to the very high costs involved, even if such costs were spread and paid off over a 10-year assessment period. There is increasing sentiment among the residents of our community that the City has some responsibility to its citizens to bring as many of its non-sewered residents as possible a sewer connection, especially when a contiguous sewered development is approved. There are clear community environmental, public health and safety reasons for reducing, if not eliminating, resident dependence on non-sewer systems for disposing of sewer waste. While the City assures that new developments are sewered, there is no corresponding commitment to its significant, non- sewered constituencies. Surely, it would be appropriate, if not a mandate, for the City to conunit itself to bringing its non-sewered residents on line. The proposed devel~3pment of tentative Tract 1~207 presents the City with both an opportunity and a challenge. The planning process proyides the City with an opportunity to meet the very real sewer connection needs of an adjoining ngn-sewered community, as well as a challenge to meet those needs in a manner that is cost effective not only to the residents of our tract but also to the greater community of Rancho Cucamon~a as a whole. For the moment, let us agree that the mere placement of a property line sewer stub is'.not a sufficient response to meeting our community's sewer needs. What, then, can the City do. to help us meet such needs--beyond requiring a sewer stub? For example: ! · What specific steps can the City take to assist communities like ours in connecting to the public's sewer system? · Does the City have the power to require a developer to enter into a cost sharing project, the purpose of which would be to connect an adjoining. non-sewered to their sewer system? · Are EPA, State, or County funds available to help support City efforts in extending sewer service to its non-sewered communities? · And will the Planning Commission address what specific action(s) it can take in connection with their review responsibilities in considering the .proposed tentative tract 14207 which would assist in bringing realistic and cost effective Sewer service to the residents of our community? Your considered response wili be greatly appreCiamd. Together with tbjs letter I am enclosing 9 Petitions to the Manning Commission from other tract residents, which address the sewer needs of our community and asks the Planning Comnlission to re-examine what they can do to assist us in acquiring meaningful access to the public's sewer system. KEEP THIS COPY FOR YOUR RECORDS DATE: 8-11-08 PETITION FOR: T~E PLANNING COMMISSION OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FROM: A RESIDENT OF TRACT 7181 SLrBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 14207-HERITAGE PARK, PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING OF 8-26-98 WHEREAS, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission will be holding a pubhc heating on August 26, 1998. on. among other things, extending the time for the development of tentative Tract 14207-Heritage Park, 19.8 acres between Beryl Street and Heritage Park; and WHEREAS, the undersigned is a resident xvithin a communi~' of homes i~nmediately adjacent to the proposed tentative tract, located to the west along Arabian Drive and Mustang Road. consisting of 22 households in Tract 7181, and is without a public sewer system connection and has no realistic opportunity to connect to such a system: and WHEREAS. any future development of tentative Tract 14207-Heritage Park Development requires the homes in that proposed development to be connected to the public sewer system. which currently runs along Beryl Avenue: and WHEREAS. the residents of Tract 7181 believe that as the greater community continues to develop. it is in the health and safety interests of Rancho Cucamonga and the Planning Commission to bring as many of its residents as possible within the sepAce provided by the area's public sewer system operator. the Cucamonga County. Water District; and WHEREAS. any requirement placed on the developer to provide a sewer connection stub at the property. line of the tentative tract. although a desirable and well intended objective. historically fails to meet the needs of the adjoining, non-sewered community, according to information provided by a representative of the Cucamonga County Water District: and WHEREAS. the scheduled pubhc hearing before the Planning Commission will give the Planning Comrmssion and its staff an opportunity to revisit the issue of how best, under circumstances like the present, to meet the sewer connection needs of the community, in general, and the needs of the residents of Tract 7181, in particular; and WHEREAS, there is a need for the Planning Commission to explore other available options to bring public sewer service to the residents of Tract 7181; and WHEREAS, traditional methods of bringing sewer service to adjoining non-sewered communities have failed in the past; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above, I request ihe Planning Commission reexamine what action the Planning Commission can take to require the proposed developer to make available sewer service to our community of 22 households, and, or otherwise explore with the residents available options to bting such service to our community at minimal cost, in addition to the developer being required to provide a sewer connection stub to the property line of the proposed development. .'~ i./ '/ Printed Name: Ad ess: 7:'. ,, ,- 6- +/'J '77 .' ' / /' DATE: 8- I 1-98 PETITION FOR: THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FROM: A RESIDENT OF TRACT 71]8 I SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 14207FHERITAGE PARK. PLANNING COMMISSION .HEARING OF 8-26-98 WHEREAS, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing on August26, 1998. on. among other things. extending the time for the development of tentative Tract 14207-Heritage Park, 19.8 acres betWeen Beryl Street and Heritage Park; and WHEREAS, the undersigned is a resident within a community of homes immediately adjacent to the proposed tentative tract. located to the west along Arabian Drive and Mustang Road, consisting of 22 households in Tract 7181, and is without a public sewer system connection and has no realistic opportunity to connect to such a system; and WHEREAS, any future development of tentative Tract 14207-Heritage Park Development requires the homes in that proposed development to Ige connected to the public sewer system, which currently runs along Beryl Avenue; and WHEREAS. the residents of Tract ~181 believe that !as the greater community continues to develop, it is in the health and safety interests of Rancho Cucamonga and the Planning Commission to bring as many of its residents as possible within the service provided by the area's public sewer system operator:! the Cucamonga County Water District; and WHEREAS, any requirement placed on the developer to provide a sewer connection stub at the propert3, line of the tentative tract. although ,a desirable and well intended objective. historically fails to meet the needs of the adjoining~ non-sewered community, according to information provided by a representative of the Cucamonga County Water District; and WHEREAS, the scheduled public hearing before the Planning Comaussion will give the Planning Commission and its staff an opportunity io revisit the issue of how best, under circumstances like the present, to meet the sewer connection needs of the community, in general, and the needs of the residents of Tract 718 l, in particular; and WHEREAS, there is a need for the Planning CommisSion to explore other available options to bnng public sewer service to the ~esidents of Tract 7181; and WHEREAS, traditional methods of bringing sewer service to adjoining non-sewered communities have failed in the past;i NOW. THEREFORE, in consideration of the above~ I request the Planning Commission reexamine what action the Planning Commission can take to require the proposed developer to make available sewer service to, our community of 22 households, and, or otherwise explore with the residents available options to bring such service to our community at minimal cost, in addition to the developer being required to provide a sewer connection stub to the property line of the proposed development. / Signature: , . / Date: Printed Name: ' . ' / DATE: 8- I 1-98 PETITION FOR: THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FROM: A RESIDENT OF TRACT 7181 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 14207-HERITAGE PARK. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING OF 8-26-98 WHEREAS, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing on August 26, 1998. on. among other things, extending the time for the development of tentative Tract 14207-Heritage Park, 19.8 acres between Beryl Street and Heritage Park; and WHEREAS, the undersigned is a resident within a community of homes immediately adjacent to the proposed tentative tract. located to the west along Arabian Drive and Mustang Road. consisting of 22 households in Tract 7181, and is without a public sewer system connection and has no realistic opportunity to connect to such a system: and WHEREAS. any future development of tentative Tract 14207-Heritage Park Development requires the homes in that proposed development to be connected to the public sewer system, which currently runs along Beryl Avenue: and WHEREAS. the residents of Tract 7181 believe that as the greater community continues to develop, it is in the health and safety interests of Rancho Cucamonga and the Planning Commission to bring as many of its residents as possible within the service provided by the area's public sewer system operator, the Cucamonga County Water District; and WHEREAS, any requirement placed on the developer to provide a sewer connection stub at the property. line of the tentative tract. a/though a desirable and well intended objective. historically fails to meet the needs of the adjoining, non-sewered community, according to information provided by a representative of the Cucamonga Count).' Water District: and WHEREAS. the scheduled public hearing before the Planning Commission will give the, Planning Commission and its staff an opportunity to revisit the issue of how best, under circumstances like the present. to meet the sewer connection needs of the community, in general, and the needs of the residents of Tract 7181, in pamcular; and WHEREAS, there is a need for the Planning Commission to explore other available options to bring public sewer service to the residents of Tract 7181; and WHEREAS, traditional methods of bringing sewer service to adjoining non-sewered communities have failed in the past; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above, I request the Planning Commission reexamine what action the Planning Commission can take to require the proposed developer to make available sewer service to our community of 22 households, and, or otherwise explore with the residents available options to bring such service to oar community at minimal cost, in addition to the developer being required to provide a sewer connection stub to Irhe property line of the proposed development. Signature: ~ ' , ~ ~j~x~.,,~ Date: _ Address: ,5'23(--j ~t~ ~.jO,'~ Zgt /a % /~ Z C,"q · KEEP THIS COPY FOR YOUR RECORDS DATE: 8-1 I -98 PETITION FOR: T~tE PLANNING COMMISS!ON OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FROM: A RESIDENT OF TRACT 71:81 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 14207,-HERITAGE PARK, PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING OF 8-26-98 WHEREAS, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing on August 26. 1998, on. among other things, extending the time for the development of tentative Tract 14207-Heritage Park, 19.8 acres betWeen Beryl Street and Heritage Park: and WHEREAS, the undersigned is a resident within a community of homes immediately adjacent to the proposed tentative tract, located to the west ~long Arabian Drive and Mustang Road, consisting of 22 households in Tract 7181. and is without a public sewer system connection and has no realistic opportunity to connect to such a system: and WHEREAS, any future development of tenlative Tract 14207-Heritage Park Development requires the homes in that proposed development to be connected to the public sewer system, which currently runs along Beryl Avenue: and WHEREAS. the residents of Tract 7181 believe that as the greater community continues to develop, it is in the health and safety interests of Rancho Cucamonga and the Planning Commission to bring as many of its residents as possible within the service provided by the area's public sewer system operator.: the Cucamonga County water District: and WHEREAS. any requirement placed on the develope~ to provide a sewer connection stub at the property line of the tentative tract. although a desirable and well intended objective. historically fails to meet the needs of the adjoining~ non-sewered community, according to information provided by a representative of the Cucamonga Cotmty Water District: and WHEREAS, the scheduled public hearing before the Planning Commission will give the Planning Commission and its staff an opportunity to revisit the issue of how best. under circumstances like the present. to meet the sewer connection needs of the community. in general, and the needs of the residents of Tract 7181, in particular; and WHEREAS, there is a need for the planning CommisSion to explore other available options to bring public sewer service to the residents of Tract 7181; and WHEREAS, traditional methods of bringing sewer service to adjoining non-sewered communities have failed in the past; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above, I request the Planning Commission reexamine what action the Planning Commission can take to require the proposed developer to make available sewer service to our community of 22 households, and, or otherwise explore with the residents available options to bring such service to our community at minimal cost, in addition to the developer b~ing required to provide a sewer connection stub to the property line of the proposed development. DATE: 8- I I -98 PETITION FOR: T]-IE PLANNING COMMISSION OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FROM: A RESIDENT OF TRACT 7181 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 14207-HERITAGE PARK, PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING OF 8-26-98 WHEREAS, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing on August 26. 1998. on, among other things. extending the time for the development of tentative Tract 14207-Heritage Park, 19.8 acres between Beryl Street and Heritage Park; and WHEREAS, the undersigned is a resident within a community of homes immediately adjacent to the proposed tentative tract, located to the west along Arabian Drive and Mustang Road, consisting of 22 households in Tract 7181, and is without a public sewer system connection and has no realistic opportunity, to connect to such a system: and WHEREAS. any future development of tentative Tract 14207-Heritage Park Development requires the ho~es in that proposed development to be connected to the public sewer system, xvhich currently runs along Beryl Avenue: and WHEREAS. the residents of Tract 7181 believe that as the greater community cormhues to dexelop. it is in the health and safer)' interests of Rancho Cucamonga and the Planning Commission to bring as many of its residents as possible within the sen, ice provided by the area's public sewer system operator, the Cucamonga Count).' Water District: and WHEREAS, any requirement placed on the developer to provide a sewer connection stub at the propeR' line of the tentative tract. although a desirable and well intended objective. historically fails to meet the needs of the adjoining, non-sewered community, according to information provided by a representative of the Cucamonga Count)' Water District: and WHEREAS, the scheduled public hearing before the Planning Commission will give the Planning Commission and its staff an opportunity to revisit the issue of how best, under circumstances like the present. to meet the sewer connection needs of the community, in general, and the needs of the residents of Tract 718 I, in pamcular; and WHEREAS, there is a need for the Planning Commission to explore other available options to bring public sewer service to the residents of Tract 7181; and WHEREAS, traditional methods of bringing sewer service to adjoining non-sewered communities have failed in the past; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above, I request the Planning Commission reexamine what action the Planning Commission can take to require the proposed developer to make available sewer service to our community of 22 households, and, or otherwise explore with the residents available options to bring such service to our community at minimal cost, in addition to the developer being required to provide a sewer connection stub to the properly line of the proposed development. Signature: /~6/3LZ~.~C /4~7 ~ ~ Date: Printed Name: L- ,~A3/) A /.~ , T~,g_Z~ ~ rc coc, t 4o o& ,O-k q DATE: 8- I I -98 PETITION FOR: THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FROM: A RESIDENT OF TRACT 7i81 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 1420'~-HERITAGE PARK, PLANNIN0 COMMISSION IL1EARING OF 8-26-98 WHEREAS, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing on August 26, 1998. on, among other things. extendin~g the time for the development of tentative Tract 14207-Heritage P~rk, 19.8 acres between Beryl Sweet and Heritage Park; and WHEREAS, the undersigned is a resident within a community of homes immediately adjacent to the proposed tentative tract. located to the west along Arabian Drive and Mustang Road. consisting of 22 households in Tract 7181, and is without a public sewer system connection and has no realistic opportunity to connect to such a system; and WHEREAS, any future development of tentative Tract 14207-Heritage Park Development requires the homes in that proposed development to be connected to the public sewer system, which currently runs along Beryl Avenue: and WHEREAS. the residents of Tract ~181 believe that as the ~reater community continues to develop, it is in the health and safety interests of Ranchc; Cucamonga and the Planning Commission to bring as many of its residents as possible within the service provided by the area's public sewer system operator, the Cucamonga Counb, Water District; and WHEREAS, any requirement placed on the developer to provide a sewer connection stub at the propen2,.' line of the tentative tract. althoul, h,a desirable and well intended objective. historically fails to meet the needs of the adjoin/'ng~ non-sewered community, according to information provided by a representative of the Cuca}nonga Count).' Water District: and WHEREAS. the scheduled public hearing before the Planning Commission will ~ive the- Planning Commission and its staff an opponunib' to revisit the issue of how belt, under circumstances like the present. to meet the sewer connection needs of the community, in general, and the needs of the residents of Tract 7181, in particular; and WHEREAS, there is a need for the Planning Commission to explore other available options to bring public sewer service to the residents of Tract 7181; and WHEREAS, traditional methods of bringing sewer service to adjoining non-sewered communities have failed in the past; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above, 1 request the Planning Commission reexamine what action the Planning: Commission can take to require the proposed developer to make available sewer service to our community of 22 households, and, or otherwise explore with the residents availabl~ options to bring such service to our community at minimal cost, in addition to the developer being required to provide a sewer connection stub to the property line of the proposed development. DATE: 8- I I -98 PETITION FOR: THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FROM: A RESIDENT OF TRACT 7181 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 14207-HERITAGE PARK, PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING OF 8-26-98 WHEREAS, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission will be holding a pubhc hearing on August 26. 1998. on. among other things. extending the time for the development of tentative Tract 14207-Heritage Park, 19.8 acres between Beryl Street and Heritage Park; and WHEREAS, the undersigned is a resident within a community of homes immediately adjacent to the proposed tentative tract. located to the west along Arabian Drive and Mustang Road. consisting of 22 households in Tract 71el, and is without a public sewer system connection and has no realistic opportunity. to connect to such a system; and WHEREAS. any future development of tentative Tract 14207-Heritage Park Development requires the homes in that proposed development to be connected to the public sewer system, which currently runs along Beryl Avenue: and WHEREAS. the residents of Tract 7181 believe that as the greater community continues to develop, it is in the health and safety interests of Rancho Cucamonga and the Planning Commission to bring as many of its residents as possible within the service provided by the area's public sewer system operator, the Cucamonga Counly Water District: and WHEREAS, any requirement placed on the developer to provide a sewer connection stub at the propert3.' line of the tentative tract. although a desirable and well intended objective. historically fails to meet the needs of the adjoining, non-sewered eommuniW, according to information provided by a representative of the Cucamonga Count' Water District: and WHEREAS. the scheduled public hearing before the Planning Commission will give the- Planning Commission and its staff an opportunity to revisit the issue of how best, under circumstances like the present. to meet the sewer connection needs of the community, in general, and the needs of the residents of Tract 7181, in pamcular; and WHEREAS, there is a need for the Planning Commission to explore other available options to bring public sewer service to the residents of Tract 7181; and WHEREAS, traditional methods of bringing sewer service to adjoining non-sewered communities have failed in the past; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above, I request the Planning Commission reexarnine what action the Planning Commission can take to require the proposed developer to make available sewer service to our community of 22 households, and, or otherwise explore with the residents available options to bring such service to our community at minimal cost, in addition to the developer being required to provide a sewer connection stub to the property line of the proposed development. DATE: 8- I 1-98 PETITION FOR: THE PLANNING COMMISS!ION OF R,~NCHO CUC~-MONG,~ FROM: A RESIDENT OF TRACT 7 i 81 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 14207-HERITAGE PARK. PLANNING COMMISSION ILIEARING OF 8-26-98 WHEREAS, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Comm~ission will be holding a public hearing on August26. 1998. on. among other things, extendin;g the time for the development of tentative Tract 14207-Heritage Park, 19.8 acres betWeen Bery Street and Heritage Park; and WHEREAS, the undersigned is a resident within a community of homes immediately adjacent to the proposed tentative tract. located to the west along Arabian Drive and Mustang Road. consisting of 22 households in Tract 7181, and :is without a public sewer system connection and has no realistic opportunity to connect to such a system: .and WHEREAS. any future development of tentative Tract 14207-Heritage Park Development requires the homes in that proposed development to be connected to the public sewer system, which currently runs along Beryl Avenue: and WHEREAS. the residents of Tract 7181 believe that as the greater community continues to develop, it is in the health and safety interests of~ Rancho Cucamonga and the Planning Commission to bring as many of its residents as possible within the service provided by the area's public sewer system operator.! the Cucamonga County Water District; and WHEREAS. any requirement placed on the developer to provide a sewer connection stub at the propen3.' line of the tentative tract. although. a desirable and well intended objective. historically fails to meet the needs of the adjoinTng, non-scwered community, according to information provided by a representative of the Cucamonga Count3' Water District: and WHEREAS, the scheduled public hearing before the Planning Commission will give the Planning Commission and its staff an opportunity to revisit the issue of how belt, under circumstances like the present. to meet the sewer connection needs of the community, in general, and the needs of the residents of Tract 7181 ,' in particular; and WHEREAS, there is a need for the Planning Commission to explore other available options to bring public sewer service to the residents of Tract 7181; and WHEREAS, traditional methods Z'of bringing sewer service to adjoining non-sewered communities have failed in the past~ NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above, I request the Planning Commission reexamine what action the Planning' Comnussion can take to require the proposed developer to make available sewer service to our community of 22 households, and, or otherwise explore with the residents available options to bring such service to our community at KEEP THIS COPY FOR YOUR RECORDS DATE: 8-11-98 PETITION FOR: 'file PLANNFNG COMMISSION OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FROM: A RESIDENT OF TRACT 7181 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 14207-HERITAGE PARK, PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING OF 8-26-98 WHEREAS, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Comn'ussion will be holding a public heanng on August 26. 1998, on. among other things. extending the time for the development of tentative Tract 14207-Heritage Park, 19.8 acres between Beryl Street and Heritage Park; and WTtEREAS. the undersigned is a resident within a community of homes immediately adjacent to the proposed tentative tract, located to the west along Arabian Drive and Mustang Road. consisting of 22 households in Tract 7181. and is without a public sewer system connection and has no realistic opportunity to connect to such a system: and WHEREAS, any future development of tentative Tract 14207-Heritage Park Development requires the homes in that proposed development to be connected to the public sewer system, which currently runs along Beryl Avenue: and WHEREAS. the residents of Tract 7181 believe that as the greater community continues to develop, it is in the health and safety interests of Rancho Cucamonga and the Planning Commission to bring as many of its residents as possible within the service provided by the area's public sewer system operator, the Cucamonga County Water District: and W'HEREAS. any requirement placed on the developer to provide a sewer connection stub at the property. line of the tentative tract. although a desirable and well intended objective. historically fails to meet the needs of the adjoining, non-sewered community, according to information provided by a representative of the Cucamonga County Water District: and WHEREAS. the scheduled public hearing before the Planning Commission will give the Planning Commission and its staff an opportunity to revisit the issue of how best, under circumstances like the present. to meet the sewer connection needs of the community, in general, and the needs of the residents of Tract 7181, in particular; and WHEREAS, there is a need for the Planning Commission to explore other available options to bring public sewer service to the residents of Tract 7181: and WHEREAS, traditional methods of bringing sewer service to adjoining non-sewered communities have failed in the past; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above, I request the Planning Commission reexamine what action the Planning Comrmssion can take to require the proposed developer to make available sewer service to our community of 22 households, and, or otherwise explore with the residents available options to bring such service to our community at minimal cost, in addition to the developer being required to provide a sewer connection stub ~o the propert3' line of the proposed development. Sign 1. ~ Date: g'l Printed Name: Dt -ne., RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTIOkl OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (NO. 14207) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 28 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 19,8 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BERYL STREET, SOUTH OF HERITAGE PARK, NORTH OF MANZANITA DRIVE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1062-051-01 A. Recitals. 1. Heritage Park Development Company has filed an application for the extension of the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 14207, as described in thetitle ofthis Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On May 22, 1991, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 91-43, thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Tentative Tract No. 14207. 3. On August 26, and continued to August 31, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said headng on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on August 26, and August 31, 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. 3. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TE FOR TT 14207 - HERITAGE PARK DEV. , August 31, 1998 I 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 guideline,,; promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negativ~ 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 fojlows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration fpr the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potentialfor 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 headng, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. Based upon the findingsand conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension for: Proiect Applicant Expiration Tentative Tract 14207 ~= Heritage Park Development Company May 22, 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: Planninq Division 1) All previously adopted conditions o,f approval for Tentative Tract 14207, as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 91-43, shall apply. Engineedn~ Division 1) All previously adopted conditions ef approval for Tentative Tract 14207, as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 91-43, shall apply. Environmental Mitiqation Measures 1 ) The developer shall~comply with the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 1603 of the State Fish and Game Code, for the grading alteration of the natural drainage course, prior to issuance of grading and building permits. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TE FOR 'IT 14207 - HERITAGE PARK DEV. August 31, 1998 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Bulier, 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 31st 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 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION FOR VARIANCE NO. 91-03, ALLOWING A REDUCTION OF THE MINIMUM CORNER LOT WIDTH FROM 100 FEET TO 90 FEET AND THE MINIMUM LOT AREA FROM 20,000 SQUARE FEET TO 14,502 SQUARE FEET ON LOT 28; TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT DEPTH FROM 150 FEET TO 146.19 FEET AND 145.75 FEET ON LOTS 11 AND 14, RESPECTIVELY; AND TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM AVERAGE LOT SIZE FROM 22,500 SQUARE FEET TO 22,228 SQUARE FEET WITHIN TENTATIVE TRACT 14207, CONSISTING OF 28 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 19.8 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BERYL STREET, SOUTH OF HERITAGE PARK, NORTH OF MANZANITA DRIVE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1062-051-01. A. Recitals. 1. Heritage Park Development Company has filed an application for the extension of Variance 91-03 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Time Extension request is referred to as "the application." 2. On May 22, 1991, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 91-45, thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Variance 91-03. 3. On August 26, and continued to August 31, 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 substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on August 26, and August 31, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The previously approved Variance is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and b. The strict enforcement of the conditions of approval regarding expirations would not be consistent with the intent of the Development; and c. The extension of the Variance is not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TE FOR VAR 91-03 - HERITAGE PARK DEV. August 31, 1998 Page 2 d. The extension is within the time lindits established by State law and local ordinance. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions sgt forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension for: Variance Applicant: Expiration Variance 91-03 Heritage Park Development Company May 22, 1999 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 31ST 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 i:31 st 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 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OFA PREVIOUSLYAPPROVED DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14207 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 28 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 19.8 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BERYL STREET, SOUTH OF HERITAGE PARK, NORTH OF MANZANITA DRIVE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1062-051-01. A. Recitals. 1. Hedtage Park Development Company has filed an application for the extension of the approval of Design Review of Tentative Tract Map No. 14207, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On May 22, 1991, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 91-44, thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, the Design Review forTentative Tract No. 14207. 3. On the 31st day of August 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application. 4. All legal prerequisites pdor 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 31, 1998, including wdtten and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The previously approved 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 plans, 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 limits established by State law and local ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TE FOR DR FOR TT 14207 - HERITAGE PARK DEXY. August 31, 1998 Page 2 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension for: Desi~n Review ~,pplicant Expiration Tentative Tract 14207 Hedtage Park Development Company May 22, 1999 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 'CITY OF RANCt~O CUCAMONGA BY: Larry McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning CommissiOn of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 31 st day of August 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 31, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Maria E. Perez, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: TENTATIVEpARCELMAP15209-BELLCOURTINDUSTRIAL-Asubdivision of 2.18 acres of land into 2 parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 10838 and 10868 B ell Court-APN: 209- 491-37. Staff has prepared an Environmental Notice of Exemption for consideration. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map as shown on Exhibit "B". B. Surrounding General Plan Designations and Zoning: General Industrial C. Surrounding Land Use: General Industrial D. Site Characteristics: The property is situated on the northeast end of Bell Court east of Red Oak Avenue. The site is currently under developmentwith two industrial buildings approved as DR 97-30. E. Analysis: The parcel map will create two lots with a shared driveway. Buildings for the two new parcels are currently under construction Full frontage improvements to the City Engineer's satisfaction will be required on Bell Court. Staff has concluded that the site is categorically exempt pursuant to the California ITEM I PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PARCEL MAP 15209 - BELL COURT INDUSTRIAL August 31, 1998 , Page 2 Environmental x 1Ex Section 15315, Class 15, Part Quahty Act (CEQA), Categor ca~ empt~ons, II of the Initial Study is not required. Therefore, lstaffhas prepared an environmental Notice of Exemption for consideration. : F. Correspondence: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in the Inland Valley Daily ~Bulletin. Posting at the site has also been completed. G. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Parcel Map 15209 by adoption of the attached R~solution and approval of the environmental Notice of Exemption. ~bmitted, Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" - Tentative Map Environmental Notice of Exemption Resolution and Recommended ConditiOns of Approval ARROW ROUTE ' . CITY OF rrEM: TPM X5209 RANCH0 CUCAMONGA TrrLE: Vicinity Map ENGINEERING DIVISION EXHIBIT:"A" TENATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 15209 CITY OF ~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA ITEM: TENTATIVE MAP ENGINEERING DIVISION !TITLE: TPM:I5209 ~ EXHIBIT: "B" NOTICE OF EXEMPTION TO: X Clerk of the Board FROM: City ofRancho Cucamonga San Bernardino County P.O. Box 807 Auditor/Controller-Recorder Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 222 W. Hospitality Lane San Bernardino, CA 92415-0018 ATTN: Engineering Division Tentative Parcel Map 15209 Project Tifie North side of Bell Court, east of Red Oak Avenue Project Location - Specific Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino Project Location - City Project Location - County A subdivision of 2.18 acres of land into 2 parcels Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project City of Rancho Cucamonga Name of Public Agency Approving Project City of Rancho Cucamonga Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project Exempt Status: (Check One) Ministerial (See. 15073) Declared Emergency (See. 15071 (a)) Emergency Project (.See. 15071 (b) and (c)) X Categorical Exemption. State type and section number. California Environmental Quali~ 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 Keceived for Filing Signature Planning Commission Chairman Title RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15209, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST END OF BELL COURT EAST OF RED OAK AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209-491-37 WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 15209, submitted by Bell Court Industrial, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing into 2 parcels, the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, identified as APN: 209-491-37, located 10838 and 10868 Bell Court; and WHEREAS, on August 26, and continued to August 31, 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 follows: 1. That the site is exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PM 15209 o BELL COURT INDUSTRIAL August 31, 1998 Page 2 SECTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map Numbe 15209 is hereby approved subject to the attached Standard Conditions and the following Spec. ial Conditions: Plannin.q Division: ', 1. The Edison vault shall be located oui of public view. Fire Protection District: 1. The Tentative Parcel map shall install fire hydrants in conformance with City Codes and to the satisfaction of the City Fire Chief. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commissior~ of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was dully 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 th~ 31st day of August, 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. I szoc) Those items checked are Conditions of Approval. A. Dedications and Vehicular Access __ I. Rights-of-~vay and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails. public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans antifor tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shalI be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 2. Dedication shaIl be made of the following rights-of-way for the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): total feet on total feet on total feet on total feet on 3. An irrevocable offer of ded cat on for roadway purposes shall be made for the private streets. __ 4. Corner proper~y line cutoffs sitall be dedicated per City Standards. __ 5. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets. except for approved Openings: __ 6. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by C C & R's or by deeds and shall be recgrded prior to or concurrent with the final parcel map. ~ 7. Reciprocal parking agreements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all common roads. drives, or parking areas shall be provided by C C & R's or deeds and shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the final parcel map. __ 8. All existing easements lying withi~ Future right-of-way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the final parcel map per the City Enginee'r's requirements. __ 9. Easements for public sidewalks an&'or street trees placed outside the pnblic righ-or-v,'ay shall bc dedicated to the City. ~XV/ I 0. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final parcel map. I I. Additional street right-of-v,'ay shall bc dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a n~inimum o['7 feet measured l'rom the face of curbs. If curb adjaccnt sidewalk is used along the right turn [ant, a parallel street tree easement shall be provided. 12. The developer shall make a ~,0od faith effort to ac~luire the required off-site propen'.' interests necessary.· to construct the required public improvements an~l, if he/she should fail to do so, the developer shall at least 120 days prior to submittal ofthe Final parcel ~ap 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 acqui(e the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of th, ese costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by t,he developer, nt developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. This condition applies in particular, but not limited, to: StFeet Improvements I. All public improvements, (interior streets, drainageSfacilities, commundy trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc. ) shown on the plans' and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement. drive approaches. sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 2.A minimum, of 26-foot wide pavement within a 402 foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be constructed for all half-section streets. ~ 3. Construct the follo,.vir~g missing perimeter street improvements inciudihg, but not limited to: uer "e" 2 4.. Impr. ovement 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 guaranteeinS completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final parcel map approval. b. Prior to any work being performed in the public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement sn'iping, mm-king, 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 secondar2,'· streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect '.','trine. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR or an.',' other localions approved by the CiLv Engineur. specified b.v Ihc City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at inletsections). or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all comers of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing CiB.' roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times ,.vith adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure peru'fits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to co;'er the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. ~' Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidev.'a[k drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the Ci y P anner pr or o subn ta for first plan check. 5. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all private streets shall be provided for review and approval by the CiD' Engineer. Prior to any work being performed on the private streets, fees shall be paid and construction permits shall be obtained from the Cily. Engineer's office in addition to any other permits required. 6. Street trees, a minimum of 15 - gallon size or larger shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. 7. Intersection line of sight design, s'Shall be reviewed by the City Eugineer for conformance with 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 driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. g. A Permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for an>' work v.'ithin the follo:'.'ing right-of-way: 9. All public improvements on the followin~ streets shall be operationall>' complete prior to the issuance of building pcrnlits. 3 T_.-IO C. Public Mnintet ace Areas I. A separate set of landscape and irr gation plans pe Engineering Pubhe x&orks Standards s II tt ' the Cit~' Engineer for review and approval prior to final parcel map approval. The folio m~ p to parkways: medians. paseos, easements, trails, or otheCareas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: 9 A sioned consen and waiver form to join and/o( form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting District~ ~l~all be l~led with the City Engitieer prior to final parcel map approval. Formation costs shal be borne by tbi developer. i [ 3. All required poblic landscapin~ and irrb,atio ~ systems shall be continuously maintained bv e developer until accepted by the City. ! ' ~ ' ! ' ' ' 4. Parkway landscaping on thi following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautificatio~ Master Plan: D. Drnina_oe and Flood Control I. The project (or pot ions thereof) is ocated within a Flood Hazard Zone: therefore flood protection measures shell be provided as ~erti~ed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by tb~ City Engineer. ~ It shall be the developcr's r'esponsibility to have, the cu~ent FIRM Zone designation removed fro~ ~ gi the project area. The dcveloper's en neer shall prepare all neeessay' repons. plans. and hydrolog~c;hydraul calculations. A Conditional Fetter or Map ReviSion (CEOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA. prior I~1o final parcel map approval. A Eeuer oF Map Rev~stdn (LOMR) shall be ~ssucd b) FEMA prior to occupancx or improvement acceptance. whichever occurs first~ 3. A final dra na-e s t dv sh'afi be submitted to and approved by the City En,,ineer prior to final pare map approval.' All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by t~e City Engineer. . ~ ~q p ' , 5. A pe~it from the San Be~ardino~ounty Flood Control District is required for work within it's ri~l -o - ~ i ,' way. , 6. Trees are prohibited xxithin 5 feel of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer 'do, of a mature tree trunk. 7. Public stoHn drain easements shall be graded tocon~ey overflows in the e~ent of blockage in a sump catch I. If the required public improvements are not completed prior to approval of tile final parcel map, an improvemen security, accompanied by an agreement executed by the Developer and the City v,'i[I 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 pater[ map, stating that they ,.viII be completed upon development for: / / F. Utilities .' ' )J~ I. Prov de separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, ,.vater. gas. electric po',,-'er, telephone and cable T\t (all underground) in accordance v,'ith tile Utility Standards. Easerecurs shall be provided as required. 2. \Valet and sev.'er plans shall be designed and co/nstrdcted to meet requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CC\VD). Rancho Cucarnonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Departmen of the Connty orSan Bemardino. A letter of compliance from CC\VD is required prior to final parcel map approval. 3. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval or the final parcel map v.'ill be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. 4. The developer silal[ be responsible for the re[ocation of existing utilities as necessary. G. C, enernl I:~eq.ireme.ts nnd Allprovais I. The tentative map approval is ~.'alid |br the 24 month period {'ollov.'ing 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 an}' action brought against the City, its agents. officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval. or in the ahemalive. to relinquish such approval, The applicant shah 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 resuh of such action. The City may at its sol,.e discretion, participate at its o,.vn expense in the defense of'any such action but such participatioo shall nptrrelieve applicant of his obligation under this condition. 3 Final grading plans For each parce[ stlall be as required by tile Building and Safety Division prior to Issulnlce ot gr~.~dmg perlairs. __ 4. A cop}' of the Covenants. Conditions, and Restrictions (C C .~: R's) approved by the City Attorney is required prior to appro',a[ of tl~e final parcel map. 5. An easement for a joint use drive,.vay shall be provided prior to I]nal parcel map ~pproval for: ~ I 6. Pr or to appro 'al ot the tmallparcel map a deposit shall be posted ,.'. ith the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District , among the newly created parcels. 7. A non-refundable deposit Shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs lbr all new street lights for the first 6 months of operation, prior {o final parcel map approval· g. Prior to ~nalizatinn of any development phase. sdf~cient improven'~ent plans shall be completed be>'ond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and dr .amage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries sitall correspond to lot lines shov,'n on the approved tentative map. 9. Etiwanda/San Sevaine .Area Regional Mainline. S&.condar2,.' Regional. and Master Plan Drainage Fees shall be paid prior to final parcel maplapproval. 10. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way. __ I I. A s gned consen and waiver forrn to join and'or fom~ he Law Enforcement Community Facilities District shall be filed v,'ith Ihe City Engin6er prior to final parcel map approval. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. !. __ 12. Prior to recordation of the final parcel map, ihe applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the estab shmen ofa N e o-Roos Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary 'school facilities. However, if ahy school district has previousl>' 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 recordatinn of the final parcel map. Further. it'dte affected school district has not Formed a Melio-Roos Community Facilities Distdct within tv.'ei,:e months from the date of approval ot the project and prior to the record,~tinn of the final parcel map for said project. this condition shall be deemed null and '.'oid. Titis condition shah be ,.:'aivcd if the Cit2.'· receives nodde that the applicant and all affected school districts have entered into an agreement to privatel>' accommodate an)' and all school intpacts as a result of this project. 13. MeHo Roos Community Facilities District requirenients for the Ranclio Cucamonga Fire Protection District shall apply to this project. 14. Pursuant to provisions orCaliromia Resources Code Section 21089(b). this application shall not be operati:'e. vested or final. nor ','.'ill b,uj. lding permits be issued or a map recorded, until (I) the Notice ol Determination (NOD) regarding the a,s~ociated environ~ental action in filed and posted with Clerk of the Board of Super,'isors of din Count>'.' orsan Bernardino; and (2) any and all required handling charges. are paid to the Ctnmty Clerk ofthe Count) of San Bernardthe The applicant shall prm,'itlc tl~c Engineering Dcparmlcnl '.'. ith a stamped and cop>' of the NOD together v;ith a receipt shov.'ing that all Fees have been paid. [n the e,.ent this application is determined exempt from such filing fees pursuant to the prol.'ision ol the California Code, or the guidel. ines promu ga ed ereunder, except for payment or' any reqt red handlin,_' charge for filing a Certificate of Fee Exemption, this Condition shall be deemed mill and void. Rex'. 03'12/98 6 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' ~ STAFF REPORT DATE: August 31, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-12 - UNSWORTH - The development of a 45,990 square foot industrial building on 2.5 acres of land in Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northwest terminus of Bell Court, west of Red Oak Street - APN: 209-491-050 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zonin.q: North - Existing industrial buildings; Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 8 South - Existing industrial buildings; Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 8 East - Existing industrial buildings; Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 8 West - Existing industrial buildings; Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 8 B. General P an Designations: Project Site - General Industrial North - General Industrial South - General Industrial East - General Industrial West - General Industrial C. Site Characteristics: The project site is a vacant parcel at the northwest terminus of Bell Court. The surrounding properties are already improved with industrial buildings. Curb and gutter exist along the property frontage. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 2 percent. D. Park n.q Calculations: Number of Number of Square Parking Spaces Spaces Type of Use Foota.qe Ratio Required Provided Office 1,820 1/250 8 Manufacturing 16,576 1/500 34 Warehouse 27,594 1/1,000 (1st 20,000) 20 1/2,000 (2nd 20,000) __4 TOTAL 45,990 66 80 ITEM J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-12 - UNSWORTH August 31, 1998 Page 2 ANALYSIS: A. General: The subject site was included in the master plan for the business park proposed by Barton Development Company (DR 87-60). Th~ proposed project is consistent with the approved master plan. The applicant is prop6sing to develop a 45,990 square foot manufacturing building on a 2.5 acre site. The buildling is constructed of tilt-up concrete, using smooth painted panels accented with sandblasted and fluted panels. Fin walls are located on the southeast and southwest portions of the bu!lding for architectural interest on the street side elevation. In the rear, there are three truck loading docks incorporated into the structure and three trailer parking spaces in the comers of the site. Landscaping planters exist along the perimeter of the site, with decorative textured paving at both ddve entdes. The north, south, and east boundaries have adjoining buildings and masonry walls on the property lines. The west boundary has a chain li,nk fence on the property line and an adjoining building with an approximate 2-foot setback. ]'he plan indicates' an outdoor employee plaza area, but does not include specific details for its improvements.: B. Desion Review Committee: The Design Review COmmittee (Maclos, McNiel, Fong) rev ewed the project on August 4, 1998. The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions specified in the attached Design Review Committee Action Comments (Exhibit "D"). The recommended conditions inc!ude extending the sandblasted concrete treatment to the fin walls on the building and extedding the roof parapet along the rear of the building. C. Technicel Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee reviewed the project on August 5, 1998. The Committee determined that, t.ogether with the recommended cond tons, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. D. Environmental Assessment: The:U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified the project area soil type as Tujunga-Delhi Sand Soil which is a type of Soil that is associated with the endangered Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSF). A Habitat ASsessment Survey ofthe soils, vegetation, and species composition was Completed for the site. The study noted that the site is surrounded on all sides by industrial buildings and parking facilities. The site has been previously graded and discod and the majodty of og-site soils are not fdable or exposed The study concluded that the site does not provide high quality or optimal habitat for the DSF because of the prevalence of non-native, invasive vegetation, compacted soils, and lack of connectivity to open or vacant lands. Based :on the biological report, the proposed development of the 2.5 acre site will not likely result in adverse effects to the DSF. The Habitat Assessment Survey states the biologist observed a Burrowing Owl perched nearby and detected an active burrow on the site. 'VVhile this species is not protected by any State or Federal endangered species acts, the report states Burrowing Owls are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the California Department of Fish and Game Code (CADFG). As such, the CADFG may require mitigation pdor to initiation of on-site grading activities to reduce potential impacts to this species. Mitigation may include passive relocation techniques. CADFG may require proje~ct-related disturbances at active nesting PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-12 - UNSWORTH August 31, 1998 Page 3 territories to be reduced or eliminated during the nesting cycle. A condition of approval shall be included in the project to require the applicant to contact the CADFG and comply with its guidelines for the protection of the Burrowing Owl and the active burrow site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review 98-12 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Brad Buller City Planner BB:RVB/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Plan Exhibit "B" - Building Elevations Exhibit "C" - Floor Plan Exhibit "D" - Design Review Committee Action Comments dated August 4, 1998 Exhibit "E" - Initial Study Part II Exhibit "F" - Habitat Assessment Survey Resolution of Approval with Conditions -- EY, t,I ~ BI T ...~.~ lli~l iIIi 1. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:20 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren August 4,1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-12 - UNSWORTH: The development of a 45 990 square foot industrial building ;,o,n 2.5 acres of land in Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located atlthe northwest term nus of Bell Court - APN: 209-491-050. Desiqn Parameters: The project site is a vacant parcel at the northwest terminus of Bell Court. The surrounding properties are already improved with concrete tilt-up industrial buildi~tgs, Curb and gutter exist along the property frontage. The site slopes from north to:south at approximately 2 percent. The subject site was included in the Master Plan fqr the business park proposed by Barton Development Company (DR 87-60). The proposed project is consistent with the approved Master Plan. Elevations were enhanced to include two pdmary building materials per the Planning Commission design policy for industrial buildings. Staff Comments: The following comments are intehded to provide an outline for Committee discussion. . Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Modify the fin walls at the southwest corner and southeast comer to also be sandblasted ConCrete. 2. The parapet height varies from 3 to 4 feet in the office areas where most roof-mounted air conditioner (HVAC) units are anticipated. In other areas of the building, the parepet height is as little as I foot. Staff believes that the parapet height should be raised to screen HVAC units unless it can be demonstrated through submittal of detailed sections showing location and height of HVAC units that parepet height is adequate to screen completely. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the revisions stated above. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Rich Macias, Larry Mc Niel, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren The Committee recommended approval subject to conditions: 1. The fin walls on the building shall be medium sandblasted finish, decorative panels adjacent to reflective glazing shall be medium sandblasted finish, and the horizontal "floating" panels shall be fluted and sandblasted: finish. 2. The rear (north) wall of the building shall include a roof parepet similar to the parapet on the remainder of the building. 3. The applicant shall submit a screen wall design Which identifies the location and materials of an architecturally-compatible Screen wall in the event future tenants require additional screening for roof-mounted equipment. The screen wall design shall be submitted to the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. "b" Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 98-12 Page 1 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Development Review 98-12 2. Related Files: Development Review 87-60 (master plan of business park) 3. Description of Project: The development of a 45,990 square foot industrial building on 2.5 acres of land located at the northwest terminus of Bell Court, west of Red Oak Street - APN 209-491-050. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and AddreSs: Charles Unsworth P.O. Box 688 Newport Beach, CA 92661 5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial 6. Zoning: Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project is surrounded on all sides by existing industrial buildings and parking facilities in Subarea 8 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner, (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: California Department of Fish and Game 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. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 98-12 Pa~le 2 ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ~ (X) Geologicel Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (X) Aesthetics ( ) Water ( ) Hazards I ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise: ! ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Sign: i~cence DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ( ) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT hav, e 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 descdbed 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 signfficant 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 eadier analysis as descdbed 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 ~ s~gni~cant effect in this cas:e 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 t0 that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the~proposed project. Rebecca Van Buren Associate Planner ' : July 22, 1998 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," 'Poter~tially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. J"""lO Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 98-12 Page 3 Potentally 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 proposal a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ( ) (X) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) (X) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 98-12 Page 4 f) Erosion, changes in topography, or uns!able soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: h) The General Plan indicates the Tujunga-Delhi soil association for the site which umay have soil beadng capacities that Could limit some development. Structures proposed on this soil type should be permitted only after a site specific investigation has been prepared that indicates that the soil can adequately support the weight of the structure." A soils 'report will be required by the Building and Safety Division prior to the issuance Of building permits. This impact is not considered to be significant. 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 alt. eration 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, ot the course or direction of water movements? ( ) (X) f) Change in the quantity =of ground waters', either through direct additions or withdrav~als, 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) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 98-12 Page 5 h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) S. 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 tdps or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) (X) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) (X) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) (X) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 98-12 Page 6 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the pmpdsal result in impacts to: I a) Endangered, threatened, or mm specie~ or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insets, animals, and birds)? (X) ( ) b) Lo~lly designated species (e.g., heritade trees, eu~lyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) (X) c) Lo~lly designated natural communities ~e.g., eu~lyptus grove, sage. scrub habitat, eta.)? ( ) (X) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, dpadan, and vernal pool)? :~ ( ) (X) e) Wddlife dispemal or migration coredore?~ ( ) (X) Commen~: a) The U.S. Fish and Wddjife Se~i~ identi~es the proje~ area soil type as Tujunga- Delhi Sand Soil which is a type of soil that is associated with the endangered Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (DSF). A habitat assessment was prepared (Impa~ Scien~s, June 16, 1998) by a biologist periled by the U.S. Fish and ~ldlife Se~i~ to condu~ su~eys for DSF. In summa~, the results of the hab~at-based su~ey indi~te that the site does not c~ently suppo~ high quali~ potential DSF habitat, and the s~e is not Io~ted dire~ly adja~nt to other areas of high quality potential or known occupied DSF habitat. The s~e is su~ounded on all sides by industrial buildings and parking facilities. The site has been previously graded and disced, and the majodty of on-site soils are not fdable or exposed. Based on the mconnaissan~-Ievel habitat evaluation of the site's existing environmental conditions, the proje~ site does not provide high quality or optimal habitat for DSF due to the prevalen~ of non-native, inva~ive vegetation, compacted soils, and lack of conne~ivity to open or vaunt lands. B~sed on the biological mpo~, the proposed development of the 2.Sacre site will not likely result in adveme effe~s to DSF. The habitat assessment su~ey states the biologist obse~ed a Bu~owing Owl perched adja~nt to the site and dete~ed an active bu~ow on the site. ~ile this species is not prote~ed by state or federal endangered species a~s, the repo~ states Bu~owing Owls are prote~ed under the Migmto~ Bird Treaty A~ of 1918 and the California Depa~ment of Fish anq Game Code. As such, the (CADFG) may require passive relocation techniques or Other mitigation prior to initiation of on-site grading a~ivities to reduce potential impa~s to this species. CADFG may require proje~-related distu~a~s at a~ive ne~ting territories to be reduced or eliminated during the nesting cycle (Februa~ to August 31). A condition of approval shall be included in the proje~ t0 require the applicant to contact the CADFG and comply with its guidelines for the protection of the Burrowing Owl and the a~ive burrow site. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 98-12 Page 7 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ) ( ) (X) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ) ( ) (X) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ) ( ) (X) 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A dsk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals. or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existin9 noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 98-12 Page 8 Potentrally 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal hav~ 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (×) 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal msu~ in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial a~erations to the loftowing utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Local or regional water treatment or dist~bution facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Sewer or septic tanks?. ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Storm water drainage?: ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) ~ Solid waste disposal? . ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Have a demonstrable n'egative aesthetic effect? : ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 98-12 Page 9 Comments: c) New light and glare will be created on the property with development of the vacant site. A condition of approval requires an on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram of the entire property, be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division and the Police Department prior to the issuance of building permits. The plan will be checked to ensure it meets City policies relative to avoiding the casting of excess light and glare onto adjacent properties. This impact is not considered to be significant. s~=~ ~4. CULTU~L RESOURCES. Would ~e proposal: a) Distu~ paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Distu~ archaeological msoumes? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Affe~ histori~l or cultural msour~s? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affe~ unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) (X) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impa~ area? ( ) ( ) (X) 15. RECREATION. Would the pmposak a) Increase the demand for neighbo~ood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( (X) b) Affect existing recreational oppo~unities? ( ) ( ) ( (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 98-12 Page 10 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.~ a) Potential to degrade: Does the projec~ have the potential to degrade the quality of th~ environment, substantially redu~ the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or a. wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, redu~ the;number or mstd~t the range of a rare or endahgered plant or animal, or eliminate impoRant examples of the major pedods of California histo~ or pmhisto~? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) ShoR te~: Does the proje~ have the potential to achieve sho~-te~, to the disadvantage of Iong-te~. environmental goals? (A sho~-te~ impa~ on the environment is one which .occum in a relatively brief, definitive pedod of time. Long-term impa~s will endure well into ~he future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Cumulative: Does the proje~ have im~a~s that are individually limited, but cumulatiVely considerable? ("Cumu!atively considerable" means that the incremental effe~s of a proje~ are considerable when ;viewed in ~nne~ion with the effe~s of past proje~s, the effe~s of other cu~ent proje~s, and the effe~s of probable future proje~s.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Subslntial adveme: ~:Does the project; have environmental effe~s which will ~use substantial adveme effe~s on human b~ings, either directly or indim~ly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (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) Aug-06-g8 09: 17A C, UN.SWDRTH 714 673-0136 P,01 Frc~: ~ PRO-II"r'EC'T'LI~E ?14/K31~ pug,~B. 199e e~:22 ~/~ initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 98-12 Page 11 {X)Master r:nvironmental Assessmere rDr the 1989 General Ran Update (,.RCH tt88020115, ceffi~ed January .1. 1989) (X) fndustrial Area Specific Plan (Certified SapleaDer 19, 1981) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I ce~ify that I am the al:,plicant for the project cleat,bed in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposeet mdirJation measures. Fudher, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to Ihe proposed mitigation measures to avow the effects or mitigale the effects to a point where d(:;aray no significant environmental effects would occur. Print Name and Title: C,J")~0-J...E5 ~A)...b,.k)5~-)OP..'i'H~ The following Negative Declaration is being circulated, for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Development Review 98-12 Public ReView Period Closes: August 31, 1998 Project Name: Project Ap~plicant: Unsworth Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the northwest terminus of Bell Court, west of Red Oak Street APN: 209-491-050 Project Description: The development of a 45,990 square, foot industrial building on 2.5 acres of land in Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: [] The Initial Study shows that there 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 po!nt 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 aFe includec~ 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. The public is invited to comment on the proposed Neg;~tive Declaration during the review period. Auqust 31, 1998 Date of Determination Adopted By RECEIVED IMPACT SCIENCES JUL 0 9 1998 30343 CanweoJ Street, Suite 2 lO San Francisco Agourn Hilb, California 91301 City Of Ranctno CucarnorlgEt San Diego Telephone (818) 879-1100 F.,~X (818) 879-1440 Planning Division impsci@irnpactsciences.com June 16, 1998 Charles W. Unsworth P.O. Box 688 Newport Beach, CA 92661-0688 SUBJECT: Results of a Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat-Based Evaluation for the 2.514-acre Bell Court Site, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California Dear Mr. Unsworth: This letter report details findings of a reconnaissance-level survey conducted to evaluate existing habitats potentially suitable to support the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) on the approximately 2.5-acre Bell Court site, located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. A general evaluation for the potential occurrence of several additional sensitive wildlife species was also conducted during the one-day field survey effort. Introduction Impact Sciences, Inc. (Impact Sciences) understands that a development plan is currentiy being prepared on an approximately 2.5-acre project site located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bemardino Cotmty, California. (Figure 1). The project site is currently vacant, and is generally located at the norff~west comer of the Beil Court cul-de-sac (west end), approxLmately 300 feet west of Red Oak Drive (Figure 2). Figure 3 illustrates the proposed site plan. This report is intende~l to provide the applicant with general biological information regarding potentially suitable habitat to support sensitive species for use in evaluating potential consequences of endangered species act compliance and permitting. F1GURE2 ParGel M~p1 Mr. Charles Unsworth June 16, 1998 Page 5 General Delhi Sands Mower-Loving Fly Background The Delhi sands flower-loving fly (DSF) was listed as an endangered species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on September 23, 1993. This species is only known to occur in association with Delhi sand deposits, primarily on ten di~unct sites (USFWS 1996a, 1997) within a radius of about eight miles in the cities of Colton, Rialto, and Fontana located in southwestern San Bernardino and northwestern Riverside counties. However, recent survey data (1997) indicates that DSF occur in low numbers in the Ontario area as well. The DSF is restricted to the Colton Dunes which covers approximately 40 square miles. More than 95 percent of the formerly known habitat has been converted to human uses or severely affected by human activities, rendering it apparently unsuitable for occupation by the species (Smith 1993, USFWS 1996a in Kingsley 1996). There is presently an estimated 1,200 acres of habitat that can support this species CUSFWS 1997). However, an estimate of only 155 acres is documented to currently contain DSF. General DSF Habitat Characteristics Areas containing sandy substrates with a sparse cover of perenmal shrubs and other vegetation constitute the primary habitat requirement for Rhaphiomidas flies (USFWS 1997). Potential habitat for the DSF is typically defined as areas comprised of sandy soil (DeLhi series) in open areas dominated by CaLifornia buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California croton (Croton californica), and telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandi~ora). Annual bur-sage (Ambrosia acanthicarpa), Rancher's fireweed (Amsinckia menziesii), vinegar weed (Lessingia glandulifera), sapphire eriastrum (Eriastrum sapphirinum), and Thurber's eriogonum (Eriogonum thurberi) are also commonly present at occupied DSF sites. Focused Presence/Absence DSF Surveys The Service has prepared Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines for the DSF (December 1996). In order to conduct a survey to fully determine the presence or absence of DSF such that the results are acceptable to the Service, these guidelines must be followed. The guidelines require that surveys be conducted in all areas containing DeLhi sands twice weekly (two days per week) during the single annum flight period from August I to September 20, with a minLrnum of three days between surveys. Mr. Charles Unsworth June 16, 1998 Page 6 Methods Literature Search Documentation pertinent to the biological resource ,s in the vicinity of the site was reviewed and analyzed. Information reviewed included: (1) the Federal Register Listing package for the federally listed endangered D~F potentially occurring m the project site; (2) literature pertaining to habitat requirements of sensitive species potentially occun-ing crt the project site; (3) the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 1998) information regarding sensitive species potentially occurring cx~ the project site in a computer report format for the Ontario and Guasti USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps, and (4) review of available reports from this and other projects located in the general vicinity of the project site. Reconnaissance-level Field Survey Scott Cameron, Impact Sciences Scn.ior Biologist, co~duc~d a reconnaissance-level field survey to evaluate potential habitat for the DSF en June 10, 1998. Mr. Cameron has observed DSF in the field, and is familiar with the biotic characteristics of habitat occupied by DSF, as well as other sensitive wildlife species ~potentially occurring in the area. In addition, Mr. Cameron currently holds a federal permit (PRT-808242) to conduct surveys for DSF. Weather conditions during the survey were cool and iovercast, with al~ temperatures at approximately 55 degrees Fahrenheit. The site was examined ca~ foot by waiking a series of transects across the subject property. The primary objectiveZ of the one-day fieid visit was to evaluate the site's potential to support DSF, and generally evaluate habitat suitability for other potentially occurring sensitive wildlife species based on existing site conditions. General plant and wildlife species ntif the overall habitat value. present at the site were ~de ~e,d' to assess Existing Conditions The site has apparently been historically scraped and rough graded as indicated by the presence of bulldozer scrape marks and the tiered pads. As such, only scattered remnants of vegetation remain c~ the site. Curb and gutter are located along the southern property Mr. Charles Unsworth June 16, 1998 Page 7 boundary. A water line and fire hydrant are located in the northeastem portion of the project site. Concrete dumping and other debris (e.g., oil filter, trash) was also evident ca~ the site. Elevation at the site is approximately 1100 feet above mean sea level. Figures 4 and 4a illustrate existing conditions at the subject property. Informal Soils Analysis Soils on the site appear to be predominantly comprised of silty sand, with scattered gravel assimilated throughout much of the surface soils. Soil compac~on is characterized as moderate, with some variation across the site. Approximately five percent of the site contains exposed patches of friable sandy soils. These loose sandy areas are primarily located along the northern portion of the site along the retaining wall and commercial structures. The remaining friable soils are mostly associated with small mammal burrowing activity. Approximately 95 percent of the site's soils are compacted. Vegetation The site is dominated by ruderat (weedy) herbs and grasses. However, scattered native plant species such as a few California buckwheat, telegraph weed, western ragweed, dove weed (Eremocarpus setigerus), Rancher's fiddleneck, everlasting (Gnaphalium sp.). Native plant species present on site are limited to a few individuals and do not constitute a native plant community. Ruderat introduced plant species present on site include various species of brome grasses (Bromus spp.), mustard (Brassica or Hirschfeldia sp.), filaree (Erodium cicutarium), horseweed (Conyza canadensis), wild oat (Avena sp.), clover (Trifolium sp.), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), jimson weed (l~;tura stramonium), and horehound (Marrubium vulgare). In addition, various ornamentals are also present c~ the site. Non-native grasses constitute approximately 95 percent of the on-site vegetative cover. Average vegetative cover for the site is about 70-75 percent. Wildlife Bird species observed during the reconnaissance-level field survey include house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), common raven (Corvus corax), mourmng dove (Zenaida macroura), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and western burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia hypugea), a California species of special concern and Federal species of special concern. PHOTO I View to northeast. PHOTO 3 View to east along Bell Court. Source: Impact Sciences, Inc., d98 PHOTO 2 View to north. ~ H OTO 4 View to southeast from near northwest property corner. FIGURE4 · --,T2'::7 Site Photographs 1-4 PHOTO 5 View to west from near southwest property comer. PHOTO 7 View to south from northwest property corner. Source: Impact Sciences. Inc., 6/91B 11 337-01'6/98 PHOTO 6 View to northwest. PHOTO 8 View to east from along northern property boundary. · .--~-..~ I Site Photographs 5-8 Mr. Charles Unsworth June 16, 1998 Page 10 Mammal species directly observed, or of which qig w~ detected, include Botta's pocket 1 gopher (Thomomys bottae), desert cottontail (Sy ~ilagus auduboni), and California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi). Surrounding Land Use The subject property is located in a commercial area of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The property is entirely encompassed by existing commercial development. No dLrect access to open or vacant properties is available from the site. General Discussion Optimal DSF habitat is characterized by low growing perennial shrubs with frequent patches of exposed sandy soil. However,~ results of recent ~urveys (1997) in the Ontario area suggest that DSF may occur in areas that do not suppor~ perennial shrubs (e.g., buckwheat), and that DSF may occur in less than optimal conditions. Conversely, observations of a Kingsley (1996) study suggest that both buckwheat and telegraph weed may be necessary for long-term survival of DSF, and that arrangement and density of cover is important. As stated in the 1997 DSF Recovery Plan (USFWS 1997), these plants may be present in low density, as exemplified by only three buckwheat plants on two occupied habitat patches. Kingsley (1996) also suggests that biologists would likely find more suitable DSF habitat where both of these plant speci'~s are present in patchy arrangements, rather than cn sites without these plant species or that suppo~ very dense vegetation. Moreover, sighrings of lat'~ ~ adults are more likely in re lvely undisturbed habitats, as indicated by the presence of native annuals and perennials (USFWS 1997). DSF have very narrow habitat requirements that are determined by appropriate plant species and open sand as defining characteristics (Kingsley 1996). :, The site is dominated by non-n~tive vegetation. Invasive non-native vegetation severely degrades or eliminates DSF habitat. Non-native plants especially notorious in this respect Mr. Charles Unsworth June 16, 1998 Page 11 include Russian thistle, horehound, mustard, cheese weed (Malva parviflora), and many species of introduced grasses (Bromus sp.). These exotic plants may also alter the soil moisture or make the substrate physically unsuitable for the survival of the DSF and other native subterranean invertebrates (USFWS 1996a). Mustard species, and non-native grass species reduce vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza propagules and shift the remaining forms to weedy mycorrhizal fungi. If individuals in the aforementioned plant families become predominant, they can arrest ecological succession resulting in a permanent "armualization' of the area (Drake 1990). Conclusion Results of the habitat-based survey indicate that the site does not currently support high quality or optimal DSF habitat due to the prevalence of non-native, invasive vegetation, compacted soils, and lack of cormectivity to open or vacant lands. However, small portions of the 2.5-acre site do contain surface elements analogous with occupied DSF habitats. These small areas support at least two plant species (telegraph weed and California buckwheat) associated with occupied DSF sites. In addition, a few small areas of sandy soils are also present cn site. However, the site has been previously graded and disked, and the majority of on-site soils are not friable or exposed. Rather, they contain debris material and are mostly compacted, indicative of the site's disturbance history. As such, the site is not consistent with high quality, optLmal, or relatively undisturbed potentia]~ DSF habitat. A vast majority of the site is comprised of relatively dense non-native vegetation, and adult DSF do not appear to use areas supportLng dense vegetation. As stated, non-native vegetation types, particularly dense vegetation, are negatively associated with DSF habitat. The site supports only about 25 percent of exposed soils (i.e., 75 percent vegetative cover). No extensive areas that support open, loose sands are present on site which are more positively correlated with occupied or potential DSF habitats. Optimal vegetative cover for DSF is probably less than 50 percent, and may be in the range of 10-20 percent (USFWS 1996a, 1997). Mr. Charles Unsworth June 16, 1998 Page 12 In addition, the presence of surrounding commerciai development limits the potential for future DSF occupation of the site by DSF due to the absence of a potential habitat linkage or corridor. Accordingly, the site does not provide a connectionSbetween detached areas of known occupied or potential DSF habitat. Based solely cn the sitei' existing conditions and above-mentioned assumptions, proposed development of the 2.5 -acre site will not likely result in adverse effects to DSF. While the aforementioned existing conditions do not provide optimal conditions for DSF, the site does support telegraph we~d, buckwheat, and a few patches of sandy soils. Further, because the habitat-based evaluation was conducted during May, a period during the DSF's underground life cycle, definitive conclusions relative to this species' presence or absence at the proposed site cannot be ascertained absent conducting focused protocol DSF surveys per Service protocol As such, it is possibl~ that the Service may not accept any efforts short of the intensive seasonal DSF surveys icientLfied in their above-mentioned survey protocol due to the inherent limitations of unseasonal data. Definitive conclusions relative to DSF presence or absence require the performance of focused DSF surveys following Service guidelines. in summary, a few small portions of habitat p.resent cm site are comparable to certain characteristics of occupied DSF habitats. However, a majority of the project site exhibits a high degree of disturbances associated with prev!ous grading and disking activities. These detrimental disturbance-related ~Zfactors may coLleCtively contribute to diminish the prospect for present or future occupation oi the site by DSF, most notably where dense non-native grasses, ruderal vegetation, and/or highly degraded haititats predominate. The predominance of "- relatively dense non-native vegetation, disturbance history, isolation from native plant communities, and the site's proximity to commercial development, limit the site's current and future potential to support potentially occurring low vagility sensitive wildlife species. Special-Status Species Detected On Site During the on-site DSF habitat-based analysis, a single burrowing owl was observed perched on a commercial building comer located along the nox~Lhem property boundary. Moreover, during Mr. Charles Unsworth June 16, 1998 Page 13 the walkover survey of the site, an active burrow was detected in the northwestern portion of the site that showed sign of recent occupation (e.g., feathers, tracks, wash, pellets, prey remains). While this sensitive species is not protected by state or federal endangered species acts, burrowing owls are protected under the N's~o~ratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703- 711) and California Department of Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 which prohibits take, possession, or destruction of bLrds, their nests or eggs. As such, some form of mitigation will likely be required by resource agencies prior to initiation of on-site grading activities to reduce potential impacts to this species. Species-specific survey protocol and mitigation guidelines have been developed to reduce project-related impacts to burrowing owls. Impact Sciences is well-acquainted with this species, and has successfully implemented recommended mitigation measures (e.g., passive relocation techniques) to reduce direct impacts to owls at multiple locations throughout this species' range. In order to avoid violation of the take provisions of the above-mentioned laws, the guidelines require that project-related disturbances at active nesting territories be reduced or eliminated during the nesting cycle (February to August 31). It has been a pleasure conducting this habitat-based evaluation for the Delhi Sands flower- loving fly and other potentially occurring sensitive biological resources at the 2.5-acre project site located in Rancho Cucamonga, San Bemardino County, California. If you have any questions regarding the results presented in this report, please don't hesitate to call. Very truly yours, IMPACT SCIENCES, INC. Senior Biologist REFERENCES California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). !1998. Computer Reports for the Ontario and Guasti USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps. ; Drake, James. 1990. The Mechanics of Community A, ssembly and Succession. J. Theor. Biol.: 147, pp. 213-233. Kingsley, Kenneth J. 1996. Behavior of the Delhi SZands Flower-Loving Fly (Diptera: Mydidae), a Little Known Endangered Species. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 89(6): 883-891. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Interim General Survey Guidelines for the Delhi Sands Hower-loving Fly. December 30. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996a. Technical/Agency Draft Recovery Plan for the Delhi sands Flower-loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas termini~tus abdominalis) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 44+ PPi U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Delhi sands Flower-loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 51 pp. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHQ CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 98-12, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 45,990 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON 2.5 ACRES OF LAND IN SUBAREA 8 (GENERAL INDUSTRIAL) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATEDATTHE NORTHWESTTERMINUS OF BELL COURT, WESTOF RED OAK STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209-491-050. A. Recitals. 1. Charles Unsworth has filed an application for the approval of Development Review No. 98-12, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 31st 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 31, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the northwest terminus of Bell Court, west of Red Oak Street, with a street frontage of approximately 260 feet, a lot depth of 280 feet, and which is presently undeveloped; and b. The properties to the north, south, east, and west of the subject site are improved with industrial buildings and parking facilities; and c. The application contemplates the construction of a 45,990 square foot industrial building on 2.5 acres of land. 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 b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Deyelopment Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan 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 the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-12 - UNSWORTH August 31, 1998 Page 2 d. That the proposed use, together with :he 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 fo~ the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there i½ no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and a,dopts 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 Declaratior~ 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. A Habitat Assessment Survey by a federally certified biologist was conducted to assess the soils, vegetation, and species composition on the site. The study noted that the site is surrounded on all sides by industrial buildings and parking facilities. The site has previously been graded and disced, and the majority of on-site soils are not friable or exposed. The study concluded that the site does not provide high quality or optimal habitat for Delhi Sands Flower- Loving Fly (DSF) because of the prevalence of non-native, invasive vegetation, compacted soils, and lack of connectivity to open or vacant lands. The site does not appear to occupy a strategic location with respect to its potential incorporation into a regional wildlife reserve or corridor system. The study concluded the site would not be acceptable habitat or reserve area for Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly. d. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the projeot, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the _ public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planninq Division: ~: 1) The fin walls on the building shall be medium sandblasted finish; decorative panels adjacent to reflective glazing shall be medium sandblasted finish; and the horizontal "floating" panels shall be fluted and sandblasted finish. 2)The rear (north) wall of the building shall include a roof parapet similar to the parapet on the remainder of the Ibuilding. 3) The applicant shall submit a screen wall design which identifies the location and materials of an architecturally compatible screen wall in L PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-12 - UNSWORTH August 31, 1998 Page 3 the event future tenants require additional screening for roof-mounted equipment. The screen wall design shall be submitted to the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. 4) The amenities within the outdoor employee plaza area shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. Amenities in the outdoor employee plaza area shall include secured and durable seating (such as picnic benches and tables), trash receptacles, and shade elements, such as an overhead trellis structure or specimen size trees. Fire Prevention/New Construction: 1 ) If the building is intended for storage use, requirements per 1994 UFC Article 81 for High Pile Storage will be required. Environmental Mitiqation Measures: 1) The applicant is to contact the California Department of Fish and Game and comply with its guidelines for the protection of the Burrowing Owl and the active burrow on the site prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant shall provide written documentation of the required mitigation measures, guidelines, or waiver from the Department of Fish and Game, as applicable, as part of the plan check submittal. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATI'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 31st day of August 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-12 (BELL COURT) SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CHARLES UNSWORTH LOCATION: NORTHWEST TERMINUS OF BELL COURT1 WEST OF RED OAK STREET ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: General Requirements Completjon 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 Distdct'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. B. Time Limits 1. 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. 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 cmblors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions c?ntained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the C~ity 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 withi Pdor 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 g,rading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or pdor 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, ahd applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 6. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) pdbr 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. 7. 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 pdor to the issuance of building permits. 8. 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 satidfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 9. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. D. Building Design 1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditionere 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 screeding shall be amhitecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. , 2. For commercial and industdal projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main building colors. 2 i 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 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 shall provide motorcycle parking at the rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be 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 bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first 50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of the required automobile parking spaces. Warehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle storage spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent on the required automobile parking spaces with a minimum of a 3-bike reck. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed 100. Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater, the number shall be rounded off to the higher whole number. 6. Carpool and vanpool designated off-street parking close to the building shall be provided for commercial, office, and industdal facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking area. If covered, the vertical clearance shall be no less than 9 feet. F. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan. including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. A minimum of 20% of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30% within commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. 3. W~thin parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. 4.Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. 5. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. Project No. DR98-12 p effort Dete 6. The final design of the perimeter parkways. walls, landsc; ~ing. and sidewalks shall be included / in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and a~proval and ~o~inated for consistency with a~y ~ar~ay landscaping ~18, which may be required by the Engineerrig Division. S~ecial laRds~e features such as mouRdiRg, alluvial r~ck, s~ecimeR size trees, mea~de~g sidewalks (with ho~ontal cha,ge), a,d intensified lands~i~g, is required alo,g eell Cou~. LaRds~ing 8,d i~igation systems required to be inst811~ withi, the ~ublic ~ght~f-way o~ the perimeter of this ~roject area shall be ~tinuously mai,~i~ed by the developer. 9.All walls shall be ~rovided wi~ decorative treatment If Io~ted i, ;ublic maiRteRa,ce areas, the desig, shall be coordinated with the ~RgiReeriRg ~0.LaRds~iRg aRd i~gatio, shall be designed to ~,sewe water through the ~nci~les of ~e~s~pe as decried i, Cha~ter 19. ~ of the RaRcho Cu~mo,ga Municipal Code. G. Envi~nmen~l 1. Mitigatio, measures are required for ~he ~roje~t The ap~li~,t is res~oRsible for the ~st of im~leme,ting said measures, includi,g mo,itori,g and re~o~i~g. A~li~t shal~ be required to ~ost ~sh. le~er of credit, or o~er fo~s of guara,tee ac~ble to the Ci~ Planner i, the amount of $ 719.00. ~rior to the issuance of buildi,~ peaits, gua~teei~g satis~cto~ ~ance and ~m~letio, of all mitigatio, measures. ~hese ~nds may be used by the Ci~ to retain ~nsul~,~ and/or ~ay ~r Ci~ s~ff Ume to monitor and repo~ o~ the mitigatio~ measures. Faiture to ~m~lete all actions requi~d by th~ a~proved eRYiro,me,~l docume,~ shall be co,sidered grounds for ~deit~ in those iRs~R~es requi~Rg Io,g te~ mo,~o~,g (i.e.) beyO,d final ce~i~te of o~upa,cy}, the a~li~nt shall ~rovide a w~e, mo,it~ng and re~o~ing ~rogram to the Ci~ Plan,er ~rior to issuance of building ~e~its. Said program shall ideRt~ ~e re~o~er as a, individual qualified to k,ow whether ~e ~a~icular mi~gati0, measu~ has b~. implemented. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAF~ D~ISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE ~TH THE FOLLO~NG CONDITIONS: Site Development The a~li~Rt shall ~m~ly with ~e latest adopted ~ni~ Building Code. ~,ifo~ Mechani~l Code, ~,ifo~ Plumbi,g Code, National Elect~ Code, T~e 24 ~ccessibili~ requirement, all other a~li~bie ~des, ordi~a,ces, a,d regulaUo~s in effect at the time of issua,ce of retaUve ~e~its. Please contact the euilding and ~afe~ Divisio~ for ~ies of the Code Ordinance and appli~ble handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of buildin9 pe~its for a new ~mmercia~ or indust~al development or addition to an existing development, the appli~nt shall pay development ~es at the es~blished rate. Such fees may include. but are not limited to: TranspoSition Development Fee, Drainage F~. School Fees, Petit and Plan Checkin9 Fees. - 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Buildin~ O~cial,,affertra~parcel map recordation and p~or to issuance of building pe~i~. , 4. Construction activi~ shall not occur be~een the houm of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday. L Projecl No. DR 98-12 Completion Date I. 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. J. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted 9reding 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 appreved pdor to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACTTHE ENGINEERING DNISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Street Improvements 1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike Other Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Bell Court ~' ,/ ,/ Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irdgation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per STD 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. 2. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including streettrees, 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 Project No. DR 9g-12 Completion[!Date posted and an agreement executed to the satisfac ;on of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior er to final map approval or the issuance of building p, m~ts, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public righ;t-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 intemonnect widng. Pull boxes shall be placed on bbth sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the city Engineer. Notes: (1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all comers of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours dudng construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of gradin~ and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows sh~ll 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. 3. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon ;size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. L. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the~ appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer pdor to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. M. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including s'anitanj 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 fo~ the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. Project No, DR 98-12 Completion Date Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Gucamonga County Water Distriot (CCVVD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bemardino. A letter of compliance from the CCVVD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. N. General Requirements and Approvals 1. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid tO the City, covering the estimated operating costs for ell new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (g09) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: O. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. 2. Fire flow requirement shall be 3,000 gallons per minute. a.A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel after construction and pdor 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 matedais on site (i.e., lumber, roofing matedais, 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 Distdct standards require a 6" dser with a 4" and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandardhydrantsshallbeupgradedtomeetthisstandard. Contactthe Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire District that an appreved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system. 6. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15 and the 1994 UBC. Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, flammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. 7.Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of sprinkler system. 8. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. Project No. DR98-12 9. All roadways within project shall comply with the Fire Dist crs fire lane standards per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct ordinance No. 22. 10. Emergency access, a minimum of 26 feet wide, shall be pro;vided, and maintained free and clear of obstructions at all times, dudng construction in accorda~nce with Fire District requirements. r n II '1'1. AIItreesandsh ubs planted in any medja sha be kept trjm. medamjnjmumof~4'6"fromground up so as not to impede fire apparatus. 12. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed pdor to final! inspection. Proof of purchase shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 13. Atenantuselettershallbesubmittedpriortofinalbuildingpianapproval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for the proper form letter. 14.Plan check fees in the amount of $O have been paid. An additional $ 677 shall be paid pdor to water 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. 15. Plans shall be submitted and approved pdor to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: P. 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 cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal secudty lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with direct lighting to be provided by all enti'yways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3. Lighting in extedor areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. Q. Security Hardware 1. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. Ifwindows are within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 2. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. 3. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal gates, or alarmed. R. Security Fencing 1. When utilizing secudty gates, a Knox box sub-master system security device shall be used since fire and law enforcement can access these devices. S. Building Numbering 1.Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. 2. Developer shall paint roof top numbers on one or more roofs of this development. They shall be a minimum of three feet in length and two feet in width and of contrasting color to background. The stencils for this purpose are on loan at the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. T. Alarm Systems 1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in turn save dollars and lives,