HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/04/14 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY
APRIL 14, 1999
7:00 PM
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chamber
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call
Chairman McNiel
Com. Mannerino __
__ Vice Chairman Macias __
Com. Stewart __ Com. Tolstoy __
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
II1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 10, 1999
March 10, 1999, Adjourned Meeting
March 23, 1999, Adjourned Meeting
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following Consent Calendar items as expected to be routine and non-
controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without
discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for
discussion.
DESIGN REVIEW 99-01 - WOODSIDE HOMES - The design review
of building elevations and detailed site plan for previously approved
Tentative Tract 15915, consisting of 36 single family lots on 21 acres
of land in the Very Low Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per
acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner
of Etiwanda Avenue and Victoria Street - APN: 227-101-04, 12, and
14.
VACATION OF AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS AND
RELATED PURPOSES - Located north of Highland Avenue, west of
Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 225-161-19, 32, and 33.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice
their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman
and address the Commission by stating your name and address. A~ such opinions
shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after
speaking,
Cm
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT 14055 - MODERN CORPORATION -A request
for a time extension for a 115-unit condominium project on 10.27
acres of land in the Medium Density Residential District (8-14 dwelling
units per acre), located north of Arrow Highway on the east side of
Baker Avenue - APN: 207-201-12 and 32. Staff has prepared a
Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA
COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 99-01 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY - A request to amend the Terra Vista Community Plan to
redesignate the land use district for Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 14786
from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Elementary
School, located at 7889 East Elm Avenue - APN: 1077- 421-88.
Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts
for consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
15282 - SILVERADO GROUP, LLC - A subdivision of 5.0 acres of
land into 4 parcels in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill
Boulevard, east of Aspen Avenue - APN: 208-352-82. A Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts has been issued under
Development Review 99-04.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY
PLAN AMENDMENT 98-02 - WILLIAM LYON HOMES - A request
to amend the Victoria Community Plan to reduce the Village
Commercial land area from approximately 23 acres to 16 acres, and
to redesignate approximately 16 acres of land from Medium
Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre) on a project site consisting of 62.3 acres
of land, located southwest of Highland Avenue and the future Day
Creek Boulevard - APN: 227-021-03 and 13. Staff has prepared a
Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT 15871 -WILLIAM LYON HOMES- The proposed subdivision
and design review of detailed site plan and elevations for 181 single
family lots on 62.3 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District
(4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan, located
southwest of Highland Avenue and the future Day Creek Boulevard -
APN: 227-021-03 and 13. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration
of environmental impacts for consideration.
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 99-01 - CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the regulations for wireless
communication facilities.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
APPEAL OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-27 - An appeal of the City
Planner's decision regarding the approval of a 3,283 square foot single
family residence in the Very Low Residential District (up to 2 dwelling
units per acre), located on the north side of Vicara Drive, east of
Sapphire Street - APN: 1061-141-47.
VII. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
J. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT POLICIES
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place forthe general public to address the Commission. Items
to be discussed here am those which do not already appear on this agenda.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
X. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an
11:00p. m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only
wflh the consent of the Commission.
L Gait 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 April 8, 1999, at least 72 hours prior to the
meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive,
Rancho Cucamonga.
Page 3
VICINITY MAP
CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
Apd114,1999
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW 99-01 - WOODSIDE
HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for
previously approved Tentative Tract 15915, consisting of 36 single family lots on
21 acres of land in the Very Low Residential Distdct (up to 2 dwelling units per acre)
of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Etiwanda Avenue
and Victoda Street - APN: 227-101- 04, 12, and 14.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION
Backaround: The Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map 15915 on
January 27, 1999. The applicant is now requesting design review approval of homes on the
project.
B. Project Density: 1.4 dwelling units per acre.
South -
East
West
Surroundina Land Use and Zonina:
North - Vacant land; Very Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) Etiwanda
Specific Plan
Single family homes across abandoned railread dght-of-way; Low-Medium
Residential (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre) Victoda Community Plan
A school and single family homes across Etiwanda Avenue; existing school and
Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) Etiwanda Specffic Plan
Single family homes; Low-Medium Residential (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre)
Victoda Community Plan
Site Characteristics: The 21-acre site is currently vacant and slopes from north to south at
approximately 2 percent. The site is surrounded by single family homes to the south, west,
and east with the homes to the south across an old railroad right-of-way and the homes to
the east across Etiwanda Avenue. The property to the north is vacant. Community Trails
are required along the south and west project boundaries (the trail to the south being in the
railroad right-of-way) and pdvate local feeder trails are required for access to the roar of
each lot. The City is currently negotiating with the applicant to use a property at the
southeast comer of the site for relocation of the historic Isle house.
ITEM A
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
'DR 99-01 - WOODSIDE HOMES
April 14, 1999
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
General: Three floor plans are proposed; Plan 1 having two elevation styles and Plans 2
and 3 having four elevation styles. The homes range in size from 3, 107 square feet to 4, 109
square feet. Plan 1 is one-story and Plans 2 and 3 are two-story. Lot 36 is the only lot in
the Tract with frontage on Etiwanda Avenue. Typically, the Planning Commission has
requested that new homes on lots with frontage on Etiwanda Avenue be plotted so that the
homes front onto Etiwanda Avenue rather than having side or rear elevations front the
street. The Tract is proposed to have a masonry perimeter wall but none between home
walls. Retaining walls are proposed along the south and west tract boundary at a height of
3 to 5 feet with 5- and 6-foot high garden walls above for an overall height of 9 to 10 feet,
which is in excess of that permitted by code.
Design Review Committee: The Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Henderson) reviewed the
project on March 16, 1999, and recommend approval with conditions, (see Exhibit "G").
Technical Review Committee: The Grading and Technical Review Committees have
reviewed the project and recommend approval subject to the conditions outlined in the
attached Resolution of Approval.
Tree Removal Permit: A Tree Removal Permit for ramoval of the Eucalyptus trees was
approved by the Planning Commission with the tentative tract map. The site contains
Eucalyptus windrows. The Etiwanda Specific Plan requires windrows along Etiwanda
Avenue and Victoda Street to be preserved and allows others to be removed subject to
replacement. The project proposes to remove most of the trees and raplace with new
windrow planting consistent with Etiwanda Specific Plan raquiraments. Individual trees
along Etiwanda Avenue and Victoria Street that are worthy of preservation will remain.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the project through adoption of the attached Resolution with Conditions.
City Planner
BB:BLC:mlg
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Grading Plan
Exhibit "D" - Landscape Plan
Exhibit "E" - Floor Plans
Exhibit "F" - Elevations
Exhibit "G" - Design Review Committee Action Comments
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
SITE UTILIZATION MAP
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15915
WOODSIDE HOMES
ETIt - RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
TYPICAL LOT LAYOUT
": ......................... '~'~i
PLAN 3 [,Z ,~
....... L:.: ........: .................~..E!a
FEATURE LEGEND:
SITE PLAI
SEE SHEET G2
NOT
~'- ,, PART - F .... ;,
'~NOT A PART
CONCEPTUAL ·GRADING PLAN
· TBNTATIVE TRACT NO, 15915
...... VIC'~ORi',('~TRE/:T ~,1 ...................
.... C"STREET
............. D"STREET ......
WOODSIDE HOMES
ETIWANDA - RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
TYPICAL FRONT YARDS
. "
PLAN1-3CARSIDEGARAGE
.®
PLAN 3' 3 CAR GARAGE sc~e
PLANT PALE]rE:
FEATURE LEGEND:
CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE
MASTER PLAN
PLAN I 3107 SQ. FT.
BELMONT EQUESTRIAN ESTATES
WOODSIDE HOMES
PLAN 2 3718 SQ. FT.
BELMONT EQUESTRIAN ESTATES
WOODSIDE HOMES
PLAN 3 4309 SQ. FT.
BELMONT EQUESTRIAN ESTATES
WOODSIDE HOMES
CALIFORNIA COTTAGE eLAN 1 B
LEGEND
BELMONT EQUESTRIAN ESTATES
WOODSIDE HOMES
LEGEND
CALIFORNIA TRADITIONAL PLAN I D
BELMONT EQUESTRIAN ESTATES
WOODSIDE HOMES
RIGHT
ELEVATION D
RIGHT REAR
PLAN IA
BELMONT EQUESTRIAN ESTATES
WOODSIDE HOMES
BELMONT EQUESTRIAN ESTATES
WOODSIDE HOMES
CALIFORNIACOTTA(3E PLAN 2 B
LEGEND
BELMONT EQUESTRIAN ESTATES
WOODSIDE HOMES
LEGEND
LEFT
RIGHT
ELEVATION C
RIGHT
PLAN 2A
BELMONT EQUESTRIAN ESTATES
WOODSIDE HOMES
BELMONT EQUESTRIAN ESTATES
WOODSIDE HOMES
CALIFORNIA BUNGALOW
PLAN 3 A
PLAN 3 B
LEGEND
BELMONT EQUESTRIAN ESTATES
WOODSIDE HOMES
LEGEND
LEFT
PLAN 3'A
BELMONT EQUESTRIAN ESTATES
WOODSIDE HOMES
RIGHT
REAR
ELEVATION D
LEFT
FRONT LEFT
BARN CASITA - -.
~GHT REAR
-
RIGHT
FRONT
CASITA / BARN 352 SQ.FT.
BELMONT EQUESTRIAN ESTATES
WOODSIDE HOMES
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:40 p.m.
Brent Le Count
March 16, 1999
ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTAND DESIGN REVIEW99-01 -WOODSIDE HOMES -The design
review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved tentative tract map
consisting of 36 single family lots on 21 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (0 to 2
dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southeast comer of Etiwanda
Avenue and Victoria Street - APN: 227-101- 4, 12, and 14.
Desian Parameters: The 21-acre site is currently vacant and slopes from north to south at
approximately 2 percant. The site is surrounded by single family homes to the south, west, and east
with the homes to the south across an old reailmad right-of-way and the homes to the east across
Etiwanda Avenue. The property to the north is vacant. Community trails are required along the south
and west project boundaries (the trail to the south being in the rail right-of-way) and pdvate local feeder
trails are required for each lot. The City is currently working with the applicant to use a property at the
southeast comer of the site for relocation of the histodc Isles house. A six-foot high sound wall is
necessary on the north and east boundades of Lot 36 to mitigate traffic noise from Etiwanda Avenue.
Three home plans are proposed, Plan I having two elevation styles and Plans 2 and 3 having four
elevation styles. The homes range in size from 3,107 square feet to 4,109 square feet. Plan I is one-
story and Plans 2 and 3 are two-story. Lot 36 is the only lot in the tract with frontage on Etiwanda
Avenue. Typically, the Planning Commission has requested that new homes on lots with frontage on
Etiwanda Avenue be plotted so that the homes front on to Etiwanda Avenue rather than having side
or rear elevations front the street. The tract is proposed to have a masonry perimeter wall but no
between home walls. Three to five-foot high retaining walls are proposed along the south and west
tract boundary with five and six-foot high garden walls above for an overall height of nine to ten feet
which is in excess of that permitted by cede.
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. Staff feels there are no major design issues.
Secondan/Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
The home on Lot 36 is plotted with a side one condition relative to Etiwanda Avenue. The front
of the home should be re-oriented towards Etiwanda Avenue.
Plan 2 is shown to have a front porch that wraps around one side of the home only as an
option. Plan 3 is shown to have a front porch that does not wrap around the side. All front
porches should wrap around the side of the homes.
Provide 360 degree architecture. This can be accomplished by adding window treatment (sills,
lintels, shutters, and divided light), stone/brick veneer, and tdm elements on side and rear
elevations matching that shown on the front. (See also Policy Item No. 1 below).
4. The tract perimeter walls shall be decorative, either slump stone, split faced block, or stucco.
In either case, a decorative cap and pilasters shall be provided. Pilasters shall have stone
treatment consistent with the primary stone treatment proposed on the homes.
,, ,,
DRC COMMENTS
DR 99-01 - WOODSIDE HOMES
Mamh 16, 1999
Page 2
The developer should be required to install between home walls with the homes or a limitation
should be established, through CC&R's or other mechanism, that requires homeowner installed
between homes walls to be of the same material and design as the perimeter tract walls for
consistency.
The Etiwanda Specffic Plan requires 50 percent of homes to have side-on garages. The
proposal has 12 homes with true side. on garages. An additional 6 homes have side-on
garages but the homes are plotted on comer lots so the garages still front onto a street. The
Committee should discuss whether the comer lot condition satisfies the 50 percent side-on
requirement.
7. Plot 1 story homes (Plan 1 ) on comer lots wherever possible.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
Where wood siding is used on entire front elevations, it must be wrapped around side and rear
elevations as well.
Provide a minimum of 70 feet between any given horse corral and a home on an adjacent
property.
The applicant shall seek approval of a Minor Exception to allow for increase in wall height for
tract walls along the south and west boundaries.
If river rock cobblestone is used as a building material, it must be natural dver reck as opposed
to a manufactured product. Other stone forms, such as slate, may be a cultured material.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Design Review Committee recommend approval of
the project with the above changes.
Desian Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson
Staff Planner. Brent Le Count
The Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Henderson) reviewed the project and recommended approval subject
to staffs comments with the following:
It is not necessary to wrap front porches around sides of homes due to large size of proposed
porches.
Between home walls shall be either decorative masonry or wrought iron with stone covered
pilasters to match the accent stone of the house elevations.
Increase the number of single story (Plan 1) homes in comer lots and within the southwest
comer area of the Tract.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW
NO. 99-01 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15915, LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ETIWANDA AVENUE AND VICTORIA
STREET IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (UP TO 2
DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN,
AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-101- 04,
12, and 14.
A. Recitals.
1. Woodside Homes has filed an application for the Design Review No. 99-01 for
Tentative Tract15915, 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 14th day of Apdl 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application.
3. 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 meeting on April 14, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission
hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and
b. The proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code
and the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the purposes of the distdct in which the site is located; and
c. The proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of
the Development Code and the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and
d. 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.
e. The site contains several large Eucalyptus trees, which will to be removed and
replaced in canformance with the windrow preservation provisions of the Etiwanda Specific Plan;
and
f. The design of the project, including home design, roadway alignment, trails,
landscaping, and grading will provide ericlent use of land to accommodate single family homes;
and
thearea.
The homes are tastefully designed with high quality architecture that will enhance
- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 9~01-WOODSIDE HOMES
Apd114,1999
Page 2
3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this
Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below
and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Plannina Division:
1) All conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 15915 shall apply.
2) The home on Lot 36 shall be re-plotted to front-on to Etiwanda
Avenue to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
3) Provide window treatment, stone/brick veneer, and trim elements on
side and rear elevations matching that shown on the front..
4)
The Tract perimeterwalls shall be decorative; either slump stone, split
faced block, or stucco, with decorative cap and pilasters. Pilasters
shall have stone treatment consistent with the primary stone
treatment proposed on the home.
5) A minimum of 50 percent of the homes to have side-on garages.
6) VVhere wood siding is used on front elevations, it shall be wrapped
around side and rear elevations as well.
7)
Provide a minimum of 70 feet between any given horse corral and a
home on an adjacent property.
8)
If river rock cobblestone is used as a building material, it must be
natural dver rock as opposed to a manufactured product. Other stone
veneer, such as slate, may be a manutacturad material.
9)
Return walls between homes shall be either decorative masonry or
wrought iron with stone covered pilasters. Intedor side property lines
may be wood fences.
1 O) Increase the number of single story (Plan 1 ) homes in comer lots and
within the southwest comer area of the Tract.
11)
Lower pad levels for lots along the south project boundary to reduce
height of retaining walls along the sough boundary as much as
possible.
12)
Re-grade the Community Trail along the west project boundary to
reduce the height of the retaining walls along the west boundary as
much as possible.
13) Any walls in excess of 6 feet in height shall require approval of a
Minor Exception application from the City Planner.
The existing Eucalyptus windrows along Etiwanda Avenue (Lot 36)
and Victoda Street (Lots1,2, and 3) shall be preserved per Etiwanda
Specific Plan Section 5.41.200. This allows removal of individual
diseased or damaged tre~s~d by the Arborist Report dated
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 99-01-WOODSIDE HOMES
Apd114,1999
Page 3
August 31, 1998, prepared by Knapp Associates, so long as they are
replaced with minimum 15-gallon Spotted Gum Eucalyptus trees. All
other existing on-site Eucalyptus windrows shall be replaced with
5-gallon Spotted Gum Eucalyptus trees planted 8 feet on center in
accordance with Etiwanda Specific Plan Sections 5.41.400 and 500.
The project shall be built in conformance with the recommendations
of the Noise Study dated August 26, 1998, and amended on
December 18, 1998, prepared by RKJK Associates.
Enqineedn.cl Division:
1)
One of the local trails south of "C' Street or south of "D" Street shall
have ingress and egress rights reserved on the tract map in favor of
the City for vehicular access to the Community Trail. Provide comer
cutoffs at intersection between local and Community Trail and gate
both ends.
2) Ddve approaches shall be installed perpendicular to the street center
lines.
3) The ddveway on Lot 30 shall not encroach on the storm drain
easement.
4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF APRIL 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary
I, Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary forthe Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucemonga,
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 14th day of Apdl 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT(
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
Development Review 99-01
Design Review of 36 single family homes
Woodside Homes
Southwest comer of Etiwanda Avenue and Victoria Street
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:CONDInONS App~ y:Tpj!:,y, OU~::pROjEC~:
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-27,50, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
A. General Requirements
~omDl~on Date
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, offcars, 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 expanse in the defense of any such action but such participation
shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced,
participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire
station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to all
specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the District's
property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with
its needs. In any building of a station, the developar shall comply with all applicable laws and
regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developar by the time recordation
of the final map occurs.
A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or C ty Plan ner's letter of appro~;,al, and all Standard
Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and construction
plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check.
B. Time Limits
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.
SC - II19/99
Site
1.
ProjedNo. DR99-01
Completion Date
Development
The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the appmved plans which include
site plans, architectural elevations, exterior matadals and colors, landscaping, sign program, and
grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herain, Development Code
ragulations, and the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be
submitted for City Planner raview and approval pdor to the issuance of building permits.
All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for
consistency pdor to issuance of any permits (such as grading, 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
Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code,
aft other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
/
All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be
located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrate
or masonW walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single
family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults.
Straet names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the
adopted Street Naming Policy pdor to approval of the final map.
A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and weed
control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City Planner review
and approval prior to approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior to approval of
streetimprovementand grading plans. Develobershall upgradeand constructalltrails, including
fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements.
a, Local Feeder Trails (i.e., private equestrian easements) shall, at a minimum, be fenced
with two-rail, 4-inch ledgepole "peeler" logs to define both sides of the easement; however,
developer may upgrade to an alternate fenca rnatedal.
b. LocaJ Feeder Trail entrances shall also provide access for service vehicles, such as
vetednadansorhaydelivedes, including a12-footminimumdriveapproach. Entrance may
be gated provided that equestrian access is maintained through step-throughs.
Local Feeder Trail grades shall not exceed 0.5% at the downstream end of a trail for a
distance of 25 feet behind the public right-of-way line to prohibit trail debris from reaching
the street. Drainage devices may be required by the Building Official.
Provide a 24-foot by 24-foot corral area in the rear yard. Grade access from corral to trail
with a maximum slope of 5:1 and a minimum width of 10 feet.
The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall not prohibit the keeping the equine
animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual
lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of
appealing to boards of directors of homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&R's.
SC * 1119~99
Pm~ctNo, DR99-01
Completion Date
The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) and Articles of Incorporation of the
Homoowners' 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 Enginoor. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the
name and add ress of their officers on or before January I of each and every year and whenever
said information changes.
/ /
10.
All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property
owner, homoowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape
maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior
to the issuance of building permits.
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
11.
Decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. Ifa double wall condition
would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property
owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner
at least 30 days prior to the removal!of any existing walls/fences along the project's perimeter.
12.
For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each
suppert post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two '/~-inch lag belts, to withstand high winds.
Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall extend at
least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade.
13. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant.
14. Slope fencing along side propere/lines may be wrought iron or black plastic coated chain link to
maintain an open feeling and enhance views.
15. On comer side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk.
16. For residential development, retum walls and comer side walls shall be decorative masonry.
17. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured / /
products. ' --
D. Building Design
All dwellings shall have the front, side and mar elevations upgraded with architectural treatment,
detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner review and
approval pdor to issuance of building permits.
/ /
E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans)
1. Multiple car garage driveways shall be tapered down to a standard two-car width at street.
The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles on
this site unless they are the principal sourca of transportation for the owner and prohibit parking
on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas.
F. Landscaping
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
$C - 1119t99
9.
10.
11.
12.
Project No. DR 99-01
CompleUon Date
submitted for City Planner review and approval pdor to the issuance of building permits or pdor
final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barTier 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 arbodst's
recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and tdmming methods.
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 pdor to occupancy.
All pdvate slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
fol lows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gal Ion 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 pdor to occupancy.
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 forthose units, an inspection shall be
ccnducteq by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition.
Front yard and comer side yard landscaping and irTigation shall be required per the Development
Code and/or Etiwanda Specific Plan. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street
trees and slope planting.
/ /
/ /
The final design of the pedmeter 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
Engineedng Division.
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.
__/ /,_,
All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineedng Division.
Tree maintenance criteda shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and approval
pdor to issuance of building permits. These cdteda shall encourage the natural growth
characteristics of the selected tree species.
Landscaping and irrigation for model homes shall be designed to conserve water through the
principles of Xedscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
New windrow planting of Eucalyptus Maculata (Spotted Gum) is required at a ratio of 50 linear
feet peracre. The size, spacing, staking, and irdgation ofthesetrees shall comply with the City.s
Tree Preservation Ordinance (RCMC 19.08.100).
Project No, DR99-01
ComDleUon D~te
G. Other Agenciee
The applicant shall contactthe U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location
of mail boxes. Multi-fam. ily residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for
mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the
overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of
building permits.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DNISION, (909) 477-27'10, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
H. Site Development
Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be
marked with the project file number (i.e., CUP 9801 ). The applicant shall comply with the latest
adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Cede, Uniform Plumbing Code, National
Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable cedes, 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.
Pdor to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to
existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may
include, but are not limited fo: City Beautificatlon Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation
Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees.
Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and
pdor to issuance of building permits.
For projects using septic tank facilities, written cartificatlon of acceptability, including all
supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bemardino County Department of
Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic Tank
Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits.
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.
New Structures
Roofing material shall be installed as for wind-resistant roof covering at wind velocity not less
than 90 mph.
Grading
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
substantjal conformance with the approved grading plan.
A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to
perform such work.
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 pdor to issuance of building permits.
IAPPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
K. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Mello Roos Community Facilities Disb'ict requirements shall apply to this project.
2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,000 gallons per minute.
X a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire
department personnel prior to water plan approval.
X b.
For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site
hydrants Shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire
department personnel after construction and pdor to occupancy.
Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed,
and operable pdor to delivery of any combustible building matadals on site (i.e., lumber. roofing
materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel.
Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided pdor to water plan approval. Required hydrants,
if any, will be determined by the Fire District Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with
a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard.
Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers.
Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be
submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is
available, pending completion of the required fire protection system.
Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed pdor to final
inspection.
7. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted:
X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22.
8. Fire department access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apparatus.
9. Emergency secondary access shall be provided in accordance with Fire Distdct standards.
10. Emergency access, a minimum of 26 feet wide, shall be provided, and maintained flee and clear
of obstructions at all times during construction, in accordance with Fire District requirements.
11. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14 feet,
6 inches from the ground up, so as not to impede fire apparatus.
12. $132.00 Fire District fee(s). and a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct pdor to Building and Safety permit issuance. **
A Fire District fee in the amount of $132.00 shall be paid at the time of Water Plan submittal.
Project No. DRgg-OI
Completion Date
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ /
/ /
/ /
/. /
/ I
/ /
SC - 1119/99
Project No. DR99-01
Completion Date
**Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (spdnklers, hood systems, alarms,
etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans.
13.
Plans shall be submitted and appmved 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 CO MPLIA NCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
L. Security Hardware
1. A secondary looking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors.
2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doom. If windows are within
40 inches of any looking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used.
3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary looking devices.
M. WIndows
All sliding g lass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted
from frame or track in any manner.
N. Building Numbodng
Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighffime
visibility.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
April 14, 1999
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer
Maria E. Perez, Assistant Engineer
VACATION OF AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS AND RELATED
PURPOSES NORTH OF HIGHLAND AVENUE WEST OF ETIWANDA - APN
225-161-19, 33, 32
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
On October 1, 1990 the City accepted an easement for egress and ingress and related purposes across
a portion of land in Etiwanda as required by the conditions of approval for Tract 13812. The
easement was for a temporary access mad to be built across the future freeway right-of-way.
Calltans has requested that the City vacate the easement at this time to allow for the constxuction of
Route 30.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the finding, through minute action, that the
vacation conforms with the General Plan. This finding will be forwarded to the City Council for
further processing and final approval.
Respectfully submitted,
D~d~J~es ~
Senior Civil Engineer
DJ:MEP
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map
Exhibit "B"- Copy of Easemere Deed
iTEM B
CITY OF
RANCH0 CUCAMONGA
ENGINEEP, JN6 DIVISION
ITEM: V-163
TITLE: Vicinity Map
!~l~ri': "A"
City of Bancho Cucamon~
City of Rancho CucamonSa
P.O. Box 807
I~ncho Cucamonls. CA 91730
RECORDED IN
OFFIC!A,'._ REC.Oqr'
FjgO II0Y 29 F!~ 3:53 '.
SAr~ UEIiNARDINO
CO.. CALIF.
IPACl AI0'4 THIS UN! FOR RECORDF. r8
90 472134 EASEMENT
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
TIle Wi l ] i am Lyon Company, a Ca I i fnrn i a Corpora t i on
GRANT(S) to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. a Municipal Corporation. an EASEMENT for
Ingress and Egress and Related Purposes
in, over and upon that certain real property in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernatlno, State of
Cafifornia, Described as Follows:
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A"
Dated
3ENERAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT
CAT+ NO, NN00137
TICOR TITL~ INSURANCi;
Notary Public in and for
,scribed to the
__executed It.
This is to certify that the Interest in reel
property conveyed by the within Instrument
to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, · City
incorporated under the laws of the State of
California, Is hereby accepled by order of
the CIty Council, end the grantee consents
to the recordetlon thereof by Its duly
authorized officer.
Dated:/~- f- ~o
Z)y. CIty Engineer
Era. 1~-3~-~'2- '
EXHIBIT "A"
90-472134
That portion of the Southwest one-quarter of Section 29, Township 1
North, Range 6 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in said City,
described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the center line of Locust Avenue,
73 feet wide as shown on Tract No. 12046 in said City as per map
recorded in Book 168, Pages 1 through 7, inclusive Of Maps, in the
office of the County Recorder of said County, with the North line
of that portion of Highland Avenue, 70 feet wide, as dedicated to
the City of Rancho Cucamonga and shown on said Tract No. 12046;
thence North 0°30'25' East 3~.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence North 89o29'35" West 29.35 feet to a point on a non-tangent
curve, concave Northwesterly and having a radius of 29.50 feet, a
radial bearing to said point bears South 41°16'06" East; thence
Northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 48°13'29''
an arc length of 24.83 feet; thence tangent to said curve North
0°30'25" East 48.00 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave
Southeasterly and having a radius of 319.50 feet; thence North-
easterly along said curve through a central angle of 37°02'09" an
arc length of 193.19 feet to the beginning of a reverse curve,
concave Northwesterly and having a radius of 280.50 feet; said
curve also being tangent at its Northerly terminus with the East
line of said Southwest one-quarter of Section 29, a radial bearing
to said point bears North 52°27'26'' West; thence Northeasterly
along said curve through a central angle of 37~34'35'' an arc length
of 183.96 feet, thence South 0~02'01'' East along said East line
152.97 feet to a point on a curve, concave Northwesterly and having
a radius of 319.50 feet, said curve also being concentric with and
Easterly, 39.00 feet radially from the above mentioned curve having
a radius of 280.50 feet, a radial bearing to said point bears
South 61°25'40" East; thence Southwesterly along said curve through
a central angle of 8°58'14'' an arc length of 50.02 feet to the
beginning of a reverse curve; concave Southeasterly and having a
radius of 280.50 feet, said curve also being concentric with and
Easterly, 39.00 feet radially from first above mentioned curve
having a radius of 319.50 feet; thence Southwesterly along said
curve through a central angle of 37°02'09'' an arc length of 181.31
feet; thence tangent to said curve South 0°30'25'' West 48.00 feet
to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave Northeasterly and
having a radius of 29.50 feet; thence Southeasterly along said
curve through a central angle of 48°13'29" an arc length of 24.83
feet to the intersection with the Easterly prolongation of above
described line having a bearing of North 89°29'35'' West and length
of 29.35 feet, a radial bearing to said point of intersection bears
South 42~16'56'' West; thence North 89~25'35'' West 29.35 feet to the
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
F_,A~T UFIE OF e. Vi,Y4- ol=
-r C)
PORTlOll OP THE 9.W. I/4.. OF QEC,
-r: IrL/FLG, W., ,~.D. Frl.
;,10. 12046
CITY OP RArlCHO
EAsr-r'rlErlT rr!AF FOR
CUCArrffirl6A
580 N. PARK AVE.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
April14,1999
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE
TRACT 14055 - MODERN CORPORATION - A request for a time extension for a
115-unit condominium project on 10.27 acres of land in the Medium Density
Residential district (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located north of Arrow Highway,
on the east side of Baker Avenue - APN: 207-201-12 and 32.
BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract 14055 was approved by the Planning Commission on
February 8, 1989. On Mamh 27, 1991, the Planning Commission approved a one-year time
extension for tentative map approval as well as a modification to the map which allowed the project
to be divided into three phases for construction purposes. The modification also reset the
beginning of the tentative map approval period. The Planning Commission issued other time
extensions on January 22, 1992, and Mamh 10, 1993. Since that time, State legislation authorized
an additional three years of time extensions resulting in an expiration date of Mamh 25, 1999.
On January 6, 1999, the City Council amended the City's Subdivision Ordinance to increase time
extensions to five years, which is the maximum allowed under the State Subdivision Map Act
Section 66452.69(e). The Planning Commission may extend this project in 12-month increments
for up to two more years (March 25, 2001 ). The applicant filed the subject time extension request
in a timely fashion on December 21, 1998.
ANALYSIS: The Planning Division has reviewed the approved project design and noted the
following inconsistencies with current development standards for the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
These inconsistencies are primarily the result of the adoption of Ordinance 465, which included
major changes to the multi-family development standards by the City Council in 1991, after the
project was approved.
Buildina Separations: The project does not meet the 20-foot, patio-to-patio and patio-to-
building separation requirements as stipulated by Development Code Table 17.08.040-E (see
Exhibit G). Many of these separations are proposed to be 8 to 10 feet. The Code does allow
a reduction in the 20-foot separation to 15 feet if the patio fences/walls are kept below 5 feet
in height. The project must still be redesigned to meet this requirement. It may be necessary
to eliminate a unit(s) in order to do so.
Setback From Curb: The project does not meet the 15-foot setback between a building and
adjacent curb face as required by Development Code Table 17.08.040-E (see Exhibit G).
The project has building-to-curb setbacks of as little as 10 feet. It appears possible to re-plot
the units to meet the 15-foot requirement.
ITEM C
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TE FORT r14055- MODERN CORP.
Apd114,1999
Page 2
Recreational Amenities: The project does not provide the required five recreational amenities
as required by Development Code Section 17.08.040-C. Projects with 101 to 200 units must
provide at least five recreational amenities, or their equivalent, as appreved by the Planning
Commission, from the following list:
1. Large open lawn, one of the dimensions shall be a minimum of 100 feet.
Multiple enclosed tot lots with multiple play equipment. The tot lots shall be
conveniently located throughout the site.
3. Pooland spa.
Community multi-purpose room equipped with kitchen and defined areas for games,
exerdses, etc.
Barbecue facilities equipped with multiple gdlls, picnic benches, etc. The barbecue
facilities shall be conveniently located throughout the site.
6. Court facilities (e.g., tennis, volleyball, basketball, etc.).
7. Jogging/walking trails with exercise stations.
The project has three recreational amenities: 1) pool with spa, 2) pool room (which may be
considered a community room), and 3) a tot lot. The project could be redesigned to include
two additional amenities in the form of small recreation court(s), such as horseshoes or
shuffleboard, and barbecue facilities. This would bdng the project into compliance with the
requirement for five amenities.
PLANNING COMMISSION AUTHORITY: The Planning Commission may approve, conditionally
approve, or deny a time extension request. The Planning Commission may add conditions and
modify or delete any of the conditions of approval, except conditions required by City Ordinance
or by the City Engineer as related to public health and safety or standards approved by the City
Engineer. Staff recommends adoption of the revised conditions of approval (see attached
Resolution) consistent with current City requirements.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Part I of the Initial Study was prepared by the applicant. Staff
has completed Part II, the Environmental Checklist, and determined that the project will not have
a significant impact on the environment. Various street and drainage infrastructure requirements
were established with the original approval of the project. The only outstanding potential impact
is related to conformance with current multi-family development standards as identified above.
Staff recommends issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
FACTS FOR FINDING: In approving or conditionally approving the time extension, the Planning
Commission must find that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and
improvements, is consistent with the General Plan. The Planning Commission must deny the time
extension if it makes any of the following findings:
A. That the proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TE FORT r14055-MODERN CORP.
Apd114,1999
Page 3
B. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the
General Plan.
C. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
D. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density or development.
E. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvement is likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious
public health problems.
That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements,
acquired by the pubic at large, for access through or use of the property within the proposed
subdivision.
The Planning Commission should determine whether the non-conformities make the project not
physicallysuitableforthetypeofdevelopmentorpmposeddensity. Staff believes that the project
can be revised through the recommended conditions of approval to meet all current standards of
the City, but that this may require reduction in the number of units.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within
a 300-foot radius of the project site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant a one-year time
extension for the subdivision map and related design review, subject to the revised conditions of
approval, through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval and issuance of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
City Planner
BB:BLC/jfs
Attachments:
Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"
Exhibit "C"
Exhibit "D"
Exhibit "E"
Exhibit "F"
Exhibit "G"
Exhibit "H"
Exhibit "1"
Resolution
- Applicant's Letter
- Location Map
- Site Plan
- Grading Plan
- Landscape Plan
- Elevations
- Development Code Table 17.08.040-E
- Issues
- Initial Study
of Approval
MODERN CORPOE4TION
PUENTE HIES BUSINESS CENTER
17700 Caslellon Slre~, Sujle 258
RECEIVED
DEC :~ 1 1998
Dec-mher 18,1998
Mr. Brad Buller
Director of Planning Division
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
Re: Tentative Tract No. 14055
Dear Mr. Buller,
We would like to request a one year extesion to
March 27,2000 for Tentative Tract No. 14055. we are
enclosing a check for the extension fee of $ 549.00.
Thank you very much for your continued assistance. If
you have any question, please call us at (626) 965-2668.
Very truely yours,
4
,I
I
J i I'~
CON~I"II-E WOOOTRIa OETYPICAL
.,- ,....~. ~,. ' .' .. '~. - ,.~,~.~ .....
i I Illllllllll t II~ "" " " "
I I 14 IIIllllll II II1111fill III It ~RItlIIUl IH I11 11111 IIIII 111112111111HIIIIIIIII Ill IIIIII Ilalllllfillllllllllltllllllllllllll
FRONT ELEVATION
TYP. 34q. EX
JigJlllliiJlJiJiliiJiillilitliiJ~ZJHIJJililiJliliillliil liiliJlllWH~JlilHilil}lil IlIHjllliliiHlHJlllljillilllljlJllZijijHil,llUglilnilnilijllUjlllliiljllll I]illlllil]
4 3R 2 4R
FRONTB..EVA"nON
TYP. 4-Pt..Sx
I II I IIII1~ IIII1 JIll II I Ill I I llll Ill II Illll 111 1!11 II1 II1 IIIIi I llll IIII 1 II IIIII I1111 lllll Ill IIIII II IIII Itl 1 II lal Ill II1 IIIII I illl III11 II IIIII II III II111 III Illll I lllllllllllll
,4 .3R '~ 38 ~
FRONTE!._cV.~I"i)I,I
Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17. 08. 040
E. Bulldine Seoaretions. Where required in Table 17.08,040-B and C, this section sets forth
minimum requirements for building separation and setback standards.
Table 17.08.040-E - Building Separation and Setback Standards
Building Se aration and Distrfcts
Setback~j (in feet) M(c) I MH(c)
Building to building®
1, Front to front
a. No patio or I
recessed patio 30 30
b, Between patio
fence/wall less than
5 ft. in height(F)
without sidewalk(F) 10 10
with sidewalkiF) 15 15
c. Between patio
fenco/wall more 20 20
than 5 ft. in height
d. Between balconies
above patio
fenco/wall more 20 20
than 5 ft. in height
e. Between a patio
fence/wall and a 20 20
building wall
f. With common patio
fence/wall 30 30
2. Other 15 15
Building to one-stoW detached
garegeIco ort or other accessory 15 15
structures~r~
Building to curb(E) 15(o) 15(°l
Building to curb at project entry
(patio wall or fence shall not 20 20
project into the setback area)
H(cl
30
10
15
20
20
20
30
15
15
15(o)
25
Notes.'
(A) Building shaft mean dwelling units.
(B) Building Separation standards for building to building shaft be for two-story de~lopment only.
(C) Add 10 feet for each floor/story above the second floor/stoOl for thrae- or mora-story buildings.
17.08-18
3~96
CARD CONTROL GATE /
cV ' ; ~'1,,,. ' '~ "
v ',,,, ' ~" ,-PLEX (w/~ story)
· ,,,,. ..,.:-rr -.,""T
-~' ~:~7-_z~" 2---,---- -rr~.-~-.....
T -- I 132.00
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: Time Extension for Tentative Tract 14055
2. Related Files: Modification to Tentative Tract 14055
Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION
FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14055 - MODERN CORPORATION - A request for a time
extension of a previously approved 3-lot subdivision and design review of 115 condominium
units on 10.27 acres of land in the Medium Residential district (8-14 dwelling units per
acre), located north of Arrow Highway, east of Baker Avenue - APN: 207-201-44.
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Modern Corporation
5. General Plan Designation: Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
6. Zoning: Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is surrounded by existing residential single
family homes, condominiums, and a mobile home park.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Brent Le Count
Associate Planner
(909) 477-2750
10. Other agencies whose approval is required:
· Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
TT 14055 - Modern Corp. 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
( ) Population and Housing
( ) Geological Problems
(/) Water
( ) Air Quality
(,/') Transportation/Circulation
( ) Biological Resources
( ) Energy and Mineral Resources
( ) Hazards
( ) Noise
( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance
(/) Public Services
(/) Utilities and Service Systems
(/) Aesthatice
( ) Cultural Resources
( ) Recreation
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
()
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
()
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
()
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact' or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
()
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
1 ) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signed: /~~~)-~ ~
Brent Le Count, Associate Planner
March 23, 1999
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
TT 14055 - Modern Corp. 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.
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.'
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) (/) ( )
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? ( ) ( ) ( )
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?.
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community?
Comments:
() () ()
() (), ()
()
(~)
(,~)
(z)
a)
The Medium Residential standards of the Development Code have been revised since
the tentative tract map was originally approved. The new standards require increased
building separation and provision for more recreational amenities. The project design
must be modified to comply with current standards, With modification, the impact
is not considered significant.
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped
area or extension of major infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
() () () (z)
() () ()
() () () (/)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
TT 14055 - Modern Corp. Page 4
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( )
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( )
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( )
d) Seiche hazards? ( )
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( )
f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( )
g) Subsidence of the land? ( )
h) Expansive soils? ( )
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( )
No
() ()
() () (/)
() () (/)
() () (/)
() () (/)
( ) ( ) (,~)
( ) ( ) (v')
( ) ( ) (v,)
( ) ( ) (v')
WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface water runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved
oxygen, or turbidity)?
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements?
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?
Altered direction or rate of flew of groundwater?
Impacts to groundwater quality?
d)
g)
h)
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
(,,')
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
No
()
(.~)
(/)
(~)
(.,)
(,/)
(,~)
(v')
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
TT 14055 - Modern Corp. Page 5
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? ( )
Comments:
No
( ) ( ) (/)
a)
The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, and the rate and
amount of surface water runoff because of the amount of new hardscape and roof tops
proposed on the current vacant site. All drainage will be conveyed to facilities that have
been designed to handle the flows. The impact is not considered significant.
L.eS~
Signfficant M/UOSUO~ SiQ~,csnt No
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( );
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( )
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ( ) ( )
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( )
) (/)
)
)
()
(/)
(/)
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle tdps or traffic congestion?
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
()
()
()
() )
() )
()
()
(/)
()
()
()
()
()
No
()
(,/)
(/)
(/)
(/)
(,/)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
TT 14055 - Modern Corp. Page 6
g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/)
Comments:
a)
The project will increase vehicle trips since the site is currently vacant. The tract
conditions require street improvements to accommodate the project. The impact is not
considered significant.
c)
The tract was conditioned to provide access through the site to Arrow Highway and
Baker Avenue for the existing mobile home park to the northeast. The impact is not
considered significant.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a)
Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds)?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees,
eucalyptus windrow, etc.)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal
pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal 'or migration corridors?
(/)
(/)
(/)
(/)
(,/)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal.'
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( )
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( )
( ) ( ) (/)
() () (/)
· Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
' TT 14055 - Modern Corp. Page 7
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?
No
( ) ( ) ( ) (/)
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)? ( )
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( )
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard? ( )
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? ( )
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? ( )
( ) ( )
( )' ( ) (/)
( ) ( ) (/)
( ) ( ) (/)
(): () (/)
10.
NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
Comments:
( ) ( ) (/) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) (/)
a)
The project will increase noise levels since the site is currently vacant. However, the
project does not propose activity or land use intensity in excess of that anticipated by
the General Plan. The impact is not considered significant.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
TT 14055 - Modern Corp. Page 8
11.
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/)
c) Schools? ( ) ( ) (v') ( )
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( )
e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/)
Comments:
c)
The project will increase the number of school-aged children in the area. The tentative
tract map was conditioned to require the applicant to participate in a community facilities
district or enter into an agreement with the affected school districts to pay for school
facilities. The impact is not considered significant.
12.
UTILITIESANDSERVICESYSTEMS. Wouldtheproposal
result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
b) Communication systems?
()
()
)
) (,~)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
f) Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
()
()
()
()
()
)
)
(~) ( )
( )
( )
Comments:
e)
The tentative tract map was conditioned to install minor drainage improvements to
handle runoff from the site. The impact is not considered significant.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
'I'F 14055 - Modern Corp. Page 9
13.
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal.'
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/)
c) Create light or glare? ( ) (). (,/) ( )
Comments:
c)
The project will increase light and glare since the site is currently vacant. The tentative
tract map was conditioned to require the preparation of a photometric diagram to
.demonstrate that no light or glare is cast on surrounding properly or streets, pdor to the
~ssuance of building permits, The impact is not considered significant.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( )
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( )
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( )'
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( )
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ( ) ( )
) (/)
) (/)
) (/)
(/)
(/)
15.
RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? ( )
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( )
()
()
()
()
No
(/)
(/)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
TT 14055 - Modern Corp. Page 10
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a)
Potential to degrade: Does the project have the
potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal, or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b)
Short term: Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a relatively bdef,
definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.)
c)
Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
d)
Substantial adverse: Does the project have
environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
( ) ( ) ( )
() () () (z)
() () () (z)
() () ()
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier 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 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):
(/) General Plan EIR
(Certified April 6, 1981 )
Initial Study for
TT 14055 -Modem Corp.
City el Rancho Cucamonga
Page
(/) Master Enwronmenlal Assessment for the 1980 General Plan Update
(SCH'ff88020115 cedifiedJanua~4 t989)
Other: ~ for Tentative Tract 14055
[Issued by the Planrang CommisS;,on gn Fel~uary 8. 1989)
E~v~Mitlqallon Measure-
,Lend Use and Pinning
I, The oro/ect dg~J)n Shall.be revised' to Colllply With all cuffeat Developntent Code
prowSionS. specifically. those continned in Section 17.08040 relating to building
sapera i~n, setbacks, and*provisions for re.'ruafiona~ amenihes.
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I cedlfy that I am the appllcanl for the project'descrmed 'm this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I
haw read this Iniliid Study and the pfopo~ mil~Jaflo~ measures. Further, I have rawsad Ihe
prefecl p~ans or proposals and/or hereby agree to lha proposed mltlgat:on measures to av~Ad the
effects or mitigate the effect8 to a point where cleady no slgnilicanl e~vironmental effects would
occ,r
/-6~6-S96-9~9
Just1 paTTe~,suT_aja
City of Rancho Cucamonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for pubtic review in accordance with the
California Environmental Qua~ty Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Pubtic Resources Code.
Project File No.: Tentative Tract 14055 Public Review Period Closes: Apd114, 1999
Project Name: Project Applicant: Modern Corporation
Project Location (also see attached map): Located north of Arrow Highway on the east side of Baker
Avenue - APN: 207-201-12 and 32
Project Description: A request for a time extension for a 115-unit condominium project on 10.27 acres
of land in the Medium Density Residential Distdct (8 to 14 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) Them 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
elated documents am 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.
AOd114, 1999
Date of Determination
Adopted By
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR
THE EXTENSION OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 14055, AND MODIFYING THE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL THEREOF, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 115
CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON 10.27 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE),
LOCATED NORTH OF ARROW HIGHWAY ON THE EAST SIDE OF
BAKER AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
APN: 207-201-12 AND 32.
A. Recitals.
1. Modem Corporation has filed an application for an extension of the approval of
Tentative Tract Map No. 14055, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map Time Extension request is referred to as "the
application."
2. On February 8, 1989, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 89-26, thereby
approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Tentative Tract No. 14055.
3. On March 27, 1991, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 89-26A, thereby
modifying, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Tentative Tract 14055.
4. On Apdl 14, 1999, 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.
5. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is heraby 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-
referancad public hearing on Apd114, 1999, including wdtten 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TE FOR TT14055- MODERN CORP.
April14,1999
Page 2
c. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map approval is not likely to cause public
health and safety problems; and
ordinance.
The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local
3. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment
for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative
Declaration based upon the findings as follows:
a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with
the Califomia Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines
promulgated thereundeF, that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared
therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this
Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative
Declaration with regard to the application.
b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into
the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur.,
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the Califomia Code .
of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole,
the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaretion for the project, there is no evidence that the
proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat
upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning
Commission during the public 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 findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs '1, 2, and 3 above,
this Commission hereby grants a time extension for.
Tentative Tract MaD
Applicant Expiration
14055 Modem Corporation Mamh 25, 2000
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby modifies the conditions of approval contained in Resolutions No. 89-26
and 89-26A and the Standard Conditions, attached thereto and incorporated therein, to read as
follows:
Plannine Division
1)
Pursuant to provisions of California Public Resources Code Section
21089(b), this application shall not be operative, vested, or final nor
will building permits be issued or a map recorded, until 1) the Notice
· PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TE FOR TT14055- MODERN CORP.
Apdlt4,1999
Page 3
of Determination (NOD) regarding the associated environmental
action is filed and posted with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
of the Count of San Bemardino; and 2) any and all required filing fees
assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4,
together with any required handling charges, are paid to the County
Clerk of the County of San Bemardino. The applicant shall provide
the Planning Division with a stamped and conformed copy of the NOD
together with a receipt showing that all fees have been paid.
Environmental Mitiaation Measures:
1)
The project design shall be revised to comply with all current
Development Code provisions, specifically, those contained in Section
17.08.040 related to building separation, setbacks, and the provision
of recreational amenities.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF APRIL 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary
I, Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary for 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 14th day of April 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
April 14, 1999
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN
AMENDMENT 99-01 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A request to amend
the Terra Vista Community Plan to redesignate the land use district for Parcel 1 of
Parcel Map No. 14786, from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to
Elementary School, located at 7889 East Elm Avenue - APN: 1077-042-88.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
Surroundina Land Use and ZoninG:
North - Single family homes; Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), Terra
Vista Community Plan
South - Vacant land; Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Terra Vista
Community Plan
East - Coyote Canyon Elementary School; Elementary School, Terra Vista Community
Plan
West - Vacant land; Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Terra Vista
Community Plan
General Plan Designations:
Project Site - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
North - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre)
South - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
East Elementary School
West Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
C. Site Characteristics: The site is improved with a parking tot which is used by the Coyote
Canyon Elementary School.
ANALYSIS:
General: The 3.3-acre site has been used for a number of years as a parking lot for Coyote
Canyon Elementary School (directly to the east). The original Terra Vista Community Plan
designated the site as Low-Medium Residential but the current Plan inadvertently shows the
site as Elementary School. Staff and Lewis Development Co. researched the records and
determined that the land use designation was never applied for nor approved. The property
is being sold to the Central School District for the expansion of classrooms at Coyote Canyon
Elementary.
ITEM D
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TVCPA 99-01-LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO.
April14,1999
Page 2
Consistencv with the General Plan: Land use districts are designated by the General Plan
on a general scale. It is recognized that parcel-specific district location is established with the
community plan.
C. Land Use Comoatibilitv: The site has been used for a number of years as an elementary
school parking facility with no apparent problems or conflicts.
Environmental Assessment: Pan I of the Initial Study was prepared by the applicant. Staff
has completed Part II, the Environmental Checklist, and determined that the project will not
have a significant impact on the environment. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative
Declaration.
FACTS FOR FINDING:
The property is suitable for the uses permitted in the land use and Term Vista Community
Plan designation in terms of access, size, and surrounding land use.
The proposed amendment would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the
surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Initial Study which
indicates that no significant impacts would be expected as a result of this land use change.
The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan, the Development Code,
and the Terra Vista Community Plan because of the site's ability to promote the goals and
objectives for the Elementary School District.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Vallev Dailv
Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within
a 300-foot radius of the project site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached
Resolution, thereby recommending that the City Council issue a Negative Declaration and approve
Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 99-01.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:BLC/jfs
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" - Applicant's Letter dated February 19, 1999
Exhibit "B" - Location Map
Exhibit "C" - Term Vista Community Plan Land Use Map
Exhibit "D" - Initial Study Part II
Resolution Recommending Approval
K.-UFMAN ;-B RO ,D
February 19, 199~q
Mr. Dan Coleman
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
PARCEL 1, PARCEL MAP 14786 ZONE CHANGE
TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY
Dear Dan,
Please consider this letter of justification for the proposed zone change of an approximate
3.3 acre parcel iq Tetra Vista located West of the Coyote Canyon Elementary School.
This piece of property is being sold to the Central School District. This site is zoned
medium density residential per tile Tetra Vista Community Plan. We arc proposing to
change this zone designation to elementary school. This site is cunTently improved with
an asphalt parking lot and sonlc small landscape areas that have bccn used by tile Central
School District .over the last several years. There is no construction proposal with this
application, this is solely a zone change request submitted by tile owner of the land,
Lewis Development Co.
Please call mc at (909) 802-1163 if you have any questions. As ahvays, wc appreciate
your help in handling this application for us.
Sincerely,
KAUFMAN AND BROAD OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
PRL:cmb\013
TR; NO- 12 % ~.. '
-..,...
................ ~ ~
...--.
,...
/ ; ',
EXIST.
~ TR. NO.
SITE
SCHOOL~
PARKING LOT,
COYOTE CANYON
SCHOOL
15717
11287
P<zr k
~ r
~4uture
B M ·
M
LM
LM
OP
/
.~ CC
w OC
//
IlL
M LM M NO
CC
· A..,.. ""JII IIL
M LM
LM
RESIDENTIAL
CO MERCIAL
MIXED USE
PUBLIC & QUASI-PUBLIC
* CC
MFC MHO
,., ,c.. oF. .Fk..,'~l
~ee m ~m u GRUEN ASSOCIATES
[~ III III IIF
FIGURE 111o17
Land Use Plan
Density Ranges of Approved Projects may vary slightly from the Plan;
See 'As Built Land Use Progress Plan' - Figure VI-3 on page V1-11.
REVISED Amendment Nos. 1,2, 5, 6, 7 & 9
111-23
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 99-01
2. Related Files:
10.
Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA
COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 99-01 - LEVVIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A
request to amend the Term Vista Community Plan to redesignate the land use distdct for
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 14786 from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
to Elementary School, located at 7889 East Elm Avenue- APN: 1077-042-88.
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Lewis Development Company
801 Corporate Center Ddve, Suite 201
Pomona, CA 91768
(909) 802-1163
General Plan Designation: Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
Zoning: Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) Term Vista Community Plan
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: There are existing single family homes to the
north, an existing elementary school to the east for which the subject site is used as
parking, and vacant land to the south and west, across Elm Avenue.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucemonga
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Brent Le Count
(909) 477-2750
Other agencies whose approval is required:
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
TVCPA 99-01 - Lewis Dev. Co. 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
( ) Population and Housing
(./) Geological Problems
( ) Water
( ) Air Quality
(,/) Transportation/Circulation
( ) Biological Resources
( ) Energy and Mineral Resources
( ) Hazards
( ) Noise
( ) Mandaton/Findings of Significance
Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
(z)
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
()
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or 'Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
()
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
1 ) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Brent Le Count, Associate Planner
March 23, 1999
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
TVCPA 99-01 - Lewis Dev. Co. 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.
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( )
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? ( ) ( )
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?.
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community?.
() ()
() ()
( ) (/)
) (/)
( ) (v')
( ) (/)
Comments:
The proposed amendment is necessary to cladfy the official City record relative to the zoning
of the subject property which is currently shown on the Terra Vista Community Plan Land Use
Map as Elementary School. The site has been used as a parking lot for the adjacent
elementary school for a number of years without conflict.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal.'
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( ) (
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped
area or extension of major infrastructure)?
b)
() ()
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( ) ( )
( ) (,/)
( ) (,/)
( ) (,/)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
TVCPA 99-01 - Lewis Dev. Co. Page 4
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/)
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/)
d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/')
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/')
f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/)
g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/)
h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) (,/) ( )
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/)
Comments:
h)
The site is indicated to have Tujunga Delhi soil association per the General Plan which,
"may have soil bearing capacities that could limit some development." This would not
limit the current use of the site as a parking lot. If the site were ever redeveloped, a
soils report would be necessary to ascertain soil bearing capacity and identify
mitigation. The impact is not considered significant.
4. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( )
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved
oxygen, or turbidity)? ( )
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? ( )
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? ( )
( )
( ) (v,)
() (,/)
( ) (,,')
( ) (,/)
. Initial Study for
TVCPA 99-01 - Lewis Dev. Co.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 5
f)
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
intemeption of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?.
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
i)
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
() (). ()
() (); () (/)
() (). () (/)
() (). () (/)
Comments:
Whether the site is developed under the current Medium Residential land use distdct or
Elementary School designation, increased hardscape will occur that will increase runoff.
Furthermore, the site is already developed as a parking lot with drainage conveyed to existing
facilities designed to handle the flows.
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors?
( ) ( ) ( ) (/)
) ( )~ ( ) (/)
) () ()
) () () (/)
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Wouldtheproposal
result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( )
Poteffially
NO
() (/) ()
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
TVCPA 99-01 - Lewis Dev~ Co. Page 6
b)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g~, farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses?
( ) ( ) ( ) (/)
( ) ( ) ( ) (/)
( ) ( ) ( ) (/)
( ) ( ) ( ) (/)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/)
g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/)
Comments:
a) Access to the subject property is located on East Elm Avenue; therefore, no traffic
impacts to the surrounding residential neighborhood are anticipated.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in .
impacts to:
a)
Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds)?
()
b)
Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees,
eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( )
c)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( )
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal
poo~)? ( )
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
()
( ) ( ) (/)
( ) ( ) (/)
( ) ( ) (/)
( ) ( ) (/)
( ) ( ) (/)
· Initial Study for
TVCPA 99-01 - Lewis Dev. Co.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 7
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
c)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
Irmact
() () () (/)
() () () (/)
( ) ( ) ( ) (,~)
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil,
pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
d)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees?
() (): () (/)
() () () (~)
() () () (/)
() () ()
() () ()
10.
NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
()
()
()
()
()
()
Imoact
_ Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
' TVCPA 99-01 - Lewis Dev. Co. Page 8
11.
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon or resu~ in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services?
NO
() () ()
() () () (/)
() () ()
() () ()
() () ()
12.
UTILITIESANDSERVICESYSTEMS. Wouldtheproposal
result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
b) Communication systems?
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution.
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
f) Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
)
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
No
(,/)
(/)
(/)
(,/)
(,,')
(,/)
13.
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare?
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
No
(/)
· Initial Study for
TVCPA 99-01 - Lewis Dev. Co.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 9
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resoumes? ( )
b) Disturb amhaeological resources? ( )
c) Affect historical or cultural resoumes? ( )
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( )
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ( )
()
()
No
(v')
(v')
(v')
15.
RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
()
()
()
()
()
()
(v')
(v')
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a)
Potential to degrade: Does the project have the
potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal, or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b)
Short term: Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive pedod of time. Long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.)
()
()
Unless
bcomorated
()
()
()
()
No
(/)
(/)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
TVCPA 99-01 - Lewis Dev. Co. Page 10
c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have
environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
( ) ( ) ( ) (/)
( ) ( ) (/)
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the 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 identffied above for this project were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in the following earlierdocument(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the ea~ier 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 April 6, 1981)
(/) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
(/) Terra Vista Planned Community EIR
(SCH ff-81082808, certified February 16, 1983)
City of Rancho Cucamonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the
Cal/fornis Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 99-01
Public Review Period Closes: Apd114, 1999
Project Name: Project Applicant: Lewis Development
Project Location (also see attached map): Located at 7889 East Elm Avenue
Project Description:. A request to amend the Terra Vista Community Plan to mdesignate the
land use distdct for Parcel I of Parcel Map No. 14786 from Medium Residential (8 to 14 dwelling units
per acre) to Elementary School.
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted
an Initial Study to detemtine If the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is
proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
The Initial Study shows that them is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment.
[] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but:
(1)
Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this
proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or
mitigate the effects to a point where cleady no significant effects would occur, and
(2) Them 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
raquirad. 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) 471-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847.
NOTICE
The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period.
Date of Determination
Adopted By
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 99-01, A REQUEST
TO CHANGE THE TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN LAND USE MAP
FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FOR 3.3 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF EAST ELM AVENUE, WEST OF COYOTE CANYON
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, BETWEEN SPRUCE AVENUE AND CHURCH
STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
APN: 1077-042-88.
A. Redtals.
1. Lewis Development Company has filed an application for Terra Vista Community Plan
Amendment No. 99-01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution,
the subject Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application."
2. On April 14, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application.
3. 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 dudrig the above-
referenced public headng, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony,
this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to a single parcel of land totaling approximately 3.3 acres,
basically a triangular configuration, located on the north side of Elm Avenue between Spruce
Avenue and Church Street, and which is presently improved with a parking lot for Coyote Canyon
Elementary School. Access is located on East Elm Avenue. Said property is currently designated
as Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); and
b. All of the surrounding properties are within the Terra Vista Planned Community.
The property to the north of the subject site is designated Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling
units per acre) and is improved with single family homes. The properties to the west and south
(on the south side of Elm Avenue) are designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per
acre) and are currenUy vacant. The property to the east is designated Elementary School and is
developed with the Coyote Canyon Elementary School; and
· PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TVCPA 99-01- LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Apd114,1999
Page 2
c. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan
and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan,
the Terra Vista Community Plan, and with related development; and
d. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the General Plan Land
Use Element and the Terra Vista Community Plan; and
e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent
properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding
propeffies.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public headng and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district
in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land uses in the surrounding area; and
b. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the
environment nor the surrounding properties; and
c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration,
together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the
application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect upon the environment and recommends adoption of a Negative
Dedaretion based upon the findings as follows:
a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines
promulgated thereunder", that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore
reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has
reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the
application.
b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into
the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur:
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the Califomia 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 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 Califomia Code of Regulations.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TVCPA 99-01- LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Apd114,1999
Page 3
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby recommends approval of Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment
No. 99-01 to change the Land Use Map forthe subject property to Elementary School, as shown
on the attached Exhibit "A."
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF APRIL 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
A'I'rEST:
Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary
I, Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary for 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 14th day of Apd11999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
s.p.,.e.
NC
M
LM
//
M
LM
~"~' OP
.< CC
= CC
'lll~oo~,,u
IlL
M LM M NC
P
CC
-II
MFC MHO
[~ III - Ill
M LM
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
,.
MIXED USE
PUBLIC & QUASI-PUBLIC
JrH
"; p
>
M LM
O
CC
~ ~ . . GRUEN ASSOCIATES
FIGURE 111-17
Land Use Plan
Density Ranges of Approved Projects may vary slightly from the Plan;
See 'As Built Land Use Progress Plan' - Figure VI-3 on page V1-11.
REVISED Amendment Nos. 1.2.5.6.7 & 9
111-23
tr -,~
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
Ap~l14,1999
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer
Phillip Verbera, Assistant Engineer
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15282
- SILVERADO GROUP. LLC - A subdivision of 5.0 acres of land into 4 parcels
in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located
on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Aspen Avenue - APN: 208-352-82.
A Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been issued under DR 99-04.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested: Approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map as shown on Exhibit "B".
B. Parcel Size: Parcel 1 0.66 acres
Parcel 2 0.68 acres
Parcel 3 1.31 acres
Parcel 4 2.27 acres
4.92 acres
C. Existin~ Zoning: Industrial Park, ISP subarea 7
D. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North -
South -
East
West
Commercial, Term Vista Town Center
Medical Office Park
Restaurant and vacant
Restaurant and vacant
E. Surrounding General Plan end Developments Code Designations:
North -
South -
East
West
Terra Vista Community Plan, Community Commercial
ISP Subarea 7, Industrial Park
ISP Subarea 7, Industrial Park
ISP Subarea 7, Industrial Park
ITEM E
. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
PM 15282 - SILVERADO GROUP, LLC
April 14, 1999
Page 2
Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and slopes to the south at four percent. Foothill
Boulevard and Laurel Street improvements are in place including curb, gutter and street lights.
Existing restaurants and their access driveways form the east and west boundaries.
ANALYSIS: The PurPose ofthe Parcel Map is to subdivide ~ve acres into four parcels consistent
with Development Review 99-04, which you reviewed as a master plan (Exhibit "C") and
development on parcel 4 at your meeting of March 23. Parkway improvements will be provided
along both project ~'ontages upon development of the first parcel.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: As part of DR 99-04, the applicant completed Part lofthe Initial
Study. Staff conducted a field investigation and completed Part II of the Initial Study. A Negative
Declaration has been issued under DR 99-04, per Planning Commission on March 23, 1999.
CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners
and placed in the Inland Valley Dally Bulletin. Posting at the site has also been completed.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Tentative
Parcel Map 15282 through the adoption of the attached Resolution.
Respectfully submitted,
Senior Civil Engineer
Attachments: Vicinity Map (Exhibit "A")
Tentative Map (Exhibit "B")
Master Plan (Exhibit "C")
Resolution and Recommended Conditions of Approval
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ENGINEERING DIVISION
tim, M: Pfizer'EL 1'4t~P 15282
TYrl',R: VICINITY Ivll~p
STREET
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ENGINEERING DIVISION
ITEM: P,4,~n~'l Nf,4P I..5~8~
TITLE: TFN TTI T/ VF
EXHIBIT: tt~//
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
,*~ .~ TPM NO 15282
mI 11 l'l:l-I-l-
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15282, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, EAST OF ASPEN AVENUE, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-352-82
WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 15282, submitted by Silverado Group, LLC,
applicant, for the purpose of subdividing into 4 parcels, the real property situated in the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bemardino, State of Califomia, identified as
APN 208-352-82, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Aspen Avenue; and
WHEREAS, on Apd114, 1999, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public
headng for the above-described map.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made:
That the map is consistent with the General Plan and the Industrial
Area Specific Plan.
That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with
the General Plan and the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development.
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 contained in the Negative
Deciaretion, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment
for Develop Review 99-04 (Parcel 4 of this PM 15282), the Planning Commission found that there
is no substantial evidence that Development Review 99-04 will have a significant effect upon the
environment and adopted a Negative Declaration under Development Review 99-04 on March 23,
1999.
SECTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map Number 15282 is hereby approved subject to the
attached Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions:
EnGineedna Division:
Development Review 99-04 is currently being processed on Parcel 4
of this Tentative Map 15282. The Parcel Map shall be recorded pdor
to issuance of a building permit,
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15282- SILVERADO GROUP, LLC
Apd114,1999
Page 2
Vehicular access rights to Foothill Boulevard were
relinquished/dedicated to the City per Pamel Map 6725, PMB 67/4-7.
The vacation of that portion of access dght required for this project
ddveway shall be processed through the City and approved pdor to
the issuance of a building permit.
A contribution in lieu of construction for the Foothill Boulevard median
island shall be paid to the City as indicated below. The amount of the
contribution shall be prorated on a per acre basis from the total
contribution attributable to Pamel Map 10444. That total contribution
shall be one half the cost of the median (estimated at $60.00 per
linear foot) times the length of the Foothill Boulevard frontage from a
projection of the westerly right-of-way line for Aspen Street to a
projection of the westerly right-of-way line for Spruce Avenue.
a)
Contribution for Parcel 4 (Development Review 99-04) of
Tentative Parcel Map No. 15282 shall be paid pdor to approval
of the final parcel map.
b)
Contribution for Parcel 1, 2 and 3 of Tentative Parcel Map
No. 15282 shall be paid prior to building issuance for these
parcels.
Parkway shall slope at 2 percent from the top of curb to One foot
behind the sidewalk along all street frontages.
5. All frontage improvements shall be installed with the first parcel to
develop in Tentative Map 15282.
To reflect new or relocated improvements, existing street
improvement plan No. 404 shall be revised by a registered civil
engineer. Plan check fees will be required.
Provide a right tum lane for the Foothill Boulevard ddve approach
consistent with Standard Drawing 119. The dght tum lane shall be 11
feetwide and at least 210 feet long, including the transition. Sidewalk
shall be 6 feet wide curb adjacent along the right turn lane and should
meander for the balance of the project frontage. The driveway shall
be 35 feet wide at the right-of-way.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF APRIL 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
- TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15282 o SILVERADO GROUP, LLC
April 14, 1999
Page 2
ATTEST:
Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary
I, Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary for 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 14th day of April 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAr NO. I ?-
Those items checked are Conditions of AoprovaL
A. Dedications and Vehicular Access
Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails,
public paseos, public landscape areas, stTeet trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance and public
drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities
(cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map.
2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way for the perimeter streets (measured from street
centerline):
total feet on
total feet on
total feet on
total feet on
An irrevocable offer of dedication for roadway purposes shall be made for the private streets.
4. Corner propen>' line cutores shall bc dcdicatcd per City Standards.
5. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for approved
openings:
9.
I0.
11.
Reciprocal access casements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by C C & R's or by deeds and
shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the final parcel map.
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.
All existing easements lying within future right-of-way arc to bc quitclaimed or delincatcd on the final
parcel map per the City Engineer's requirements.
Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall be
dedicated to the City.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provid~:d and shall be delineated or noted on the
final parcel map.
Additional strcct right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to providc a minimum of 7 feet
mcasurcd from thc face of curbs. Ifcurb adjaccnt sidcwalk is used along thc right turn lane. a parallel
street tree casement shall be provided.
1
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests necassar~
to construct the required public improvements and, if he/she should fail to do so, the developer shall at
least 120 days prior to submittal of the final parcel map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete
the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the
property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the
developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection
with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the
amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall
have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. This condition applies in
particular, but not limited, to:
Streel Improvements
All public improvements, (interior streets, drainage facilities. community trails, paseos, landscaped areas,
etc. ) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street
improvements shall inclnde, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches,
sidewalks. street lights. and street trees.
X
A minimum, of 26-foot wide pavement within a 40- root ,.vide dedicated right-of-way shall be constructed
for all hair-section streets.
Construct the following missing perimeter street improvements including. but not limited to:
Street Name
I Re.L
Curb AC Side- Drive Sr~ct Slrcct Comm. Median Bikc Other
& Pvmt walk Appr, Li;h~ T~s Trail Isl~d Trail
Gutter
.r
Notes: (a) Median Island includes landscaping and irrigation on meier. (b) Pavemeal reconstruction and overlays will be
dctcm~incd during plan check. (c) [rso matkcd. sidewalk will b~ curvilincar per STD. ~114. (d) Irso mvked, an in-lieu
orconstruction fcc shall be provided rot Ibis item.
osr 1e c,C's) s Ns.
2
4~ 4. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans including street trees, street lights and intersection safety lights on future
signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be
submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to
the sadst'action of the City Engineer and the Ci~ Attorney guaranteeing 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 striping. marking, traffic signing, street name signing, raffle signal conduit, and interconnect
conduit shall bc 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 secondan/streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring.
Pull boxes shall be placed on boffi sides orffic street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR or any other locations
approved by the City Engineer.
NoIcs: (I) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. :S along seteels, a mz, cimum or 20o feet apa.,1, unless othcr',vlsc
specified by Ihc City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be J-inch (at intersections}, or 2-inch (alon~ strccu) 8alvat~izcd steel
with pullrope or as specillcd.
e. Handicapped access romps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as
directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads r~qulring construction shall remain open to rat'tic at all times with adequate detours
during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover
tbe cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Conccnratcd drainage llows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shail be installed to City
Standards. except for single family residcntia{ lots.
h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check.
5. 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 Englneer's of'rice 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 llne of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted
policy. On collector or larger street, lines or sight shall be plotted for all project intersections. including
driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial drivc'.vays may have lines of
sight plotted as required.
8. A Permit shall be obtained from CALTR. ANS for any work within the following right-of-way:
FocfT't411,l_ RI,VD.
9. All public improvements on the following streets shall be operationally complete prior to the issuance of
building permits.
Public ~la ntenance Areas
1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per En,',ineerinc, Public Works Standards shall be submitted
to the City Engineer for revie',v and approval prior to final parcel map approval. The follo~ving landscaped
parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails, or other areas shall be anuexed into the. Landscape Maimenance
District: . .
2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or t'orm the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts
shall be filed ~,vith ~e City Englnecr prior to final parcel map approval. Formation costs shall be borne by
developer.
3. All required public landscaping and irrigation syslems shall be continuously maintained by the de','eloper
until accepted by the City.
4. Parkway landscaping on ~e follo~ving street(s) shall conform to the results of the ~'espective Beautification
Master Plan:
Draina.ae and Flood Control
I. The project (or portions thercot~ is located within a Flood Hazard Zone: therefore, flood protection
measures shall be provided as ccrgi~cd by a registered Civil Engineer and approvcd 'by Ihc City Engineer.
2. It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone designation removed from
the project area. The developers engineer shall prepare all necessar:,,' reports, plans, and hydrologic~*hydraulic
calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLO,%,IR) shall bc obtained t'rom FE,%l,.%.. prior to
final parcel map approval. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FE~,I.,\ prior to occupancy
or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first.
3. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final parcel
map approval. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
4. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property
from adjacent areas. '
,S. A permit from the San Bcrnarclino County Flood Control District is required for work within it's right-of-
way.
6. Trees are prohibited within .S fcct of the outside diameter orany public storm drain pipe measured from
the outcr odgc of a mature tree trunk.
7. Public storm drain easements shall be gradcd to convey ovcr~o~vs in the cvcnt of blockagc in a sump catch
basin on a public street.
4
Imnrovenrent Completi~)n
I. If the required public improvements are not completed prior to approval or the final parcel map, an
improvement security accompanied by an agreement executed by the Dcvclopcr and the City will be required
for: '
2. If the required public improvements are not completed prior to approval of the final parcel map, an
improvement certificate shall be placed upon the final parcel map, stating that they will be completed upon
development for: Tl4llr' FIR'ST PARCP, I, O1:: T,P. IV , ISP-ER
F. Utilities
I. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system. water, gas, electric
power, telephone and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall
be provided as required.
2. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and consm:ctcd to meet requirements of the Cucamonga County
Water District (CCWD). Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health
Department or thc County of San Beroardino. A letter ofcompliance from CCWD is required prior to final
parcel map approval.
3. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and othcr interested agencies involved. Approval of
the final parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be reccivcd from them.
4. The dcvclopcr shall bc responsiblc for thc rclocation or cxistin,, utilities as necessary. =.
G. General Requirements and Annrnvals
I. The tentative map approval is valid for thc~month pcrlod rollowing the approval datc. Timc extensions
may be granted by the Planning Commission, if requested prior to the expiration date.
2. Final grading plans for each parcel shall be as required by the Building and Safety Division prior to
issuance of grading permits.
3. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (C C .e- g's) approvcd by the City Attorney is
required prior to approval of the final parcel map.
4. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to final parcel map approval for:
5. Prior to approval of the final parcel map a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost
of apporlioning the assessments under Assessment District , among the ncwly created parccls.
6. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City. covering the estimated operating costs for all new
street lights for the first 6 months of operation. prior to final parcel map approval.
7. Prior to ~nalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed beyond
the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map.
8. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Seeondarv Regional, and Master Plan Drainage Fees shall
be paid prior to final parcel map approval. "
Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way.
rA LTRA N
I0. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the Law Enforcement Community Facilities District
shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final pan:el map approval. Formation costs shall be borne by the
developer.
1 I. Prior to recordatlon of Ihe final parcel map, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the
establishment ofa 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 d/strict prior to the recordat/on of the final parcel map. 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 prnjee/and prior to the recordalton of the final parcel map for said project, this condition shall be deemed
null and void.
This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school districts have
enlered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts as a:result of this project.
12. Me~RoosC~mmunityFaci~itiesDistrictrcquirements~rth~Ran~h~Cucam~ngaFir~Pr~tcc~i~nDistrict
shall apply to this project.
13. Pursuant to provisions of California Resources Code Section 21089(b), this application shall not be
operative, vested or final, nor will building permits be issued or a map recorded. until (1) the Notice of
Determination (NOD) regarding the associaled environmental action in filed and posted with Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors of the County of San gernardino; and (2) any and all required handling charges, are paid Io the
County Clerk of the County of San Bemardino. The applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with
a stamped and copy of the NOD together with a receipt showing that all fees have been paid.
In the event this application is delermined exempt from such filing fees pursuant to the provision of
the California Code, or the guidelines promulgated thereunder, except for payment of any required handling
charge for filing a Certificate of Fee Exemption, this condition shall be deemed null and void.
Rev. 10/14/96
6
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA __
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
April 14, 1999
TO:
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:
Brad Buller, City Planner
BY:
Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN
AMENDMENT 98-02 - WILLIAM LYON HOMES - A request to amend the Victoria
Community Plan to reduce the Village Commercial land area from approximately
23 acres to 16 acres, and to redesignate approximately 16 acres of land from
Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8
dwelling units per acre) on a project site consisting of 62.3 acres of land located
southwest of Highland Avenue and future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 227-021-03
and 13:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15871 -
WILLIAM LYON HOMES - The proposed subdivision and design review of detailed
site plan and elevations for 181 single family lots on 62.3 acres of land in the Low-
Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community
Plan, located southwest of Highland Avenue and future Day Creek Boulevard -
APN: 227-021-03 and 13.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
Project Density: 4.75 dwelling units per acre (excludes 24.2 acres that contain commercial
land, Day Creek Boulevard, and Victoda Park Lane)
South -
East
West
Surroundina Land Use and Zonincl:
North - Future Route 30 freeway and vacant land; unincorporated County area pre-
zoned Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda North
Specific Plan
Vacant land; Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) in the Victoria
Community Plan
Vacant land; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) in the Victoria
Community Plan
Utility corridor; Utility Corridor in the Victoda Community Plan
General Plan DesiQnations:
Project Site - Neighborhood Commercial in the northern portion of the site, Medium
Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) in the mid-section of the site, and
Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) in the southem portion
of the site,
North Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
South - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre)
East Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
West - Flood Control/Utility Corridor
ITEMS F & G
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
VCPA 98-02 &V'I'T15871-WILLIAM LYON
Apd114,1999
Page 2
Site Characteristics: The subject site is 62 acres of vacant land. The site slopes
approximately 4 percent from north to south. The site is bounded by the future Route 30
freeway to the north, vacant land to the south, a utility corridor to the west, and vacant land
to the east that was racentiy apprcved for a single family residential subdivision (Tentative
Tract 15875). The site is impacted by vadous biological, noise, and traffic issues described
in the environmental assessment.
ANALYSIS:
Backaround: This project was presented to the Planning Commission a's a Pre-Application
Review on January 13, 1999 (Exhibit "H"). Sinca the initial presentation, William Lyon
Homes has redesigned the project to eliminate residential lots abutting the freeway, to
provide a loop road through the residential neighborhood, and to expand the com. mercial
area to allow secondary access on Day Creek Boulevard. William. Lyon Homes has
provided a conceptual master plan of the commercial site that shows building orientation,
loading area, and access.
General: William Lyon Homes is requesting a modification to the Victoria Community Plan
to raconfigure the size and shape of the Village Commercial land use in the northem portion
of the site and to reduce the density so the entire residential portion of the site would be
Low-Medium Residential.
The Vesting Tentative Tract map includes 181 single family lots, ranging in size from 5,102
to 14,881 square feet, with an average lot size of 6,803 square feet. Forty percant of the
lots have recreational vehicle storage capability as indicated on the Site Plan (Exhibit "D").
The developer is proposing six floor plans, with three elevations each, ranging in size from
1,353 to 2,350 square feet. One plan incorporates a side-on garage.
There are two commercial lots, 9.8 and 6.2 acres respectively, which are not proposed for
development at this time. The residential lots adjoining the commercial area have expanded
side and rear yards to allow the dwellings to be set back from the commercial property line
from 30 to 60 feet. In addition to the expanded setback, the residential edge includes a
landscaped slope area to differentiate and buffer the land uses. The commercial area will
have a landscaped setback on its side of the line to be determined in a future Conditional
Use Permit.
A "vesting" map means the developer has the fight to process a final map and proceed with
development in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect
at the time the application is deemed complete.
Victoria Community Plan Amendment: The Victoria Community Plan was originally adopted
in 1981. In 1991, the City amended the Community Plan to rezone appr.oximately 50 acres
of Medium-High Residential to Medium Residential, and 75 acres of Medium Residential to
Low-Medium Residential. Also at that time, William Lyon Homes requested, and the City
appreved, an expansion of the commercial area on the subject property to 23 acres: 17
acres on the south side of Highland Avenue after its realignment for the freeway, and 6
acres on the north side, in the triangular site formed between the Highland Avenue frontage
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
VCPA 98-02 &V'Fr15871-WILLIAM LYON
Apd114,1999
Page 3
mad and the freeway off ramp. William Lyon Homes provided the following information in
its request to reduce the commercial area back to its odginal size:
"Commercial developers are downsizing the acreages of neighborhood
shopping centers in light of economic trends relative to the success of the
vadous entities within a center. In years past, shopping centers were
sized at 15 acres or more to accommodate a large grocery store, a
drugstore, a series of ancillary small shops and a few freestanding
financial institutional buildings. With the downsizing that has occurred in
almost all businesses in the eady nineties, smaller shopping centers have
also become the norm. Most neighborhood shopping centers currently
utilize from 7 to 10 acres, with a large grocery store, a few ancillary retail
shops and a couple of freestanding restaurant or bank pads.
Much of the downsizing has happened as a result of: 1) the difficulty to
keep the small ancillary shops fully occupied (and financially successful),
2) the merger of many drugstores, and 3) the consolidation of banks and
savings and loans. Our proposed commercial parcel in Vesting Tentative
Tract Map 15871 has been sized in concert with the pdme commercial
developer that works with William Lyon Homes by taking into account the
vadous factors."
The amendment would reduce the neighborhood commercial area on the south side of
Highland Avenue from 17 acres to 9.8 acres. The commercial area on the north side
remains the same at 6.2 acres.
The proposed amendment rezones approximately 16 acres in the mid-section of the project
site from Medium to Low-Medium Residential, consistent with the 30 acres of Low-Medium
Residential in the southern half of the project site, The Medium designation was intended
to support the commercial area and provide a transition between commercial and low
density residential. However, apprepdate transition and buffer strategies may be
accomplished in the design of a Low-Medium Residential project. Staff feels Low-Medium
Residential is appropriate for the project site.
Desian Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on
December 1, 1998, and February 2, and February 16, 1999 (Exhibit "1"). At the first two
meetings, the Committee had concerns with the interface between the commercial,
residential, and freeway land uses. At the final meeting, the Committee (McNiel, Stewart,
Henderson) reviewed revised plans and a conceptual master plan for the future commercial
site and recommended approval subject to providing parkways between sidewalk and street
(instead of curb adjacent sidewalks).
Technical Review Committee: On February 3, and Maroh 15, 1999, the Technical Review
Committee reviewed the project and determined that, with the recommended special and
standard conditions of approval, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and
ordinances. The Grading Committee reviewed the project on March 16, 1999 and
recommended approval subject to conditions.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
'VCPA 98-02 &V'l'r15871-WILLIAMLYON
Apd114,1999
Page 4
There are existing overhead utilities on the north side of Highland Avenue along the project
frontage for this Vesting Tentative Tract. Caltrans has indicated they will relocate said
utilities with the frontage mad relocation, but will not underground them unless funding for
said undergrounding is provided. The conditions of approval require the developer to
complete the undergrounding upon development of either commercial property fronting
Highland Avenue. Planning Commission Resolution No. 87-96 (Exhibit "K") states that
undergrounding shall extend to the first pole off-site from each project boundary or across
the street for comer properties. A footnote indicates dghts-of-way for railroads, channels,
etc., shall be treated like streets. Between this development and the next developable
property fall rights-of-way for Rochester Avenue, San Bernardino County Flood Control
Distdct, and Southem California Edison. The condition currently states that undergrounding
limits are from the east side of Day Creek Boulevard to the west side of Day Creek Channel.
The developer has requested that they be allowed to pay an in-lieu fee for half the amount
of the unit cost times the length of their project frontage from the center of Day Creek
Boulevard to the west tract boundary. Staff believes the developer should be responsible
for the full cost of undergrounding within the project limits but would appreciate Planning
Commission policy direction regarding how far to go off site.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The site is impacted by vadous biological, noise, traffic, and
school issues. In order to complete the Initial Study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), the developer prepared detailed reports and made plan revisions to address issues,
including:
Bioloqicah The property contains coastal sage scrub, which is an area identified as potential
habitat for endangered or threatened species. As a result, habitat assessment and
biological protocol surveys were required to determine potential impacts, pafficulady to the
federally-listed threatened California gnatcatcher and the endangered San Bemardino
kangaroo rat. Both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish
and Game were consulted on March 26, 1998 and January 5, 1999. The habitat
assessment and protocol surveys were conducted by BonTerra Consulting in March through
May 1998 by biologists permitted by the U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A spdng survey was
also conducted on July 2, 1998 to determine if any sensitive plant species were located on
the project site. The report indicates the habitat on-site is not occupied by either of the two
endangered species pursuant to surveys conducted according to U.S~ Fish and Wildlife
Service protocol. The report concludes the dominant plant species on the site are
considered non-sensitive. One special interest plant, Pan'y's spine flower, was observed
on the project site. The report indicates this species are on a review list and are not
considered to be a sensitive species, which would require mitigation.
The site is located south of the future Route 30 freeway, in an urbanized area, which is
heavily impacted by suburban activities (traffic, light and glare, human contact, and
household pets). The subject property does not have potential to be included in a multi-
species habitat conservation plan or to be instrumental in reserve design.
It should be noted that in February 1998, a BonTerra biologist observed an incidental
sighting of a pair of California Gnatcatchers outside of the project's boundades, northeast
of the site. Yet the California gnatcatcher was not found on the subject site during field visits
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
'VCPA 98-02 & VTT 15871 - WILLIAM LYON
April 14, 1999
Page 5
and protocol surveys conducted in March and April of the 1998. No evidence of nests or
nesting was observed on the subject site during field visits. It is therefore presumed that the
species does not occupy the subject site. There appears to be high quality sage scrub
habitat north of the project site (north of the future Route 30 freeway), which may have
preservation potential and which may be occupied by the sighted pair of California
gnatcatchers.
Noise: The project will be impacted by traffic noise from the future Route 30 freeway and
Day Creek Boulevard. A noise study (Mestre Greve Associates, October 1998) prepared
for the project recommends a 6-foot high sound attenuation wall and building upgrades for
perimeter lots along the northem and eastern boundaries to mitigate traffic noise associated
with the freeway and Day Creek Boulevard. With the design review of the Tentative Tract,
the site was redesigned to shift the residences further from the freeway. The sound wall will
be shifted in congruence with the residential portion of the project. The conditions of
approval require the developer to provide sound attenuation walls and building upgrades
pursuant to recommendations in a final noise study.
Traffic: Since the project involves reducing commercial acreage and lowering residential
densities in the Victoria Community Plan, traffic impacts are expected to be less than
impacts identified in the Environmental Impact Report for the Victoda Community Plan.
Nonethetess, the San Bemardino Associate Govemments (SANBAG) required a Congestion
Management Program Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the project because of the
commercial portion. The TIA (RKJK and Associates, March 15, 1999) identifies and
analyzes impacts on the transportation system. The TIA recommends traffic mitigation to
include constructing Day Creek Boulevard, Victoria Park Lane, and Highland Avenue;
installing traffic signals, bus turnouts and bus stops; and contributing towards necessary off-
site improvements on a fair share or pro-rata basis.
The perimeter streets fronting the project site are involved in several construction projects
at this time. SANBAG is preparing to realign Highland Avenue in conjunction with the Route
30 freeway project. A City project to complete portions of Day Creek Boulevard as a detour
route during freeway construction is also in progress at this time. Third, Kaufman and Broad
will be constructing the east side of Day Creek Boulevard and portions of Victoria Park Lane
in conjunction with their Summer~eld project (Tract 15875) possibly at the same time as
William Lyon Homes. The conditions of approval require the developer to provide for the
completion of public improvements after SANBAG and City construction as determined by
the City Engineer.
Schools: The Vesting Tentative Tract application was deemed complete after the
November 1998 amendment to State law (S.B. 50) regarding school mitigation. Therefore,
the project will be subject to school mitigation in accordance with the new State law.
Essentially, the school districts are reevaluating the fee structure upon issuance of building
permits for mitigation in lieu of the previously required Mello-Roos Community Facilities
District for construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. The developer's
signature on the Initial Study Part II agrees to comply with current state law.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
'VCPA 98-02 &V'I'T15871-WILLIAM LYON
April14,1999
Page 6
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within
a 300-foot radius of the project site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Victoda Community Plan Amendment 98-02 to the City Council and approve Vesting Tentative Tract
15871, including design review, through adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval, and issue
a mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
City Planner
BB:RVB:mlg
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" -
Exhibit "B" -
Exhibit "C" -
Exhibit "D" -
Exhibit "E" -
Exhibit "F" -
Exhibit "G" -
Exhibit "H" -
Exhibit "1"
Exhibit "J"
Site Utilization Map and Existing Land Use Districts
Proposed Land Use Districts
Tentative Tract Map
Site Plan
Conceptual Grading Plan
Conceptual Landscape Plan
Elevations
Planning Commission Workshop Minutes dated January 13, 1999
Design Review Committee Action Comments
Initial Study Part II
Exhibit "K" - Planning Commission Resolution No. 87-96 Re Undergounding
Resolution Recommending Approval for Victoda Community Plan Amendment 98-02
Resolution of Approval for Vesting Tentative Map 15871
Resolution of Approval for Design Review
EXNI15iT_':L%"
|
I
MDS .'-_-'.-'..-":-."7;-.-'.
TEgVI'A TIVE'
NO. 15871 r.,rA,.. ~'ACr
TENTATIVE
Tt~ACT
UNIT MIX
LOTS 1-78 & 107-109
UNIT TABULATION
LOTS 1-78 & 107-109 ~ .ua.,rnsc.~Es)
LOTS 79.106 & 110-181 i Na.rrEc'lu~s)
LAND USE SUMMARY
LOT 183 O=IJTU~ DEVl~OPMgff) 8.0 ACIq!~8
LOTS 79.106 & 110-18.,_ ,_1
DESIGN GROUP. INC.
r~
d
TP.4CT
NO. 15871
TEC/'I~C,4L
S/TE' 9
PL4N
...!RJM
PUBLIC A~
William Ly~n Homes, Inc.
TRACF
CONCEPTUAL
Gtq'AI)AIG
m
TRACT
NO. 15871
CONCE~TU,4I
GqADI~
PLAN
xq~(::TiON A-A
~c'no~ 'r
1BVTA TIVE
TR,4CT
SE'CT/ONS
P
TENTATIVE
TRACT
NO. 15871 ~L~,,,~.
PRELIMINARY ....
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
TENTATIVE
TRACT
NO. 15871
PRELIMINARY
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
TEN TA TI VE
TI?ACT
NO, 15871 A
PIeELIMINAt~ y ~"'~'
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
TENTATIVE
TRACT
NO. 15871 A ~..
PIeELIMINA 27 Y s.,.~
LANDSCAPE ~
PLAN
ELEVATION A ELEVATION B
PLANN
VICTORIA
WILLIAM
T R A
...;~' ',~,. .. ,~... ,,.,~
~,- .. -,. ~,
ELEV~ON C
PLAN 1
ING AREA
VINEYARDS NORTH
LYON HOMES, INC.
C T ~ I 5 8 7 I
. P_LAN 1-
PLANNING AREA X
VICTORIA VINEYARDS NORTH
WILLIAM LYON HOMES, INC.
TRACT #1 587 1
ELEVATION,
PLAN 2 ELEVATION C
PLANNING AREA X
VICTORIA VINEYARDS NORTH
WILLIAM LYON HOMES, INC.
T R A C T # I 5 8 7 I
PLAN 2
PLANNING AREA X
VICTORIA VINEYARDS NORTH
WILLIAM LYON HOMES, INC.
TRACT #15 8 7 1
-¢-
PLAN 2
WITH DiECK OPTION
PLANNING AREA X
VICTORIA VINEYARDS NORTH
WILLIAM LYON HOMES, INC.
T R A C T #15 8 7 I
ELEVATION A ELEVATION
PLANNING AREA X
VICTORIA VINEYARDS NORTH
WILLIAM LYON HOMES, INC.
T R A C T # I 5 8 7 I
r1'1
':'T rn ITI []
PLAN 3
PLANNING AREA X
VICTORIA VINEYARDS NORTH
WILLIAM LYON HOMES, INC.
TRACT #15 8 7 1
PLAN 3
WITH' DECK 'OPT'ION
PLANNING AREA X
VICTORIA VINEYARDS NORTH
WILLIAM LYON HOMES, INC.
TRACT #15 8 7 1
B
VIGTORIA WINDROWS
VICTORIA WINDROWS
Ex, HtBIT' G t
A
VIGTORIA WINDROWS
WILLIAM LYON HOMES
2
VICTORIA WINDROWS
a~c. HO CtF_,AMONG~. C. ALIFORNIA
WILLIAM LYON HOM~
EKNI~IT ~-1l"
VICTFORIA WINDROWS
WILLIAM LYON HOMES
8
VIGTORIA WINDROWS
WILLIAM LYON HOMF,,S
EYJ4CBIT "(~-Iq~
PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 98-10 - WILLIAM LYON HOMES - Consideration of land use
and circulation alternatives for62 acres of land, located southwest of Highland Avenue and
future Day Creek Boulevard in the Victoda Community Plan - APN: 227-021-03 and 13.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, explained the history of the project. He reported the Design Review
Committee reviewed the related Victoda Plan Amendment and Vesting Tentative Tract Map and
indicated concerns with land use compatibility and circulation issues. He said the Committee
recommended a workshop with the Planning Commission. Mr. Bullet identified the location of the
site and the surrounding uses. He presented an overview of the current Victoria Plan, the
proposal presented to the Design Review Committee, and the Committee's concerns. He stated
the applicant has been working with staff to develop alternative land use and circulation concepts,
which were posted on the display board. He said the applicant would describe the concepts.
Cad Morabito, William Lyon Homes, introduced himself and members of the development team,
Stan Morse and Larry Ryan. Mr. Morabito stated that in attempts to mitigate the conflicts between
the residential and commercial land uses, the team decided to explore a plan which eliminates the
1 O-acre commercial site altogether (a plan showing all Low-Medium residential south of Highland).
He presented two versions of this concept, having slight changes in the cul-de-sac arrangements
along the loop roads. He said once this concept was drawn, William Lyon Homes, being a
residential builder, became more interested in seeing if this plan has merit with the City.
Mr. Morabito presented the second and third concepts, both of which include Low-Medium
residential for the lower two-thirds of the site and a commercial component across the upper third
of the site (no residential abutting the freeway). One concept indicated single family homes that
rear-on the commercial site; the other concept indicated a mixture of lots that side-on and rear-on
to the commercial site.
Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner, stated the first concept which eliminates the commercial
area obviously eliminates those land use conflicts, and the new street design addresses staff
concerns. She suggested that if the Planning Commission had objections to eliminating the
commercial area, it would be helpful to know at this time. She said the other two concepts retain
the commercial area and would include a slope between residential and commercial, which would
be maximized to enhance the buffer. Ms. Van Buren requested clarification on whether there is
a preference for homes to side-on or rear-on, noting there are different advantages to each; i.e.,
side-on allows fewer lots to be impacted by the commercial while rear-on may allow greater
slopes.
Mr. Bullet outlined the location of other commercial sites along the future freeway corridor.
Commissioner Macias thought the concepts presented showed great progress since the proposal
he saw at the Design Review Committee. He felt the commercial area should be retained.
Commissioner Tolstoy said there is an opportunity to use the commercial area to buffer the
residential neighborhood from the freeway. He did not like placing houses against the freeway.
He expressed concern with the long, narrow shape of the commercial area, and questioned if the
backs of the commercial buildings will be facing residential, leading to possible noise/loading
problems. He advised the developer to make the size and shape of the commercial area right
from the beginning and avoid conflicts such as the loading problems.
Commissioner Mannedno stated he prefePred the concept with a combination of side and rear-on
residential to commercial.
January 13,1999
Commissioner Stewart agreed the commercial area should be retained. She advised the
developer to take a close look at loading noise issues and look carefully at slopes and grades
between uses.
Commissioner McNiel expressed concerns with the natural short-cuts through the tract by
unwanted traffic. He agreed with Commissioner Mannedno regarding the combination of side-on
and rear-on residential to commercial and thought technical issues could be worked out. He felt
the corninertial center should be retained.
Mr. Bullet noted that this may be the first commercial site with the opportunity to look towards the
future freeway; however, the issues of loading and noise must be addressed. Mr. Bullet
concluded there is a preference to retain the commercial area and proceed with the Committee
Review process.
Mr. Morabito thanked the Commission for its lime and comments.
PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 98-11 - CATELLUS - The proposed master plan for
development of "Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park," a 140 acre commercial and indL
,mplex in the Industdal Park (Subarea 7) and General Industrial (Subarea 8) D
ndustrial Area Specific Plan, and including a shopping center anchored home
, to be located on Milliken Avenue between Foothill Boulev and Arrow
229-011-25, 31, and 32.
Brad Buller,
and indicated tha'
ar, explained the purpose and goals of the Pre-Appl
complexity o1' the project, extra time would be
Review process
for the meeting.
Pamela Steele, the a
basic aspects of the master
}lanner, introduced the Catellus
and outlined what they
reviewed the
plish at the meeting.
Charles McPhee, Catellus re
how Catellus develops land.
reviewed
uses and the nature of
Chades, Lamb, the project landsca~
intent to unify the master planned developm~
the landscape andstreet scape design
Dennis Hill, project architect, reviewed
throughout the project.
nd mix of architectural design features
Don Winn. Lowe's re
size requirements.
t described the
of business, operation, and
Brent Le Count, Asso
accordance with
boundary
flexibility built i
land uses ~
Commis.,
and
Planner, indicated that staff's comrr be presented in
provided by the applicant. He observed the district
ubareas 7 and 8 along the proposed public street ~sistent with the
Industrial Area Specific Plan and makes good planning ;iven that
northeast comer of the master plan area are the least defined asked the
how development in this area relate to Masi Plaza,
buildings. He observed that loading areas for the Lowe's project and ~ur
trial buildings should be carefully treated given the proximity to Milliken
how the large industrial building at the southeast comer of the master plan
PC Adjourned Minutes
Janua~ 13,1999
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:10 p.m.
Rebecca Van Buren
February 16, 1999
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15871 - LYON - The
proposed subdivision and design review of detailed site plan and elevations for 182 single family lots
on 62 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential Distdct (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoda
Community Plan, located southwest of Highland Avenue and the future Day Creek Boulevard -
APN: 227-021-03 and 13.
Backoreund: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on February 2, 1999, and indicated
it could support the residential portion but had significant concems regarding the commercial area.
The applicant is revising the commercial area to increase frontage on Day Creek Boulevard and will
provide a new conceptual commercial master plan for the Committee's review. The revised plan will
be delivered to the Committee members as soon as it is completed (probably February 10, 1999).
Staff Recommendation:
A staff recommendation will be made at the meeting after staff has had an opportunity to study the
revised plans.
Attachment: DRC Action Comments dated February 2, 1999
Desi~3n Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson
Staff Planner:
Rebecca Van Buren
The Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Henderson) reviewed the revised plan indicating an expanded
commercial area with access on Day Creek and 183 residential lots. The Committee recommended
approval subject to providing parkway sidewalks instead of curb adjacent in the residential tract.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
9:00 p.m.
Rebecca Van Buren
February 2, 1999
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15871 - LYON - The
proposed subdivision and design review of detailed site plan and elevations for 182 single family
lots on 62 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential Distdct (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the
Victoria Community Plan, located southwest of Highland Avenue and future Day Creek Boulevard -
APN: 227-021-03 and 13,
Desion Parameters: The subject site is 62 acres with the future Route 30 freeway to the north, an
extension of Victoda Park Lane to the south, an Edison utility corridor to the west, and future Day
Creek Boulevard to the east. The current Victoda Community Plan designates the northern section
as Village Commercial, the mid-section as Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre), and
the lower section as Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). William Lyon Homes
desires to reduce the size of the commercial area from approximately 15 acres to 9 acres and to
"downzone" the residential portion from medium density to low-medium density.
BackQmund: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on December 1, 1998, and
recommended the applicant present different design strategies at a Planning Commission
workshop. The Planning Commission conducted a workshop on January 13, 1999. In response to
comments received at the workshop, the applicant has made substantial revisions to the plans.
Major changes include:
· The commercial area is retained along the entire Highland Avenue frontage (there are no
dwellings abutting the future freeway);
A landscape slope separates the commercial from the residential land' use. There is a
combination of dwellings which side-on and rear-on to the commercial area. Dwellings that
side-on to the commercial area have a 30-45 foot side yard.
· A Conceptual Site Plan is shown for a future ne ghborhood commercial center, indicating the
orientation of a market and pad sites.
· The street layout re-instates the "loop road concept" for Silverbemj Road illustrated in the
Victoda Community Plan (in a modified form).
· The developer is proposing 6 floor plans, with 3 elevations each, ranging in size from 1,353 to
2,350 square feet. One floor plan incorporates a swing-in garage.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project:
1. The commercial site will have its access points along Highland Avenue. It does not have
enough frontage on Day Creek Boulevard to allow a ddveway on this street. Another 80 to 100
feet in frontage would be needed to provide for a ddveway on Day Creek Boulevard.
· DRC COMMENTS
ll' 15871 - LYON
February 2, 1999
Page 2
Side and rear elevations should be enhanced to provide 360 degree architectural treatment.
Special attention should be given to lots that rear-on to Day Creek Boulevard.
Secondan/Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Buffer strategies between commercial and residential, such as slope plantings, decorative wall
treatment, sound attenuation walls.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
A minimum 5-foot wide landscape area should be provided between the back of sidewalk and
any walls in comer side yard situations to breakup the massing of the walls and minimize
graffiti potential. Comer side yard walls should be shifted to provide a 5-foot wide landscape
area between the back of sidewalk and the walls per Planning Commission policy.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the
project subject to the modifications as recommended above.
Attachments: Design Review Comments for December 1. 1998 including: Exhibit "A" - Location Map
Exhibit "B" - Current Circulation Plan for Victoda Planned Community
Exhibit "C" - Current Land Uses for Site
Exhibit "D" - Proposed Land Uses for Site
Planning Commission Workshop Minutes dated January 13, 1999
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, and Lamj Henderson
Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren
Staff informed the Committee that the applicant agreed to address the side and rear elevations. The
applicant presented upgreded side and rear elevations for the product types. The applicant stated
they feel the commercial site is adequate in size and viable without access on Day Creek
Boulevard. The applicant stated that they have been working with Nadel who have commercial
expertise to design the site with the acreage, frontage, and access needed for a marketldrugstore/
neighborhood center. The Nadel representative responded to questions regarding the commercial
center acreage, access, and overall viability. Nadel felt the commercial site was viable with access
on Highland Avenue only, and not on Day Creek Boulevard.
The Committee (Stewart, McNiel, Henderson) reviewed the project. The Committee indicated that
it was generally satisfied with the residential street system and buffedng strategy between the
residential and commercial land uses. It stated it could support the residential portion subject to the
proposed modifications, including:
EKHdSIT "I-5" F+6 I
'DRC COMMENTS
TT15871- LYONS
February 2,1999
Page 3
Enhance side and rear elevations to include surrounds on all window and door openings (h gh
density foam - minimum 4 pounds), shutters, pot shelves, and gable-end detailing. Rear
elevations facing Day Creek Boulevard shall include a mixture of second-story pop-outs and
second-story decks.
Modify front porch columns on Plan 2 (Bassenian-Lagoni Architects) ~o provide greater
distinction between styles.
3. Concentration of driveways at Street C cul-de-sac to be modified to reduce paving.
However, the Committee did state that they continue to have concerns regarding the commercial
portion. The Committee felt access on Day Creek Boulevard appears to be key to make the site
commercially viable. The Committee continues to question if the gross acreage, net acreage, and
access will allow for a viable neighborhood commercial center. The Committee recommended the
applicant revisit the conceptual commercial master plan and expand frontage on Day Creek
Boulevard to address these concerns.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:40 p.m.
Rebecca Van Buren
December 1, 1998
ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTANDVICTORIACOMMUNITYPLANAMENDMENT98_02.LyON
- A request to amend the Victoda Community Plan to redesignate appreximately 20 acres of land from
Village Commercial and Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre) on a project site consisting of 62 acres of land located southwest of
Highland Avenue and future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 227-021-03 and 13.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15871 - LYON - The
proposed subdivision and design review of detailed site plan and elevations for 188 single family lots
on 62 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential Distdct (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoda
Community Plan, located southwest of Highland Avenue and future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 227-
021-03 and 13.
Deskln Paremeters: The subject site is 62 acres with the future Route 30 freeway to the north, an
extension of Victoda Park Lane to the south, an Edison utility corridor to the west, and future Day
Creek Boulevard to the east. The current Victoria Plan designates the northern section as Village
Commercial, the mid-section as Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre). and the lower
section as Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). William Lyon Homes desires to
reduce the size of the commercial area and shift its location to orient toward Day Creek Boulevard.
The developer is also requesting to "downsize" the residential portion of the site to the low-medium
density.
Staff Comments: The proposed project is being presented to Design Review Committee for
discussion of broad land use and circulation issues only. Because land use and circulation affect
subdivision design, staff believes that Committee should provide direction to the applicant on the
identified land use and circulation issues, prior to reviewing the subdivision and house designs. Once
the subdivision is designed to follow the direction of the Committee, staff will schedule the project
(subdivision and house design) for another meeting. The following are issues based on the proposed
land use and circulation:
Single family residential use next to a commercial land use and future freeway at the
northwestern portion of the site.
The proposal to place single family homes next to commercial land use and the future
freeway will create land use conflicts. Examples of conflicts according to the Land Use
Matdx of the Development Code are: noise, odore, light. shadow, aesthetics, safety, etc.,
and as shown in Exhibit "F." The Land Use Matdx also stated that these conflicts need
to be mitigated or avoided. Commercial land use next to a freeway is appropriate because
the land use is generally less harmed by freeway impacts and may dedve certain benefits
from the exposure (easy access, visibility). During the 1991-review of Victoria Planned
Community land uses, this area was specifically discussed where the Village Commercial
designation was reaffirmed for that reason, and as shown in Exhibit "C."
The proposal to have single family homes along Highland Avenue will convert most of
Highland Avenue from privately maintained commercial frontage to publicly maintained
landscaped area because of single family residential rear-ons. The increase of publicly
maintained area will place additional burdens on already the most expensive Landscape
Maintenance District (LMD).
F+G S
DRC COMMENTS
VCPA 98-02 & TI' 15871 - LYON
December 1, 1998
Page 2
The Circulation Plan of the Victoda Community Plan (Exhibit "B") shows two existing streets,
Silverberry and Sugar Gum, extending west of Day Creek Boulevard then Iooping south and
north respectively, to meet at a four-way intersection with Victoria Park Lane. The applicant
proposed to eliminate the southbound loop road that intersect Victoria Park Lane and instead
loop northbound to intersect Highland Avenue.
The proposed circulation as shown in Exhibit "E" does not provide a strong collector spine
that serves and enhances a sense of residential neighborhoods and reduces through
traffic.
Staff is especially concemed with the northbound loop mad where the residential
neighborhood in the northwestern portion of the site must share the same "collector' street
with the future commercial area. The subdivision/circulation design requires houses to be
side-on to the collector street. This may generate neighborhood complaints of truck traffic
maneuvering in and out of the commercial site and may present challenges to provide
screening and noise attenuation of loading areas. Staff believes that alternative street
systems which allow residential uses to mar-on the commercial site may provide better
means to deal with interface conflicts. Staff will present a concept of an alternative street
system layout as basis for discussion at the meeting. Copies of the concept will be made
available to the applicant.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee provide direction
regarding land use and circulation issues so that the applicant may prepare development plans that
follow Design Review Committee directions, which will be submitted for further Design Review
Committee review.
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" - Location Map
Exhibit "B" - Current Circulation Plan for Victoria Planned Comm'unity
Exhibit "C" - Current Land Uses for Site
Exhibit "D" - Proposed Land Uses for Site
Exhibit "E" - Proposed Street System for Site
Exhibit "F" - Land Use Matrix, Table 17.08.050-F
DeskIn Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner:
Rebecca Van Buren
The Committee reviewed the proposed land use and circulation concepts presented by the applicant
and the alternative concepts presented by staff. The Committee expressed concerns with the
applicant's proposed land use and circulation concepts as listed below. The Committee directed the
applicant to review and respond to the alternative concepts introduced by staff. The Committee
recommended the applicant obtain direction on land use at a Planning Commission workshop. The
following list the Committee's concerns:
The most effective buffer between residential and commercial land uses is needed. The
proposed northerly collector loop road with residential lots side-on to the commercial site would
create land use conflicts.
2. The subdivision and circulation should be designed to deter potentially hazardous traffic short-
cuts and enhance the sense of neighborhoods.
DRC COMMENTS
VCPA 98-02 & TI' 15871 - LYON
December 1, 1998
Page 3
The Committee questioned the appropriateness and the adequacy of the size and orientation
of the 10+/-acre commercial site in terms of providing reasonable building envelopes, access,
truck maneuvering, landscaping, screening, and buffedrig the residential use. A conceptual site
plan of the commercial area should be provided at the Planning Commission workshop.
The applicant agreed to analyze the different design strategies and present options at a workshop to
be scheduled with the next available Planning Commission meeting.
VCPA 98-02 and TT 15871
0.5
I~AII ~Ai')
i~
0
0.5 ~les
L. oc~T~o~l
%..
ExH 115|'f '~::1:-8,
c uR~,~CT (, I~c u/,~-r~ oW
Neighborhood stree=s which serve individual neighborhoods
will no= be through streets, but will be cul-de-sacs or loop
roads to reduce through traffic and enhance the sense of
neighborhood. 5~
The diagram below illustrates the the residen=iL1
circulation. ~
Iii
, z f
· ' 4'~
Rancho Cucamongo Developmenl Code
Table 17.08.050-F - Land Use Conflicts
Section 17. 08. 050
Th,...,,,...O..,h.' Lend Use Conflicts
conflicts which are
likely to arise between t- ' ~
Land Uses. These 0 ~
must be either '.; Types Of fliCtS,
mitigated or avoided. G 0
> G ~ ,./7 noise. edit,
Land Uses~o ~>~ he,,os
~esiaenhal z ~ ~ access
L~ ~nsity ~ ~ ~ ~ safety
' .~ g '~
M~erate ~ ~
~nsity ~ ~ ~
k ~ o
High Density
, ~ ~
Office/Business
Commercial
Industrial
Railroad
Parking LOts
AIrOOrt and
Flight PatternS
Collector Street
ArTer~O! Street
o E
= E
~ 0
17.08-33
_FKHISIT "]~-15" F~-c-st
3196
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: Victoda Community Plan Amendment 98-02 & Vesting Tentative Tract 15871
2. Related Files: Not applicable.
Description of Project: VICTORIACOMMUNITYPLANAMENDMENT98-02-Arequest
to amend the Victoda Community Plan to reduce the Village Commercial land area from
approximately 23 acres to 16 acres, and to redesignate approximately 16 acres of land from
Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling
units per acre) on a project site consisting of 62.3 acres of land, located southwest of
Highland Avenue and the future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 227-021-03 and 13.
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15871 - The proposed subdivision and design review of a
detailed site plan and elevations for 181 single family lots on 62.3 acres of land in the Low-
Medium Residential Distdct (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoda Community Plan,
located southwest of Highland Avenue and the future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 227-021 -
03 and 13.
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Cad Morabito
William Lyon Homes, Inc.
4490 Von Karman Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92660
General Plan Designation: Neighborhood Commercial in the northern portion of the site,
Medium Density Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) in the mid-section of the site, and
Low-Medium Density Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) in the southern portion of the
site.
Zoning: The project is within the following districts in the Victoria CommUnity Plan: Village
Commercial in the northem portion of the site, Medium Density Residential (8-14 dwelling
units per acre) in the mid-section of the site, and Low-Medium Density Residential (4-8
dwelling units per acre) in the southern portion of the site.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The subject site is 62 acres of vacant land. To the
north is the future Route 30 Freeway. Construction began on the freeway in 1998 and is
expected to be completed in the year 2002. To the south, the developer will install an
extension of Victoria Park Lane, a linear park in the Victoria Community Plan. Further south
is vacant land zoned for Low-Medium Residential land use. To the west is the Edison utility
corridor which will remain as pern~anent open space. To the east is the future Day Creek
Boulevard, a major divided artedal which will be constructed with this project. Further east
EXHIBIT ",,T"
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
VCPA 98-02 & V I ~ 15871 Page 2
is vacant land (a former utility corridor) which was recently approved for a residential
subdivision (TT 15875)in the Low-Medium Residential district.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner
(909) 477-2750
10.
Other agencies whose approval is required:
San Bemardino Associate Govemments (SANBAG)
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
(x) Land Use and Planning
( ) Population and Housing
( ) Geological Problems
(X) Water
( ) Air Quality
(X) Transportation/Circulation
(X) Biological Resources
( ) Energy and Mineral Resources
( ) Hazards
(X) Noise
( ) Mandaton/Findings of Signilicanca
(X) Public Services
(X) Utilities and Service Systems
( ) Aesthetics
( ) Cultural Resources
( ) Recreation
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 been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon
the earlier analysis as descdbed on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Signfficant
Initial Study for
VCPA 98-02 & V'I'F 15871
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 3
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 earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signed:
Rebecca Van Buren
Associate Planner
March 15, 1999
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation
is required for all "Potentially Signfficant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to
mitigate the significant effects identffied.
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.'
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( )
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with judsdiction over
the project? ( ) ( )
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ( ) ( )
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community? ( ) ( )
(x) ( )
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
Commen~:
a)
The project involves an amendment to the Victoda Community Plan to reduce the
commercial acreage and to lower the residential density. The tentative map and
community plan amendment are being processed concurrently and are internally
consistent. The proposed project is generally consistent with the land uses shown for
this site in the adopted General Plan. A review of the City's General Plan Land Use
Plan indicates that the northern portion of the site is designated Commercial, the mid-
.. Initial Study for
VCPA 98-02 & VTT 15871
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 4
section is Medium Residential, and the southern portion is Low-Medium Residential.
The defined boundary between commercial and residential uses has some flexibility
to allow for various street layouts, buffer strategies, and minor adjustments in the
location of land uses. The project retains 16 acres of future commercial land in the
northern portion. The remainder of the site is residential. The bulk of the smaller lots
(5,000 to 7,000 square feet in size) are located in the mid-section of the site, and most
of the larger lots (7,000 to 10,000 square feet) are located in the southern portion of
the site, which is generally consistent with the Medium and Low-Medium General Plan
designations.
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal.'
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in
or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?
b) Seismic ground shaking?
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche hazards?
e) Landslides or mudflows?
f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land?
h) Expansive soils?
I) Unique geologic or physical features?
()
()
( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) (x)
() () (x)
( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) (x)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
VCPA 98-02 & V I ~ 15871 Page 5
Potstiara/
S~gnmca.
d)
g)
h)
i)
WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface water runoff?. ( ) ( )
b) Exposure of people or properly to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( )
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved
oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( )
Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ( ) ( )
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? ( ) ( )
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? ( ) ( )
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?. ( ) ( )
Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( )
Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? ( ) ( )
(x)
()
()
()
()
No
()
(x)
(x)
(x)
(x)
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
Coremerits:
a)
The absorption rate will be altered because of the paving and hardscape proposed.
All runoff will be conveyed to approved drainage facilities which have been designed
to handle the flows.
b) There are no special flood hazard areas within or near the project site.
e)
The project will not alter the course or direction of water movements. Surface runoff
currently reaching the site from off-site areas will be conveyed to approved drainage
facilities which have been designed to handle the flows.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
VCPA 98-02 & V'l'r 15871 Page 6
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal.'
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( )
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( )
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ( ) ( )
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( )
(x)
(x)
(x)
(x)
No
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 tumouts,
bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
COr1FalefitS:
a)
The project will not increase vehicle tdps or traffic congestion in excess of projections
for the adopted land use for which the street widths were evaluated at a build-out
condition. The project will be required to install frontage street improvements in their
ultimate configuration, per City Ordinance, and to pay Transportation Development
Fees.
Initial Study for
VCPA 98-02 & V~ ~ 15871
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 7
Since the project involves reducing commercial acreage and Iowedng residential
densities in the Victoria Community Plan, traffic impacts are expected to be less than
impacts identified in the EIR for the Victoda Community Plan. Nonetheless, the San
Bemardino Associate Governments (SANBAG) requires a Congestion Management
Program (CMP) Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the project. The applicant submitted
a TIA, dated March 15, 1999. prepared by RKJK and Associates, which identifies and
analyzes impacts on the transportation system. The following recommendations
set forth in the TIA report shall be mitigation measures required through
conditions of approval: ,
1)
Construct Day Creek Boulevard from the north project boundary to
Victoria Park Lane, at its ultimate half-section width, as a major divided
arterial.
2) Construct Victoria Park Lane from the west project boundary to Day Creek
Boulevard, at its ultimate half-section width, as a collector.
3)
Construct Highland Avenue from the west project boundary to Day Creek
Boulevard at its ultimate cross-section width.
4) Install traffic signals along Day Creek Boulevard at the intersections of
Victoria Park Lane, Silverberry Street, and Highland Avenue.
5) Install bus turnouts at the intersection of Day Creek Boulevard and
Highland Avenue and bus stops at the intersection of Day Creek Boulevard
and Silverberry Street.
6) Contribute towards the cost of necessary off-site improvements within the
study area on a fair share or "pro-rata" basis.
A SANBAG project to realign Highland Avenue in conjunction with Route 30 Freeway
project is currently in progress. A City project to complete port!ons of Day Creek
Boulevard is also in progress at this time. The developer shall provide for the
completion of public improvements after SANBAG and City construction, as
determined by the City Engineer. If the SANBAG or City project does not progress in
a timely manner, the developer shall be required to provide frontage improvements to
Highland Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard, as determined by the City Engineer.
b) The circulation design features will be required to conform with our Street Design,
Ddveway, and Intereection Line-of-Sight policies.
c)
The project involves the extension of Victoria Park Lane to the west and east, through
the utility corridor and the former utility corridor, as needed, to connect with existing
street stub outs. The project also involves construction of Day Creek Boulevard and
relocation of Highland Avenue, in conjunction with City and SANBAG projects forthe
same.
e) The required frontage improvements include sidewalks and bike lanes as needed.
f) The required frontage improvements include bus turnouts as needed.
· Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
VCPA 98-02 & V'I'I' 15871 Page 8
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a)
Endangered, threatened. or rare species or their
habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds)?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., hedtage trees.
eucalyptus windrow, etc.)?
c)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
euca yptus grove. sage scrub habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, dpadan, and vernal
pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
( ) ( ) (x) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) (x) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
Comments:
a, c)
The property is located in an area identified as a 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 BonTerra Consulting in March
through May 1998, by biologists permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A
spring survey was also conducted on July 2, 1998. to determine if any sensitive plant
species were located on the project site (BonTerra, August 24, 1998). 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 concludes
the dominant plant species on the site are considered non-sensitive. One special
interest plant, Parry's spineflower, was observed on the project site. The report
indicates this species is on a review list and is not considered to be a sensitive species
which would require mitigation.
The site is located south of the future freeway, in an urbanized area which is heavily
impacted by suburban activities (traffic, light and glare, human contact, household
pets). The subject property does not have the potential to be included in a multi-
species habitat conservation plan or to be instrumental in reserve design.
It should be noted that on November 3, 1998, BonTerra Consulting submitted a letter
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicating an incidental sighting of a pair of
California Gnatcatchers northeast of this project site in February of 1998. Yet the
Califomia Gnatcatcher was not found on the subject site during field visits and protocol
surveys conducted in March and Apdl of the same year. No evidence of nests or
nesting was observed on the subject site dudng field visits. It is, therefore, presumed
Initial Study for
VCPA 98-02 & V'l'r 15871
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 9
that the species does not occupy the subject site. There appears to be high quality
sage scrub habitat north of the project site (north of the future freeway) which may
have preservation potential and which may be occupied by the sighted pair of
California Gnatcatchers,
Based upon the above findings, the site is not occupied by sensitive or endangered
species, and the habitat is not in a location which would be considered for preservation
strategies, the proposed development of the site will not likely result in adverse effects
to sensitive or endangered species.
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal.'
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?.
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the
region and the residents of the State?
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
() ()
( ) (x)
b)
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)?
Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard?
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
Increased fire hazard in areas with ~ammable
brush, grass, or trees?
() ()
() ()
() ()
() ()
() ()
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
VCPA98-02 &%/~ ~ 15871 Page 10
t0.
NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Commen~:
b)
The project site abuts the future Route 30 Freeway to the north and will be impacted
by freeway noise. A noise impact study (Mestre Greve Associates, October 1998)
was prepared for the project which recommends a 6-foot high freeway sound
attenuation wall along the northern boundary and required building upgredes for
numerous pedmeter lots. With the design review of the tentative tract. the
configuration of the commercial area and the location of many residential lots
changed since the noise study was prepared. The tentative tract was redesigned such
that the commercial area abuts the future freeway along the entire project frontage,
residential lots are south of the commercial area, further from the freeway noise. The
conditions of approval shall require a final noise study to be reviewed and approved
by the City Planner pdor to final map approval. The project shall provide sound
attenuation walls and building upgrades pursuant to the rscommendations in
the final noise study.
11.
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Schools? ( ) (X) ( ) ( )
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Commen~:
c)
The Etiwanda and Chaffey High School Districts submitted correspondence indicating
existing schools that would serve this project are already at or above capacity. The
Districts contend that mitigation beyond the State statutory fees will be needed. The
conditions of approval shall include a standard condition applicable upon notice by a
school district, which requires the developer to consentJparticipate in the establishment
of, or annex into an existing. Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for school
· Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
VCPA 98-02 & VTI' 15871 Page 11
facilities. Alternatively, the developer may execute an agreement with the Districts to
privately accommodate school impacts as a result of the project.
12.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( )
b) Communication systems? ( ) ( )
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( ) ( )
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( )
e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( )
f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( )
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( )
Comments:
No
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
(x) ( )
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
e)
The project will not result in substantial alternations to the master plan of storm
drainage. Development will install new storm drains as needed.
13.
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: ;
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ' ( ) (X)
b) Have a demonstrable negat ve aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
14.
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
Disturb paleontological resources?
Disturb archaeological resources?
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
VCPA 98-02 & V'T'F 15871 Page 12
Potentiany
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( )
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( )
e) Restdct existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ( )
( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) (x)
15.
RECREATION. Would the proposal.'
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
P~antially
()
()
()
()
()
()
No
(x)
(x)
16.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the
potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restdct the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major pedods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-
term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact
on the environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive pedod of time. Long-term
impacts will endure well into the future.)
S~ant
()
()
()
()
Less
()
()
No
(x)
(x)
M~R-Ea-99 11:19 FROM:NILLI~ LYO~ HOPES
SENT BY: R CUCAMONGA COU DEY; 3-22.e9 ll:SeiU; 909~77D847 => ; RBI8
initial S~dy for
VCPA 98-02 & V'TT 15871
c) Curnu|etive: Does the project haw impacts ~at
are irmjv~duidty limited, but CumulativeJy
constclersl~le? ('Cumulatively conslderal}~e"
means mat the increrne~t~ effects d a project
the effeCtS cf pest projectS, the effects of other
cuffent projects, en~ ~e effects of probable Mum
projects.)
d) Substmma~ ruNefee: Does lye DT~e;t haw
em~ronrnenml erieate em~ It cause eul~tan~al
adverse effects on human beings, e'b'ler directly
or indirectly?
City of FlanchO Cu~arnonga
Page 13
( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
EARUER ANALVSE9
Fadmr amdyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering. program El R, or Other CEQA procee,
one or move effect~ have been aclequatmy analyzed In an eerier EIR or Negative Dealafar. ion per
Seation 150~3(C}(3)(D). The effects identified el)ova for this project were within the scope of and
amaquateiy analyzed In the foltov/m(] earlier doeJment(s) gurauant to applicable legal stanclafcl~,
and SUCh edfsCt~ were addressed by mlligetlon memxea bead on the sadie ~nalysis. The
following eerier anaN-ee were utilized in Compleqjng Iqb Inffial Study end ale evmlal~te for vetlaw
In the City of Rancho Gucamx;Tqa~, Planning DiviSiOn offices. 10500 CArte Center Ddve (check all
that apply):
(X) General Plan EtR
(Cerefie,~ Aor;~ e. 198t)
(X) Master Environmental Assessment tar the 1 a89 Geneva/Ran Updale
(SCH ,e88020115, ~ertlfied Janusrye, 19891
(x) Victoria Planned Community EIR
(Certified May20, 1981}
APPUCANTCERTIRCA~ON
I oertily that I am the epplioant for the prolect de~cr/bed in mls ~ Stud},. I acknowledge that I
have read this IriUN Study and the iDropoaed rn~gaU0n metauras. Further, I have revised the
project plans or proposetie end/or hersOy agree to the prepome<f mmgation measures to avoid the
effe~ls or mitigate the efl'eots to · point where dearly no slgnfficant en,Aronmental effects would
City of Rancho Cucamonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The fo~owing Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the
California Environmental Qua~ty Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Pubtic Resources Code.
Project File No.: Vesting Tentative Tract 15871 Public Review Period Closes: April 14, 1999
Project Name: Project Applicant: William Lyon Homes
Project Location (also see attached map): Located southwest of Highland Avenue and future Day
Creek Boulevard - APN: 227-021-03 and 13.
Project Description: The proposed subdivision and design review of detailed site plan and elevations
for 181 single family lots on 62.3 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential Distdct (4*8 dwelling units
per acre) of the Victoda Community Plan.
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted
an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is
proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
[] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the preject may have a
significant effect on the envirenment.
[] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but:
(1)
(2)
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 ready no significant effects would occur, and
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 elated 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.
ADdl 14, 1999
Date of Determination
Adored By
RESOLUTION NO. 87-96
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTABLISHING A REVISED POLICY FOR THE
UNDERGROUNDING OF EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES AND
REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 86-77
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
wishes to repeal Resolution No. 86-77 which was adopted on the 28th day of
May, 1986 and establish the revised policy contained herein;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
wishes to remove unsightly existing overhead utility lines in order to promote
a more aesthetic and desirable working and living environment within the City;
and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to establish a policy to inform property
owners and developers of the City goal.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved and established that all developments,
except those contained in Section 7 and any others specifically.waived by the
Planning Commission, shall be responsible for undergroundingall existing
overhead utility lines including the removal of the related supporting poles
adjacent to and within the limits of a development as follows:
1. Lines on the project side of the street*:
a. Said lines shall be undergrounded at the developer's expense.
In those circumstances where the Planning Commission decides that
undergrounding is impractical at present for such reasons as a short
length of undergrounding {less than 300 feet and not iundergrounded
adjacent), a heavy concentration of services to other users,
disruption to existing improvements, etc., the Developer shall pay an
in-lieu fee for the full amount per Section 6.
The Developer shall be eligible for reimbursement of one-half the cost
of undergrounding from future developments as they occur on the
opposite side of the street.
2. Lines on the opposite side of the street from the project: The Developer
shall pay a fee to the City for one-half the amount per Section 6.
Lines on both sides of the street: The Developer shall comply with
Section 1 above and be eligible for reimbursement or pay additional fees
so that he bears a total expense equivalent to one-half the total cost of
undergrounding the lines on both sides of the street.
r d ieu fees pa~d in accordance with sectidn l, 2 or 3,
above, except for 66 KV or larger electrical lines
5. Limits of Responsibilities:
In-lieu fees shall be based upon the length of the property being
developed from property line to property line {the center of adjacent
streets for corner properties).
Undergrounding shall include the entire project frontage and extend
to: (1) the first existing pole off-site from the project boundaries
{across the street for corner properties}, (2} a new pole erected at a
project boundary (across the street for corner properties), or (3) an
existing pole within 5 feet of a project boundary, except at a corner.
Fee Amount: The amount for in-lieu fees shall equal the length (per
Section 5. a) times the unit amount as established by the City Council
based upon information supplied by the utility companies and as updated
periodically as deemed necessary.
Exemptions:
policy:
The following types of projects shall be exempt from this
The addition of functional equipment to existing developments, such
as: loading docks, silos, satellite dishes, antennas, water tanks, air
conditioners, cooling towers, enclosure of an outdoor storage area,
parking and loading areas, block walls and fences, etc.
b. Building additions or new free standing buildings of less than 25% of
the floor area of the existing building{s) on the same assessor's
parcel, or 5,000 square feet, whichever is less.
Exterior upgrading or repair of existing developments, such as:
reroofing, addition of trellis, awnings, landscaping, equipment
screening, repainting and exterior finishes, etc.
d. interior tennant improvements and non-construction CUPs.
e. The construction of a single family residence on an existing parcel.
Existing overhead utility lines located in trails, alleys, and utility
easements with a heavy concentration of services to adjacent
developments, and the utility lines are 500' or more from the right of
way line of a Special Boulevard.
Residential subdivisions of four or fewer single family residential
parcels, where the utility lines extend at least 600' offsite from
both the project boundaries and the adjacent property is not likely to
contribute to future undergrounding.
All references to streets shall also mean alleys, railroad or channel
rights-of-way, etc.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS lOth DAY OF JUNE 1987.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
//B t ary
I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, .do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 10 day of June, 1987, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK, CHITIEA, MCNIEL
NOES: CO~'4ISSIONERS: TOLSTOY
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 98-02, A REQUEST TO
AMEND THE VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN TO REDUCE THE VILLAGE
COMMERCIAL LAND AREA FROM APPROXIMATELY 23 ACRES TO
16 ACRES, AND TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 16 ACRES OF
LAND FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER
ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER
ACRE) ON A PROJECT SITE CONSISTING OF 62.3 ACRES OF LAND,
LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF HIGHLAND AVENUE AND THE FUTURE
DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 227-021-03 AND 13.
A. Recitals.
1. William Lyon Homes filed an application for Victoda Community Plan Amendment
No. 98-02 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Victoria Community Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application."
2. On April 14, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on 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 dudng the above-
referenced public hearing, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony,
this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to two parcels of land totaling approximately 62.3 acres,
basically a rectilinear configuration, located on the southwest comer of Highland Avenue and
future Day Creek Boulevard, and which is presently vacant. The subject property is currently
designated Village Commercial in the northern 23 acres of the site, Medium Residential (8-14
dwelling units per acre) in the central 16 acres of the site, and Low-Medium Residential (4-8
dwelling units per acre) in the southern 23.3 acres of the site; and
b. The surrounding properties to the south, east, and west are within the Victoria
Planned Community. The property to the south is vacant land designated Low-Medium
Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). The property to the east is vacant land designated Low
Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). The property to the west is a utility corridor designated
Utility Corridor; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VCPA 98-02-WILLIAM LYON
Apd114,1999
Page 2
c. The surrounding property to the north is vacant land consisting of the future Route
30 freeway and further north, unincorporated County area pre-zoned Low Residential (2-4 dwelling
units per acre) in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan
d. The amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan
and will provide for development within the distdct in a manner consistent with the General Plan,
the Victoda Community Plan, and with related development; and
e. The amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the General Plan Land Use
Element and the Victoda Community Plan; and
f. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent
properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding
properties.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. Thatthesubjectpropertyissuitablefortheusespermittedintheproposeddistrict
in terms of access, size. and compatibility with existing land uses in the surrounding area; and
b. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the
environment nor the surrounding properties; and
c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration.
together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the
application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon
the findings as follows:
a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines
promulgated therounder;, that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study propared therefore
reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has
reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the
application.
b. That based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into
the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the Califomia 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 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VCPA 98-02 - WILLIAM LYON
Apdl 14. 1999
Page 3
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby recommends approval of Victoria Community Plan Amendment No. 98-02
to change the Land Use Map for the subject properties to 16 acres of Village Commercial in the
northem portion of the site and the remaining 46 acres of the site to be Low-Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre), as shown on the attached Exhibit "A."
6. Within 60 days of City Council approval, the developer shall submit a revised Victoda
Community Plan, incorporating the necessary changes to make the graphics and text current to
the date of this amendment, for City Planner review and approval. Upon acceptance by the City
Planner. the developershall provide the original graphics and text exhibits for retention by the City
and for use in reproducing and distributing amended copies of the Victoda Community Plan.
7. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF APRIL 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel. Chairman
A'R'EST:
Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary
I, Dan Coleman, Acting 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 14th day of Apdl 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
'~b
l::}15TRtCT5
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15871, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF
181 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 62.3 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW-
MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OF THE VICTORIA COMMUNITY
pLAN, LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF HIGHLAND AVENUE AND FUTURE
DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 227-021-03 AND 13.
A. Recitals.
1. William Lyon Homes has filed an application forthe approval of Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 15871, 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 November24, 1998, the application forVesting Tentative Tract 15871 was deemed
complete by the Community Development Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
3. On the 14th day of Apdl 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng 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 April 14, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at the southwest comer of Highland
Avenue and future Day Creek Boulevard with street frontage of 1.000 feet on Highland Avenue
and street frontage on future Day Creek Boulevard of over 2.500 feet and is presently
undeveloped; and
b. The surrounding properties to the south and east are vacant land, to the west is
a utility corridor, and to the north is vacant land consisting of the future Route 30 freeway and
further north, unincorporated County area; and
· PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VII 15871-WILLIAMLYON
Apd114,1999
Page 2
c. The application contemplates a residential subdivision of 181 single family
residential lots within the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units peracre) and 2 future
commercial lots in the Village Commercial Distdct on 62.3 acres of land of the Victoria Community
Plan; and
d. Thesubjectsitecontainsindicatorspeciesofcoastalsagescrubhabitat. Habitat
assessment and biological protocol surveys were conducted by BonTerra Consulting in March
through May 1998 by biologists permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine
potential impacts, particularly to the federeliy-listed threatened California gnatcatcher and the
endangered San Bemardino kangaroo rat. A spdng survey was also conducted on July2, 1998,
to determine if any sensitive plant species were located on the project site. The repod indicates
the habitat on-sita is not occupied by either of the two endangered species pursuant to surveys
conducted according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protocol. The report concludes the
dominant plant species on the site are considered non-sensitive; and
e. The site is located south of the future Route 30 freeway, in an urbanized area,
which is heavily impacted by suburban activities (traffic, light and glare, human contact, household
pets). The subject property does not have potential to be included in a mUlti-spedes habitat
conservation plan or to be instrumental in reserve design.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The Vesting Tentative Tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development
Code, and Victoda Community Plan; and
b. The design or improvements of the Vesting Tentative Tract is consistent with the
General Plan, Development Code, and Victoda Community Plan; and
c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and
d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and
e. The Vesting Tentative Tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems;
and
f. The design of the Vesting Tentative Tract will not conflict with any easement
acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the. property within the
proposed subdivision.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment
for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative
Declaration based upon the findings as follows:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VTT15871-WILLIAM LYON
Apd114,1999
Page 3
a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines
promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared
therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this
Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative
Declaration with regard to the application.
b. That based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into
the proposed project or agreed to by the applicant, no significant adverse environmental effects
will occur.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole,
the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the
proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat
upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning
Commission dudng 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.
d. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project includes the environmental
determination for the installation of the Master Plan Storm Drains in Victoda Park Lane and Day
Creek Boulevard north of Victoda Park Lane as set forth in Engineering Division conditions of
approval for the vesting tentative tract map. The biological habitat assessment and surveys
performed for this project included the land area where the storm drain facilities will be
constructed. The installation of the Master Plan Storm Drain in Victoda Park Lane from Day Creek
Boulevard westedy to Day Creek Channel was previously required in the conditions of approval
for Tentative Tract 14534, with a Negative Declaration adopted on October 9, 1996; in the
mitigation measures for General Plan Amendments 96-03B & 97-01 and Victoda Community Plan
Amendments 96-01 & 97-01 with an Environmental Impact Report certified February 8, 1998; and
in the conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 15875 with a Mitigated Negative Declaration
adopted on October 14, 1998.
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:
Plannino Division
1)
The design of the Day Creek Boulevard parkway shall conform with
the Day Creek Boulevard Scenic and Recreational Corridor Master
Plan as approved by the Planning Commission.
2)
The developer shall submit to detailed plans of the Day Creek
Boulevard parkway for review and approval by the City Planner and
City Engineer, pdor to recordation of the final map.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VTT15871-WILLIAM LYON
Apd114,1999
Page 4
3)
The developer shall revise the Vesting Tentative Tract map to provide
parkway sidewalks instead of curb adjacent sidewalks in accordance
with City standards.
4)
Pdor to racordation of the final map, the developer shall submit a
revised Victoda Community Plan, incorporating the necessary
changes to make the graphics and text current to the date of Victoda
Community Plan Amendment 98-02. for City Planner review and
approval. Upon acceptance by the City Planner, the developer shall
provide the odginal graphics and text exhibits for retention by the City
and for use in reproducing and distributing amended copies of the
Victoda Community Plan.
Enaineedna Division
1)
Construct Day Creek Boulevard full width, including a landscaped
median, from Highland Avenue to Victoda Park Lane, with transitions
south of Victoda Park Lane to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
A City project to complete portions of this segment and south to Base
Line Road is currently under design.
a)
The City project installing a portion of Day Creek Boulevard will
establish the centedine of the street. All right-of-way
dedications will be from this centedine.
b)
Median openings along Day Creek Boulevard between Base
Line Road and Highland Avenue will only be allowed at
Silverberry Street, Victoria Park Lane, Sugar Gum Street, and
for the future site of the Fire Department facility.
If the City's Day Creek Boulevard project is completed, this
development will be required to complete the balance of the full
width improvements. This development shall not receive
Transportation Development Fee credit for the backbone
system, but is eligible for a reimbursement agreement to recover
one-half the cost of street improvements (including street lights
but not including parkway improvements) from development on
the east side of Day Creek Boulevard. This developer will
receive Transportation Development Fee credits for off site
right-of-way acquired south of Victoda Park Lane, as
determined by the City Engineer. If these street improvements
are completed by others, this developer shall reimburse a
proportionate share for frontage improvements.
d)
Provide a 20-foot wide number 3 lane for southbound Day
Creek Boulevard or install 360-foot intersection dght turn lanes
north of Silverberry Street and Victoda Park Lane and a bus
bay/right turn lane combination south of Highland Avenue.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
V'~I'15871-WILLIAM LYON
Apd114,1999
Page 5
2)
3)
4)
5)
Tentative Tract 15875 on the east side of Day Creek Boulevard
provided for consultant services to prepare the Day Creek Boulevard
Beautification Master Plan. These consultant services are estimated
at $36,000. This development (TT 15871 ) shall pay itis proportionate
share of the consultant services prior to final map approval. The fair
share shall be as determined by the City Engineer.
The project's Congestion Management Program/Traffic Impact
Analysis (CMP/TIA) study identified traffic impacts at two locations
which will result in an unacceptable level of service unless mitigated.
The TIA has also determined the amount of this project's fair share
contribution to these mitigations. A cash payment in lieu of
construction as contribution for the following future projects shall be
paid pdor to the issuance of building permits .or final map approval,
whichever occurs first, in the following amounts:
Recipient
Amount A.qency Future Proiect
$44,988 Caltrans
Additional easthound through lane on SR
30 Freeway between Archibald Avenue
and Day Creek Boulevard.
$18,894 Caltrans
Additional westbound through lane on SR
30 Freeway between Day Creek
Boulevard and Archibald Avenue.
Complete Victoria Park Lane full width. including a landscaped
median, from the west side of Day Creek Channel to the existing
terminuseastofTentativeTract15875. Parkway improvements shall
be provided on the north side only from Day Creek Boulevard to Day
Creek Channel. Provide left tum pockets in both directions for
applicable median breaks. This developer is eligible for a
reimbursement agreement to recover the cost of improvements south
of the Victoria Park Lane cantedine and east of Day Creek Boulevard
from adjacent developers. 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. If these street improvements are
completed by others, this developer shall contribute the cost of
frontage improvements.
Acknowledgment is given to SANBAG's realignment of Highland
Avenue. This subdivision shall provide for the completion of public
improvements after SANBAG construction. full width from Day Creek
Channel to Day Creek Boulevard, upon development of either
commercial property (Lot 182 or 183). However, should the Route 30
Freeway project not progress in a timely manner, this development
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
V"F['15871-WILLIAM LYON
Apd114,1999
Page 6
6)
8)
9)
shall also provide frontage improvements to Highland Avenue in its
current location when the commercial property develops. Additional
widening may be required upon development of the commercial lots.
The project is located adjacent to the future Route 30 Freeway and
a portion of Highland Avenue which will be relocated as a frontage
mad to the freeway. Wdtten verification shall be obtained from
Caltrans that sufficient freeway right-of-way has been provided (but
not necessarily dedicated or acquired) pdor to approval of the final
map.
The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and elect~cal) on
the north side of Highland Avenue are expected to be relocated by
Caltrans with the frontage road relocation, becoming interior to this
map. Upon development of either commercial property, said
overhead utilities shall be undergrounded from the first pole on the
east side of Day Creek Boulevard to the first pole off site west of Day
Creek Channel, pdor to public improvement acceptance or
occupancy, whichever occurs first. All services crossing Highland
Avenue shall be undergrounded at the same time. If undergrounding
is not feasible at the time of development, or is completed by others,
an in-lieu fee as contribution to the undergrounding of existing
overhead utilities shall be paid.
A trail connection between the Day Creek Boulevard Recreation
Corridor Trail and the Day Creek Channel trail will be required along
Highland Avenue, including the Edison frontage, upon development
of the commercial property. Easement and right-of-way dedications
on the map shall be to the satisfaction of the City Planner and City
Engineer.
Silverberry Street from Day Creek Boulevard westedy to Street "A"
shall be a Collector street, 44 feet curb-to-curb in a 66-foot
right-of-way. Align the centedine with Silverberry Stree~ within
Tentative Tract 15875, which is conditioned to provide 23 feet to curb
with a 12-foot parkway north of a projection of the existing terminus
centedine and 18 feet to curb with a 12-foot parkway south, of said
centedine.
When Collector streets like Silverberry Street and Street "A" meet at
right angles, the predominant traffic flow will be turning. Three-way
stops will be required.
Install traffic signals along Day Creek Boulevard at the intersections
of Victoda Park Lane and Highland Avenue. The developer shall
receive credit against, and reimbursement of costs in excess of, the
Transportation Development Fee in ccnformance with City policy. If
the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VTT15871-WILLIAM LYON
Apd114,1999
Page 7
13)
14)
15)
six months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all
dghts of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. If any of the
above are already installed, it will then be the responsibility of the
developer to modify the signals as required with no reimbursement.
Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Day Creek Boulevard and
Silverberry Street. This developer is eligible for a reimbursement
agreement to recover one-half the cost of traffic signal improvements
from development on the east side of Day Creek Boulevard. 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. If the signal
is installed by others, this developer shall reimburse their
proportionate share and modify the signal as required.
The area bounded on the north and south by Highland Avenue and
Base Line Road and on the east and west by Victoda Windrows tract
homes and approximately 300 feet east of Day Creek Channel
(Edison tower lines) will be considered as a drainage boundary for
this area. The cost of the drainage systems shall be borne by all the
properties lying within the drainage boundary in proportion to the land
areas. Streets and flood control dghtsoof-way, and utility corridors are
exempt from the calculation. This developer shall install Master Plan
Storm Drains in Victoda Park Lane and Day Creek Boulevard north of
Victoda Park Lane. This developer shall submit a reimbursement
agreement to determine the cost distribution within the drainage area.
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. If
the storm drain installation is completed by others, this developer shall
reimburse the installer.
Install local storm drains to convey all development drainage to the
Master Plan Storm Drains. The cost of local storm drains shall be
borne by this development.
a) All sump catch basins shall be designed to handle Q100.
b)
Extend the local storm drain system as far on site as needed to
contain Q25 within tops of 6-inch curbs (Q50 at sumps), Q100
within 46-foot rights-of-way and provide a 10-foot dry lane in
Q10.
Provide off site pedesthan walkways along routes to school, as
raquirad by the City Engineer, on the north sides of Victoria Park
Lane and Silverberry Street.
· PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VII 15871-WILLIAMLYON
Apd114,1999
Page 8
16)
Provide a public sidewalk connection between Streets "A" and 'H," in
a sidewalk easement, which allows homeowners on lots 156 and 157
to maintain their side yards.
17)
All pedestrian accesses. including the NH connection and the
cul-de-sacs which open onto Victoda Park Lane, shall conform to Title
24 ADA requirements.
Obtain permission from Southern California Edison to grade off site
within their easement pdor to grading permit issuance or final map
approval, whichever occurs first.
19) Portions of Silverbeny Street and Street "A" shall be posted "No
Parking" [R26 or R26(S)] to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
20)
Landscaping along Victoda Park Lane shall be installed according to
current City standards, similar to the landscaping installed with Tract
14534 to the west.
21) Intedor streets shall have 6-inch curbs with sidewalk in an easement
outside the 46-foot right-of-way. Where 5-foot curb adjacent sidewalk
is used along corner lots, all above grade facilities shall be placed
behind the sidewalk in a public utility easement. Street "A" and
Silverberry Street east of Street "A" shall have property line adjacent
sidewalk within the fight-of-way.
MitiGation Measures
1)
The developer shall provide sound attenuation walls and building
upgredes pursuant to the recommendations in a Final Acoustical
Study to be submitted to the Planning Division, pdor to issuance of
building permits.
2)
The developer shall construct Day Creek Boulevard full wid'th from
Highland Avenue to Victoda Park Lane as set forth in Engineering
Condition No. 1 in this Resolution, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
3)
The developer shall complete Victoda Park Lane full width, from
Rochester Avenue to the existing terminus east of Tentative Tract
15875, as set forth in Engineedng Condition No. 4 of this Resolution,
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
4)
The developer shall provide for the completion of public
improvements on Highland Avenue, after SANBAG's realignment of
Highland Avenue, as set forth in Engineering Condition No. 5 to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VTT 15871 - WILLIAM LYON
Apdl 14, 1999
Page 9
5)
The developer shall install traffic signals along Day Creek Boulevard
at the intersections of Victoda Park Lane, Silverberry Street, and
Highland Avenue as set forth in Engineering Condition Nos. 11 and
12 in this Resolution.
6)
The City shall not grant final map approval until the project's
Congestion Management Pmgramrrraffic Impact Analysis (CM PrrlA)
study is appmved by SANBAG. As determined by the City Engineer,
the developer shall make a fair share contribution to traffic mitigations
as set forth in the approved CMPrRA.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF APRIL ;1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary
I, Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary for 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 14th day of April 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
Vesting Tentative Tract 15871
William Lyon Homes
Southwest of H gh and Avenue and future Day Creek Boulevard
ALL OF'THE:FO~OWING !CONDITIONS:APPL Y TO IYOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACTTHE PLANNING DNISION, (909)477-2790, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOW/ING
CONDITIONS:
A. General Requirements
The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expanse any action brought against the City, its
agents, offcars, 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, 'offcars. 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 expanse in the defense of any such action but such participation
shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
Approval of Tentative Tract No. 15871 is granted subject to the approval of Victoria Community
Plan Amendment.
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 tim
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 developar by the time recordation
of the final map occurs.
A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planners letter of approval, and all Standard
Conditions. shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and construction
plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check.
B. Time Limits
Completion Date
Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits am not
issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval.
C. Site Development
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 herain, Development Code
regulations, and the Victoda Community Plan.
Pdor to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions
of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shaft be coordinated for
consistency pdor to issuance of any permits (such as grading, 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.
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.
All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be
located out of public view and adequately screened th rough the use of a combination of concrate
or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single
family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults.
Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the
adopted Street Naming Policy pdor to approval of the final map.
All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property
owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape
maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior
to the issuance of building permits.
The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all
lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice
raquiraments, special street posting, phone listing for community concams, hours of construction
activity, dust control measures, and secudty fencing.
Six-foot decorative block walls shaft be constructed along the project pedmeter. If a double wall
condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining
property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property
owner at least 30 days pdor to the ramoval of any existing walls/fences along the project's
pedmeter.
D. Landscaping
SC - 1119/99
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 pdor
final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2
project No. vrr ~SS?Z
Completion Date
All pdvate 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 appropdata ground cover for erosion
control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irdgation system to be
installed by the developer pdor to occupancy.
All pdvate slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger size
shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks
in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or
larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in
staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall
include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer pdor to occupancy.
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 forthose units, an inspection shall be
conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition.
The final design of the pedmeter 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
Engineedng Division.
/
/
/
/
/
Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering
sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along Day Creek
Boulevard.
Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public dght-of-way on the
perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. '
All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
E. Environmental
The developer shall previde each prospective buyer wdtten notice of the Fourth Street Rock
Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, pdor to accepting a cash
deposit on any property.
The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway project
in a standard format as determ ned by the City Planner, pdor to accepting a cash deposit on any
property.
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 intedor noise attenuation
to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if
apprepdate, vedfy the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked
for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report.
Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of
implementing said measures, including monitodng and reporting. Applicantshall be required to
pest cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the
amount of $719.00, prior to the issuance of building permits, guarenteeing s.atisfactory
ComDletjon Date
performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City
to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation
measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents
shall be considered grounds for forfeit.
In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final certificate of occupancy), the
applicant shall provide a wdtten monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior to
issuance of building permits. Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified
to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented.
F. Other Agencies
The appiicent shall centact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location
of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for
mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the
overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of
building permits.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOINING CONDITIONS:
G. Site Development
Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be
marked with the project file number (i.e., CUP 98-01 ). The applicant shall comply with the latest
adopted Uniform Building Code. Uniform Mechanicel Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Natjonal
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.
Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to
existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may
include, but are not limited to: City Beautificetion Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation
Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees.
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.
H. Grading
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.
A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to
perform such work.
A geologicel 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 pdor to issuance of building permits.
4
Project No. VTT T$8~71
Completion Date
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACTTHE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
I. Dedication and Vehicular Access
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 encroach ment
and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map.
Pdvate easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be
reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map.
Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured ~'om
street centerline):
Day Creek Boulevard total feet on 63-65
Victoria Park Lane total feet on 90-105
Highland Avenue total feet on 33-45
3. Comer property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards.
4. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, : excapt for
approved openings: Day Creek Boulevard, Victoda Park Lane, Highland Avenue.
All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the
final map.
Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall
be dedicated to the City.
Additjonal street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum of
7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn
lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided.
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests
necessary to construct the raquirad 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 approval, enter into an
agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Govemment Code Section 66462 at such
time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement
shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site
property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these
costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained
by the developer, at develober's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior
to commencement ofthe appraisal. This condition applies in particular, but not limited to: Day
Creek Boulevard and Victoria Park Lane.
J. Street Improvements
All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, peseos, landscaped
areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructsd to City Standards.
Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement,
drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees.
2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
Curb & A.C, Side- D~ive Street Street Comm Median Bike Otl~r
Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr, Lights Trees Trail island Trail
Day Creek Blvd. X X C X X X G
VictoriaPark Ln. X X C X X X X E G
Highland Avenue X X X X X X F G
Project No. VTT 1587l
ComeletJon Date
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and ovedays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk
shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction foe shall be
provided for this item. (e) Class II bike Lane in street. (f) Class III Bike Route signage on
Highland Avenue. (g) No parking signage, R26 or R26(s) as required.
Improvement Plans and Construction:
C,
Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights
on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Secudty shall be
posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City
Attomey guaranteeing completion of the public and/or pdvate street improvements, pdor
to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs firat.
Pdor 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.
Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Signal conduitwith 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
interconnectwiring. Pullbexesshallbeplacedonbothsidesofthestreetat3feetoutside
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
foet 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.
Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all comers of intersections per City
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with
adequate detours dudng construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded
upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
6
Completion Dale
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 firstjplan check.
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.
Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for cenformance 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 commemial or
industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required.
A permit shall be obtained from Caltrans/Sanbag for any work within the following right-of-way:
Highland Avenue.
K. Public Maintenance Areas
A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall
be su bmitted to the City Engineer for review and approval pdor to final map approval or issuance
of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians,
pesees, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance
District: Day Creek Boulevard, Victoda Park Lane, and pertions of Siiverbemj Street east of
Street "A" and Street "A" south of Street "E."
Public landscape areas are required to incorporate substantial areas (up to 40%) of mortarad
cobble or other acceptable non-irrigated surfaces.
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.
All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the
developer until accepted by the City.
Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective
Beautification Master Plan: Day Creek Boulevard, Victoria Park Lane.
L. Drainage and Flood Control
A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer pdor 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.
A permit from the San Bemardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its
fight-of-way.
,
Trees are prohi bited within 5 feat of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measu red
from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk.
Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in
a sump catch basin on the public street.
SC - 1119/99
7
Project No. ~ 15871
Completion Date
Utilities
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.
Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucamonga County Water Distdct (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct, and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bemardino. A letter of compliance fTom
the CCWD is required pdor to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first.
Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval
in the case of subdivision or pdor to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential
projects.
General Requirements and Approvals
1. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their dght-of-way: Southem
Califomia Edison.
A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, cevedng the estimated operating costs for all
new street lights for the first six months of operation, pdor to final map approval or pdor to
building permit issuance if no map is involved.
Pdor to ~nalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed
beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the
approved tentative map.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
O. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Mello Rcos Community Facilities Distdct requirements shall apply to this project.
2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,200 gallons per minute.
X a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire
department personnel pdor to water plan approval.
X b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site
hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by 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 pdor to delivery of any combustible building matedais on site (i.e., lumber, roofing
materials. etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel.
4. Existing tire hydrant locations shall be provided pdor to water plan approval. Required hydrants.
if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with
Project No. v'rr 1~s73
Completion Date
a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch ouUet. Substandard hydrants shaft be upgraded to meet this standard.
Contact the Fire Safety DivisiOn for specifications on approved brands and model numbers.
Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be
submitted to the Fire Disthct that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is
available, pending completion of the required fire protection system.
Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shaft be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final
inspection.
Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted:
X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct Ordinance 22.
$'132.00 Fire District fee(s), and a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct prior to Building and Safety permit issuance. **
A Fire District foe in the amount of $132.00 shall be paid at the time of Water Plan submittal.
"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.
Plans shall be submitted and approved pdor to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC,
UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW
FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15871 IN THE LOW-MEDIUM
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) WITHIN THE
VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF HIGHLAND AVENUE AND FUTURE DAY CREEK
BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
APN: 227-021-03 AND 13.
A. Recitals.
1. W',lliam Lyon Homes has filed an application for the Design Review of Tentative Tract
15871, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Development Review request is referred to as '~he application."
2. On the 14th day of April 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting on April 14, 1999. including written and oral staff reports, this Commission
hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan;
and
b. That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development
Code and the purposes of the distdct 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.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth
below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference:
"PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR FOR Vl~ 15871-WILLIAM LYON
Apd114.1999
Page 2
Plannina Division
1)
Perimeter walls and landscaping shall be consistent With the
established theme for the Victoda Planned Community. The
developer shall construct the tract perimeter fences and walls
pursuant to a Wall Plan approved by the City Planner, pdor to final of
building permits. The developer shall add decorative colGmns to
slump block walls on all lots that side or rear onto Silverberry Street
and Street "A." Wall and column details shall be shown on plans
submitted for plan check, prior to issuance of building permits.
2)
The site grading shall provide each residential lot a minimum of
15 feet of flat, usable roar yard area between the house and top or
toe of non-rotained slope banks or to the retaining wall in the case of
rotained cut or fill.
3)
The developer shall modify front porch columns on Plan 2
(Bassenian-Lagoni Architects) to provide groater distinction between
styles. Modifications shall be shown on plans submitted for plan
check.
4)
The developer shall enhance side and rear elevations to include
surrounds on all window and door openings (high density foam,
minimum 4 pounds), shutters, pot shelves, and gable-end detailing.
Rear elevations facing Day Croek Boulevard shall include a mixture
of second-story pop-outs and second story decks.
5) The developer shall revise the plans to provide parkway sidewalks
instead of curb adjacent sidewalks in accordance with City standards.
6) A minimum of 20 percent of the lots shall provide recreational vehicle
storage capability on the lots.
7)
Prior to issuance of permits, the developer shall submit a revised
Victoria Community Plan, incorporating the necessary changes to
make the grophica and text current to the date of Victoda Com'munity
Plan Amendment 98-02, for City Planner roview and approval. Upon
acceptance by the City Planner, the developer shall provide the
.original graphics and text exhibits for rotention by the City and for use
in roproducing and distributing amended copies of the Victoria
Community Plan.
Enaineedna Division
1) All conditions of approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 15871 shall
apply.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution..
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR FOR VTT 15871 - WILLIAM LYON
April 14, 1999
Page 3
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF APRIL 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary
I, Dan Coleman, Acting 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 fie City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of
the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of April 1999. by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
Design Review 15871
William Lyon Homes
Southwest comer of Hi.qh and Avenue and future Day Creek Boulevard
ALL OF THE :FOI.:LOWING: CONDITION~S APPLY TO YOUR:PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
A. General Requirements
Completion Date
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.
Approval of Tentative Tract No. 15871 is granted subject to the approval of Victoda Community
Plan Amendment 98-02.
A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter of approval. and all Standard
Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and construction
plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check.
B. Time Limits
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
The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include
site plans, architectural elevations, exterior matedais and colors, landscaping, sign program, and
grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code
regulations, and the Victoria Community Plan.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Project NO. DR for TT 15871
Completion Date
Pdor to any use of the project site or business activity be ng commenced thereon, all Conditions
of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
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.
All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for
consistency pdor 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.
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,
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, herruing, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single
family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults.
All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner,
including proper illumination.
All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property
owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of th is landscepa
maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved pdor
to the issuance of building parmita.
The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all
lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited fo, public notice
requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours ofconstroction
activity, dust control measures, and security fencing.
Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall
condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining
proparty ownere to provide a single wall Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property
owner at least 30 days pdor to the removal of any existin9 walls/fences along the projecrs
padmeter.
For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each
support post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two Y-inch lag belts, 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.
Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant.
Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron or black plastic coated chain link to
maintain an open feeling and enhance views.
On comer side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk.
For residential development, retum walls and comer side walls shall be decorative masonry.
SC - 1119/99
16. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real dver rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured
products.
D. Building Design
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 pdor to issuance of building permits.
Completion Date
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated
with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be
included in building plans.
E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans)
1. On flag lots, use a 12-foot driveway within flag to maximize landscape area.
F. Landscaping
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.
All pdvate 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 appropdate ground cover for erosion
control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be
installed by the developer pdor to occupancy.
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 l5-galion orlargersizetree pereach l50sq. ft. ofslopearaa, l-gallon orlargersize
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-cjallon or
larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in
staggered ciustars to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shaft
include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer pdor to occupancy.
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.
The final design of the pedmeter parkways, walls, landscoping, 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.
Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering
sidewalks (w~ horizontal change), and intensffied landscaping, is required along Day Creek
Boulevard.
SC-1/19/99
Pn~jectNo. DRfOrTT~5871
Complatlon Date
Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public dght-of-way on the
perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.
All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
Landscaping and irrigation for the model complex shall be designed to conserve water through
the principles of Xedscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal
Code.
G. Environmental
The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock
Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, pdor to accepting a cash
deposit on any property.
,
The developershall provide each prospective buyer wdtten notice of the Foothill Freeway project
in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, pdor to accepting a cash deposit on any
property.
A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation
to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if
appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked
for conformanco with the mitigation measures contained in the final report.
Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of
implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicantshall be required to
post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the
amount of $719.00, prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory
performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City
to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation
measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents
shall be considered grounds for forfeit.
In those instances requidng long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final certificate of occupancy), the
applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior to
issuance of building permits. Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified
to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented.
H. Other Agencies
The applicant shall centact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropdate type and location
of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for
mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the
overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval pdor to the issuance of
building permits.
PmjectNo. DRforTT 15871
COmpletion Date
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
I. Site Development
Plans shall be submitted for plan check and appmved prior to construction. All plans shall be
marked with fie project file number (i.e., CUP 98-01 ). 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.
Pdor to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to
existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may
include, but are not limited to: City Beautificetion Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation
Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. and School Fees.
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
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.
Grading
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 wiffi the approved grading plan.
A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of Califemia to
perform such work.
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 pdor to issuance of building permits.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909).477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WTrH THE FOLLO~VING CONDITIONS:
K. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Fire flow requirement shall be 1.200 gallons per minute.
X ,a.
A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire
department personnel prior to water plan approval.
X b.
For the purpose of final acceptance. an additional fire flow test of I~he on-site
hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire
department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy.
Fire hydrants are roquimd. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed,
and operable pdor to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing
materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel.
Existing fire hydrsnt locations shall be provided pdor to water plan approval. Required hydrants,
if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire Distdct standards requiro a 6-inch dser with
a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet: Substandard hydrsnts shall be upgrsded to meet this standard.
Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers,
Pdor to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be
submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is
available, pending completion of the required fire protection system.
Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final
inspection.
6. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire Distdct's fire lane standards, as noted:
X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct Ordinance 22.
$132.00 Fire Distdct fee(s), and a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District pdor to Building and Safety permit issuance."
A Fire District fee in the amount of $132.00 shall be paid at the time of Water Plan submittal.
"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.
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.
L. Security Hardware ,
1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors.
One-inchsinglecylinderdeadbeltsshallbeinstalledonallentrancadocrs. Ifwindowsarewithin
40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead belt shall be used,
3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide belts or some type of secondary locking devices.
M. Windows
All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted
from flame or track in any manner.
N. Building Numbering
Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime
visibility.
SC - 1119/99
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
Apdl 14, 1999
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 99-01-CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -
A request to amend the regulations for wireless communication facilities.
BACKGROUND: AirTouch Cellular and Southern California Edison have provided a proposal
regarding potential revisions to the wireless communication facilities ordinance. Revisions are
relatively minor and consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. AirTouch Cellular
withdrew its vadanca application involving a communication site concealed within a proposed
70-foot high cross at the Alta Loma Brethren in Chdst Church, located at 9974 19th Street. Staff
and the applicant believe that a code amendment would be a more appropriate vehicle to address
siting issues.
ANALYSIS: Revisions offer greater siting opportunities by allowing locations on utility towers, light
poles, and additional stealth facilities to minimize skyline clutter. The proposed amendment revises
four areas of the current code as follows:
Adds "utility towers" and "light poles" to the definition of the term"building mounted." This
allows carriers to mount antennas to existing electdc towers and light standards under the
Minor Development Review process. Exhibit "B" of this report contains photographs of typical
tower and pole attachments.
Expands the definition of "minor wireless communication facility" to include stealth facilities
that are constructed within the height limits of the applicable zone, Adoption of this
amendment would not allow for installation of the 70-foot high cross previously proposed by
AirTouch because the cross exceeds height limits in the zone,
Allows co-location opportunities on nonconforming facilities, such as a monopole established
pdor to the adoption of the wireless communication ordinance within 500 feet of a residential
district, which would not be eligible to apply for a Conditional Use Permit under current
standards. The revision contemplated in the amendment would allow the Planning
Commission to consider modification of the existing facility for co-location purposes through
a Conditional Use Permit. A secondary user on a non-conforming facility would be subject to
the same limitations and amortization period as the primary facility. For example, if a non-
conforming facility was completely destroyed in a natural disaster, neitherthe original user nor
the co-located user would be able to re-build to the pre-disaster form. At that juncture, any
request to rebuild would have to comply with current standards in the Development Code.
ITEMS H
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DCA 99-01 CITY OF R.C.
April 14, 1999
Page 2
Allows a temporary facility while an approved permanent facility is under construction subject
to City Planner review and approval.
The proposed changes are indicated on the attached Chapter 17.26 of the Development Code
(Exhibit C) with additional language in bold italics and deleted language shown with overstrike.
Staff feels the revisions allow for improved service coverage within the City in a manner that is less
obtrusive and visually obstructive to the community. The amendment further fias the potential to
reduce the ultimate number of monopole installations within commercial and industrial areas of the
City.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The amendment is exempt from the requirements of the
Califomia Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated
thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3).
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletiq newspaper
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached
Resolution recommending approval of Development Code Amendment 99-01 to the City Council.
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:RVB:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Richards & Wilkes dated January 25, 1999
Exhibit "B" - Edison Presentation (overview and photos) dated February 16, 1999
Exhibit "C" - Chapter 17.26 of Development Code
Resolution of Approval
RICHARDS & WILKES . P ..i.G A.D DEVELOPUEr, n' co.suL'n.G
JanuaW 25,1999
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91729
RECEIVEI)
JAN/; 8 1999
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
RE: Proposal by AirTouch Cellular to Amend Selected Sections of City Code
Governing Wireless Communication Facilities, Ordinance No. 570
Dear Commissioners:
On behalf of AirTouch Cellular, I request that the Commission initiate
amendments to Ordinance No. 570 governing the location and construction of
wireless communication facilities.
On October 28, 1998, the Commission considered Variance No. 98-03, a
proposal by AirTouch Cellular to increase the maximum height of the Medium
Residential District from 50 to 70 feet for the purpose of constructing a cross-
tower on property owned by Alta Loma Brethren in Christ Church. The cross
structure was to be used to concoal cellular antennas. The Commission
determined that the variance was not the appropriate regulatory tool to
accomplish our objective, and was not supportive of increasing the height limit.
The matter was continued off calendar and it was suggested that we meet with
Staff.
Subsequent to the hearing we met with Brad Buller, Dan Coleman and Cecilia
Williams, to discuss our service dilemma and develop some options. We
concluded that a few modest modifications to the Wireless Code would resolve
many of our concerns and offer greater siting opportunities.
Attached is a copy of the existing Code with our suggested revisions noted in
bold Italic. Please understand that it is not our intent to effectuate wholesale
changes to the Code, or undermine its original purpose. Rather, we are
proposing some reasonable revisions that would allow AirTouch, and other
carriers as well, to site facilities in selected locations, and still meet the
objectives embodied in the code.
Before addressing the specific code sections, let me outline our goals for service
in the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
R,CHZ2/.D s''
909-276-8010 / F~ 90~27~8013
RCPC
Page 2 of 4
1. Improve service in the northerly reaches of the City: Our service in the
north area of the City is marginal at best. Specifically, we have two
problems to solve: ~
a) Capacity - The existing cell sites are reaching capacity, which
means there is an insufficient number of channels available during
peak calling periods.
b) Signal Strength - The signal from the existing sites is borderline
and calls can not always be "handed off' from one site 'to another.
Both problems result in an unacceptable number of dropped and
uncompleted calls. New facilities, especially in the northerly portion of the
City, will bring service to acceptable levels.
Prepare for service along the Highway 210 / 30 Corridor: As ~,ou know the
freeway is under construction. We aro interested in establishing sites
along this corridor now, so we are prepared to serve motorists and
commuters using the new route.
The City Wireless Facilities Code (Ordinance No. 570) contains three provisions
that impact the siting of our facilities, and thus our service.
1. Definition of major facilities - The Code defines a "major facility" as any
ground or roof mounted facility. This includes any freestanding facility, even
if the facility is designed to blend into the existing environment, i.e. stealth
facility. To some extent, the provision conflicts with the primary siting
criterion contained in the code, namely that stealth sites with concealed
antennas are preferred. Furthermore, due to the language :used in the
definition, antenna mounted to a utility pole are also considered major
facilities.
Residential limitations to the siting of major facilities - The Code bars all
major facilities in residential zones and within 500 feet of residential uses.
This provision creates two obstacles to the improvement of service in the
northerly portions of the City:
· Most properties along the Highway 210 / 30 corridor are zoned for, or
developed in, residential uses.
· Properties that are not zoned for residential use, and potentially
available for wireless facilities, are usually within 500 feet of such
Uses.
RCPC
Page 3 of 4
3. Provision for temporary facilities - Once a facility is approved it takes
approximately 6 months to get it on line. When the site is a high priority, It
would be helpful if the Code allowed for the deployment of a temporary /
interim cell site, while the permanent site is under construction.
4. The provisions relating to co-location preclude do not address co-location on
a non-conforming facility (approved prior to adoption of Ordinance No. 570).
To resolve these siting issues we propose the following minor revisions to the
Code.
A. Add "utility towers" and "light poles" to the definition of the term "building
mounted". This change, combined with the provisions relating to minor
wireless facilities, will allow carriers to mount antennas to electric towers and
light standards, under the Minor Development Review process. We believe
this revision will encourage structure-mounted facilities, in compliance with
the Code.
B. We ask that the definition of "minor wireless communication facility"
encompass a "stealth facility" that is constructed within the height limit of the
applicable zone. Because minor facilities are permitted in residential zones,
this modest change would encourage stealth-designed facilities where they
are compatible with residential development. Furthermore, there will be no
visual impact on residential properties, as a properly designed stealth facility
will appear to be an element of an already existing use.
C. The Code encourages co-location, however, when an antenna array is to be
placed on a non-conforming facility, the Development Code requires that the
modified facility conform to the current Wireless Code standards, including
the residential limitations. We recommend that the Code be amended to
allow, without conforming to new standards, the modification of an existing
facility for co-location purposes.
D. Finally, we ask that the City offer a carrier the opportunity to deploy a
temporary facility while the approved permanent facility is under construction.
AirTouch, and other carriers, are working to improve the design of wireless
facilities. As you know, it is not unusual to see towers designed as pine trees,
palm trees, crosses, clock towers, and windmills, to name a few. Furthermore,
we are working with Southern California Edison to establish a master agreement
RCPC
Page 4 of 4
that will allow the mounting of antennas on electrical towers. We simply ask that
our efforts and successes can be reflected in your City's Code.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Joseph A. Richards
Land Use Consultant to AirTouch Cellular
ireless Telecommunicaa l
Cheryl Karns and Timothy Davis
February 16, 1999
An EDISON INTERNATIONAL Company
An EDISON INTERN,4~7ONAL Compsny
Overview
· The Telecom Industry
· City Government Concerns
~ SCE Assistance
· SCE Installation Standards
The Permitting Process
Moving Forward
2
An EDI~ON INTERNA770NAL Compsny
Telecom Act of 1996
Creates New Wireless Opportunities
} Cellular- Analog
} PCS - Digital
· Paging
· Automated Metering-
· Intemet Service Providers
Other Agencies With Wireless Needs
;-":" "~ · Federal
, , · State
-"~ Counties / Cities
· Utilities
3
An EDISON INTERNATfONAL Company
City Concerns
Key City Issues
~ Visual Impacts
· Concerns from Constituency
· Permitting Process
· Monopole Installations Throughout City
4
An EDISON INTER,~IA YIONAL Cornpiny
How Can SCE Assist ?
Attach to Existing Infrastructure
(SCE Tower)
Construction of New Monopole
SCE Service Territo_ _
Bishop
Inyo
Ilsalla County
50,000 square miles
4.1 million customers (11 million population)
19,000 miles of underground conduit
1.5 million wood poles
14,000 electrical transmission towers
125 communications towers
1,200 sites for communications buildings
530,000 streetlight poles
Extensive fiber optic and digital microwave
++ +
+ + + Count ~ + +
Satire ,,+ + + ~ +
8rbsr8 ~+ + + + +
~ + County +++ ~+* ++
.let + + ~+ ++ + + San Berna~lno County
Leoend ..... + '*)+~+ ~+ + + '
~ ' Edison sites ~ + + ~t: ++~ Rlve~lde Coun~
Se~ice territoW ~ ~+ ~+ ~ PRIm , + +
An EDISON IIVTERNA~7OIVAZ, Company
Hi .-, h S tan da rds
Tower attachments are installed in accordance with
CPUC G.O. #95. SCE maintains responsibility for:
Engineering
Design
Fabrication
Attachment
Installation
Installation
Our 1 st priority is to insure that
attachments will not interfere with
providing safe, reliable electricity.
An EDISON INTERNATIONAL Company
High Standards (cont.)
However, it is incumbent on the client to obtain
appropriate permits from the jurisdictional
MicroceHInstall
located on
SCE street
light pole
An EDISON INTERNATIONAL Company
The Permitting Process
When permits requested to attach to SCE Assets
Consider administrative approval:
· Improved service for residents
· Reduces processing man-hours for Cities
· Include as option in City plans/ordinances
· Competition reduces prices for cellular service
9
An EDISON II4TERi~r,417ONAL CompaBy
In Closing
By Working Together We Can
· Minimize Visual Impacts
,. Decrease Monopole Installations
· Assist with Public Concerns
,. Streamline Permitting Process
~ Include as option in city plans
10
Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
CHAPTER 17.26
Sections 17. 26. O10 & 17. 26. 020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Section 17.26.010 - Purpose
The purpose of these regulations and guidelines is to regulate the establishment of wireless
communication facilities and thereby protect the public health, safety, general welfare, and
quality of life in Rancho Cucamonga, while preserving the rights of wireless
communications providers. The Rancho Cucamonga City Council has found and
determined that these regulations and guidelines for wireless communication facilities are
necessary to attain these goals. These regulations are intended to supersede applicable
provisions of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code pertaining to communication
facilities, and to establish flexible guidelines for the governance of wireless communication
facilities which recognize the unique land use distribution, topography, and aesthetic
characteristics of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Wireless communications facilities are
prohibited in the City of Rancho Cucamonga except as otherwise provided herein.
Section 17.26.020 - Definitions
Unless otherwise stated, the following definitions pertain to this Chapter:
A
ANTENNA: means a device used in wireless communications which radiates and/or
receives commercial cellular, personal communication service, and/or data radio signals.
"Antenna" shall not include any satellite dish antenna or any antenna utilized for amateur
radio, citizens band radio, television, AM/FM, or shortwave radio reception purposes.
BUILDING-MOUNTED: means mounted to the side of a building, to the facade of a building,
or to the side of another structure such as a water tank, church steeple, freestanding sign,
utility tower, light pole, or similar structure, but not to include the roof of any structure.
C
CELLULAR: means an analog or digital wireless communication technology that is based
on a system of interconnected neighboring cell sites.
CO-LOCATED: means the locating of wireless communications equipment from more than
one provider on a single wireless communication facility°
G
GROUND-MOUNTED: means mounted to a pole, monopole, tower, or other freestanding
structure specifically constructed for the purpose of supporting an antenna.
M
MAJOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY: means a wireless communication
facility that is ground- or roof-mounted or mounted in or on any public property including the
public right-of-way.
MINOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY: means a wireless communication
facility that is stealth in design and does not exceed the height limit of the district in
which it is located, or building-, facade-, or wall-mounted and does not exceed the height
EXHIBIT "C"
17.26-1
Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
Section 17.26.030
of the parapet wall or roof line of the building. A roof-mounted facility which is screened by
a solid material on all four sides and does not exceed the maximum height of the district
shall be considered a minor wireless communication facility.
MONOPOLE: means a structure composed of a single spire, pole, or tower used to support
antennas or related equipment.
MOUNTED: means attached or supported.
P
PERSONAL COMMUNICATION SERVICE: means digital low-power, high-frequency
commercial wireless radio communication technology that has the capacity for multiple
communications services and the routing of calls to individuals, regardless of location.
R ROOF-MOUNTED: means mounted above the eave line of a building.
S
STEALTH FACILITY: means any communication facility which is designed to blend into the
surrounding environment, typically one that is architecturally integrated into a building or
other concealing structure, and shall include and mean any concealed antenna.
TEMPORARY WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY: means a wireless
communication facility that is kept portable or mobile and deployed while a
permanent facility is under construction.
W
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY: means a facility consisting of any commercial
antenna, monopole, microwave dish, and/or other related equipment necessary to the
transmission and/or reception of cellular, personal communication service, and/or data radio
communications, and which has been granted a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity, or a Wireless Registration Number by the California Public Utilities Commission,
or otherwise provides wireless communications services to the public.
Section 17.26.030 - Development Criteria for All Wireless Communication Facilities.
A. Screening and Site Selection Guidelines.
1. Stealth facilities and concealed antennas are preferred.
Wireless communications facilities shall be located where the existing topography,
vegetation, buildings, or other structures provide the greatest amount of screening.
Where insufficient screening exists, applicants shall provide screening satisfactory to the
City Planner, or as otherwise required heroin.
Ground-mounted wireless communication facilities shall be located only in close proximity
to existing above-ground utilities, such as electrical tower or utility poles (which are not
scheduled for removal or undergrounding for at least 18 months after the date of
application), light poles, trees of comparable heights, and in areas where they will not
detract from the appearance of the City.
4. Wireless communication facilities shall be located in the following Order of preference:
Co located with other ,~ ,ajor wirelcss communication facilities. When co-located
on the same building, structure, or wireless facility.
Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17. 26. 030
The facility replaces or modifies an existing facility for purposes of co-
location. On existing structures such as buildings, communication towers, or utility
c. On existing signal, power, light, or similar kinds of poles.
d. In industrial districts.
e. In commercial districts.
f. In residential districts (minor wireless communications facilities only.
Major wireless communication facilities are not permitted to locate within 500 feet of any
residential structure, within any residential district, or within 500 feet of any existing,
legally established major wireless communication facility except when co-located on the
same building, structure, or wireless facility. For the purposes of this Chapter, all
distances shall be measured in a straight line without regard to intervening structures,
from the nearest point of the proposed major wireless communication facility to the
nearest property line of any residential land use, or to the nearest point of another major
wireless communication facility.
B. Development ReQuirements.
As part of the application process, applicants for wireless communication facilities shall
be required to provide written documentation demonstrating good faith efforts in locating
facilities in accordance with the Site Selection Guidelines (order of preference).
Wireless communication facilities shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other
than certification, warning, or other required seals or legally required signage.
All accessory equipment associated with the operation of the wireless communication
facility shall be located within a building, enclosure, or underground vault that complies
with the development standards of the district in which the accessory equipment is
located, subject to City approval. If the equipment is permitted to be located above
ground, it shall be visually compatible with the surrounding buildings and include sufficient
landscaping to screen the structure from view.
Wireless communication facilities shall be subdued colors and non-reflective materials
which blend with surrounding materials and colors,
All screening for building-mounted facilities shall be compatible with the existing
architecture, color, texture, and/or materials of the building.
Monopoles and antennas shall be no greater in diameter or other cross-sectional
dimensions than is necessary for the proper functioning of the wireless communications
facility. The applicant shall provide documentation satisfactory to the City Planner
establishing compliance with this subsection.
Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17. 26. 040 - 17. 26. 070
Section 17.26.040 - Approval of Minor Wireless Communication Facilities.
Minor wireless communication facilities shall be subject to approval by the City Planner pursuant to
Section 17.06.020 Minor Development Review procedures of the Rancho Cucamonga Development
Code. In considering applications for minor wireless communication facilities, the City Planner shall
be guided by both the provisions of Section 17.06.020 and this Chapter. However, in the event of any
inconsistency in said standards, the provisions of this Chapter shall govern. The decision of the City
Planner shall be final unless appealed within 10 calendar days pursuant to SectiOn 17.020.080 of the
Rancho Cucamonga Development Code.
Section 17.26.050 - Approval of Major Wireless Communication Facilities.
Major wireless communication facilities shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission. In
considering applications for major wireless communications facilities, the Planning Commission shall
be guided by the provisions of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code and this Chapter.
However, in the event of any inconsistencies in said standards, the provisions of this Chapter shall
govern. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be final unless appealed in writing within 10
calendar days pursuant to Section 17.02.080 of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code.
S~;ction 17.26.051 - Deployment of Temporary Facility.
A temporary wireless communication facility may be deployed subject to approval by
the City Planner and the following:
1. A permanent wireless communication facility has been approved for the property
in question
.
2. The temporary facility was approved as part of the conditional use permit or
minor development review.
3. The facility is deployed for no more than six months, provided that two
extensions may be granted by the City Planner; however, the total period shall
~ not exceed one year.
Section 17.26.060 - Height Criteria for Major Wireless Communications Facilities.
No wireless communications facility shall exceed the maximum building height for the applicable
district unless the facility is utilized by two or more wireless communication providers pursuant to a
conditional use permit. The Planning Commission may consider approval of facilities proposed to
exceed the maximum height limit subject to the review and approval of a conditional use permit
application pursuant to Section 17.04.030 of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code.
Section 17.26.070 - Conditional Use Permit Required.
Each major wireless communication facility for which an application is made dudng the term of this
Chapter must first receive final approval of a conditional use permit in accordance with Section
17.04.030 of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. As a condition of issuanco of a conditional
use permit for a facility utilizing the public right-of-way, an applicant may be required to enter into a
franchise agreement with the City.
Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Sections 17. 26. 080 - 17. 26. 1 O0
Section 17.26.080 - Variance.
Any person may apply for a variance as to the requirements set forth herein pursuant to Section
17.04.040 of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code.
Section 17.26.090 - Revocation.
Any approval granted pursuant to this Chapter may, after notice and hearing, be terminated for
violation of any provisions of this Chapter or any other applicable laws, or for fraud or
misrepresentation in the application process.
Section 17.26.100 - Abandonment.
A wireless communication facility is considered abandoned and shall be promptly removed as
provided herein if it ceases to provide wireless communication services for 180 or more days.
Such removal shall be in accordance with proper health and safety requirements and all
ordinances, rules, and regulations of the City.
A written notice of the determination of abandonment shall be sent by first class mail, or
personally delivered, to the operator of the wireless communication facility at said operator's
business address on file with the City. The operator shall remove all facilities within 30 days
of the date of such notice unless, within 10 business day of the date of said notice, the operator
appeals such determination, in writing, to the Planning Commission. The City Planner shall
schedule a hearing on the matter to be conducted before the Planning Commission at which
time the operator may present any relevant evidence on the issue of abandonment. The
Planning Commission may affirm, reverse, or modify with or without conditions the original
determination of abandonment and shall make written findings in support of its decision. The
decision of the Planning Commission shall be final.
Any wireless communications facility determined to be abandoned and not removed within the
30 day period from the date of notice, or where an appeal has been timely filed, within such time
as prescribed by the Planning Commission following its final determination of abandonment,
shall be in violation of this Chapter, and the operator of such facility shall be subject to the
penalties prescribed herein. Facilities determined to be abandoned and not removed within the
time limits prescribed herein hereby are deemed to be a nuisance and, alternative to the
procedure described above, may be abated as a nuisance in any manner provided by law.
(Ordinance 570, 2/97)
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF DEVELOPMENTCODEAMENDMENT 99-01, A REQUESTTOAMEND
CHAPTER 17.26 OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING TO
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for Development Code
Amendment No. 99-01, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution,
the subject Development Code Amendment is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 14th day of Apdl 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said
headng on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, '
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2o Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above-
referenced public hearing on April 14, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located within the City; and
b~ The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan
and will provide for development within the distdct in a manner consistent with the General Plan
and with related development. The amendment will offer greater siting opportunities for wireless
communication facilities by allowing locations on utility towere, light poles, and additional stealth
facilities to minimize skyline clutteF, and
and
b. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Development Code;
c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The amendment allows
for improved service coverage within the City in a manner which is less obtrusive and visually
obstructive to the community; and /LT/~:;~
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
'DCA 99-01-CITYOFRANCHO CUCAMONGA
Apd114,1999
Page 2
d. The su~ect application is consistent with ~e objectives ofthe Development
Code;and
e. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the Gene.ral Plan.
4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been prepared and reviewed in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality ACt of 1970, as amended, and the
Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and further, specifically finds that based upon substantial
evidence, it can be seen with certainty that them is no possibility that the proposed amendment
will have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed amendment is
exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061 (b)(3).
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paregraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby recommends approval of Development Code Amendment No. 99-01 as
shown in Exhibit "C'~ of the staff report.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF APRIL 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Lan'y T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary
I, Dan Coleman, Acting 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 14th day of April 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAN1ONGA '
STAFF RF, PORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
April 14, 1999
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Dan Coleman, Pdncipal Planner
Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner
APPEAL OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-27 - An appeal of the City Planners
decision regarding the approval of a 3,283 square foot single family residence in the
Very Low Residential Distdct (up to 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north
side of Vicara Ddve, east of Sapphire Street -APN: 1061-141-47.
ABSTRACT: The appellants, residents north of the project site, are appealing the City Planners
decision regarding the approval of Development Review 98-27.
BACKGROUND: On February 18, 1999, Mr. Bob Dewer and Mrs. Brenda Bell, both residents north
of the project site, came to the City and inquired about the project. They raised concems about the
height of the proposed single family home and the drainage on the local feeder trail between their
property and the project site (see Exhibit "D"). Staff reviewed the design parameters of the project
and explained that the project was in compliance with provisions of the Development Code and the
Hillside Development regulations.
On Maroh 9, 1999, the City Planner approved Development Review 98-27 for the construction of
a 3,283 square foot single family residence. Based on the findings that the project complied with
the applicable provisions of the Development Code and Hillside Development regulations, the
project was approved. On March 18, 1999, the Planning Division received a letter from the
appellants, appealing the City Planner's decision regarding the approval of Development Review
98-27.
ANALYSIS: The appellants express concern with the following:
ChanQe from the od<3inal orooosah The appellants state that the project design is different
from the "original proposal." However, staff has only received one design proposal for the
project. It is unclear what the appellants mean by the "original proposal."
View BlockaGe: The City does not have a view preservation ordinance. The building
envelope for the proposed single family residence is in compliance with the Hillside
Development Ordnance. The structure will not exceed the allowable maximum height of
30 feet and is well within the required building envelope (see Exhibit "E"). All the homes on
the north side of Vicara Ddve are two-story; both adjacent lots to the east and west are two-
story. Further, the proposed pad elevation of 2,048 feet above sea level is approximately 20
feet below the pad elevations of the residents to the north.
ITEM I
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 98-27-APPEAL
Apd114,1999
Page 2
Size of House: The maximum lot coverage~ in the Very Low Residential Distdct is 25 percent.
Based on the total lot covered area of 2,738 square feet for the single family home, on a
20,160 square foot lot, the proposed lot coverage is 13.5 percent, appreximateiy one-half of
that allowed. As a result, the proposed setbacks from all property lines are much greater than
Code requirements (see Exhibit "E").
Gradina/Dreina<3e: The project was approved with conditions by the Grading Committee on
March 2, 1999. The proposed project will drain south onto Vicare Ddve. When Parcel Map
No. 15027 was recorded in September 1997, a drainage acceptance note was placed on the
map, which stated that drainage from adjoining parcels will continue until each parcel is
developed. At the time of development a Grading Plan for each parcel would address the
drainage. The applicant has complied with the provisions placed on the recorded Parcel Map.
The proposed project will still continue to accept drainage from the adjoining parcels to the
north. The appellants have raised concams about the drainage on the local feeder trail on the
north side of the project site. The grading of the trail is not completed. Staff has also
observed that illegally dumped construction debds along the feeder trail and overgrown
vegetation has affected proper drainage (see Exhibit "D").
Access: The City cannot forca the applicant or give permission for the use of the feeder trail
to the residents. north of the project site. The local feeder trail is a pdvately owned easement
recorded with Parcel Map No. 15207 and reserved for future owners (see Exhibit "G").
Therefore, permission to access the trail must be given by the owners of Parcels 1-4 of Parcel
Map No.15207. The appellants have not submitted any documentation of access dghts over
the subject property.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the City Planner's
decision approving Development Review 98-27, and deny the appeal through adoption of the
attached Resolution.
Dan Coleman
Pdncipal Planner
DC:RZ:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit"A"- Appellants Apbeal Letter
Exhibit "B" - Vicinity Map
Exhibit "C" - Site Plan
Exhibit "D" - Residents Meeting Notes dated February 19, 1999
Exhibit "E" ~ Building Envelope and Topography Map
Exhibit "F" - Elevations
Exhibit "G" - Parcel Map 15027
Resolution of Approval
~Lot coverage means the area of a lot covered by buildings including eaves, projecting
balconies, and similar features but excluding ground level paving, landscaping, and open
recreational facilities.
March 18, 1999
RECEIVED
The City Of Rancho Cucamonga
Community Development Planning Division
Brad Bullet-City Planner
8408 Rochester Ave.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
MAR 18 1999
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Ptanning Division
RE: The Proposed Construction on Vicara (DR 98-27)
Attention: Mr. Brad Buller
As per your letter dated March 8, 1999, Subject: Development Review 98-27 sent to Mr.
Anderson, a copy was sent to several home-owners within the area explaining this project
was in the final stages. Atter reviewing the plans for this project, several home-owners
have some objections as to the type, size and change from the original proposal.
Mr. Chris Real, 8327 La Senda has been in contact with you within the last 18-months
in-regards to the View Blockage. Size of House to Properly Ratio. Water Drainage and
Rear Properly Access. An inspection of the properly and review of the plans to see if they
were modified from the original proposal were to be done by your office. As to this date
there has never been any response to this request.
As Concerne~ I!ome-Owners and Tax-Payers we are Appealing this Constr. itcti~l
Pro_ieCLantLare Requesting a lienring as to the followingitems: Change from the
Original_Er. llposld, View Blo. ekage. Size of I!ouse to Prop_elly_Rltiolor Conforming
Size of !louse to I/2 Acre !lorse Property). Challge_.of Ele. xltieRiozfinal
Construction. Water Drainage(including bridle trail) and Rear Properly Access
Thank you for your time and consideration. We are looking forward as to the date set for
this appeal and hearing for this construction project.
Sincerely,
Concerned Home-Owners & Tax-Payers
(Attached is a List of Home-Owners appealing this project DR 98-27 )
I,IST OF HOME-OWNERS
Mr. & Mrs. Christopher Real
8327 La Senda, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
Mr. & Mrs Curtis Bell
8317 La Senda, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
Mr. & Mrs Kent Wright
8331 La Senda, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
Mr. & Mrs Robert Dewar
8321 La Senda, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9170 I
Mr. & Mrs. Tomi Bortolazzo
8313 La Senda, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
Mr. & Mrs. Warren Gi!lespie
8316 La Senda, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
VICINITYMAp
~ HILLSIDE ST.
19 TH STREET m
BASE LINE ROAD
1-10 FREEWAY
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Vicinity Map
PLOT PLAN /~RADING I~,AN
~..~.. o- $
I. IGIHc;
Horse Trail Notes, etc - February 19, 1999
A Bob Dewar (8321 La Senda Road) and a Brenda Bell (8317 La Senda Road) came to public
counter this morning. They complained about work Mr. Anderson has done in the horse trail on
the south side of their properties (Anderson has built a hillside SFD's on north side of Vicara).
They claim that the trail does not drain properly and that Ms Bell is unable to open her gate onto
the trail. They also feel that the new home currently in Hillside Development Review (DR 98-
27) will block their view. The intend to file an appeal of the pending City Planner approval to the
Planning Commission. They claim that an appraiser told them they have a "view premium" on
their lots and that construction of the Anderson home will block their views. I told them that the
home is being proposed consistent with City requirements and that the City does not have a view
preservation ordinance. They said they would appeal anyway.
I called Mr. Anderson immediately after talking to Dewar and Bell. He said that Mr. Dewar has
dumped at least a pick up truck load full of construction debris on the horse trail which appears
to Anderson to be causing the drainage problems. Mr. Anderson is not yet done grading the trail
and he is certain drainage will work fine once he's done. He also said he would work with Ms
Bell to make sure here gate opened properly. He said that Ms Bell does not use the trail for a
horse, she uses it as a driveway to put an RV trailer in her rear yard. I told him this is contrary to
the intent of private equestrian easements and that she should not be using the trial for anything
other than horse related activity. She does not store a horse on her property.
Brent
;,px,u. SECT,oN ./o/' Cau, c.,~6r. /..~.S",~
r:'zo'-o"
/.st' F/,,,A /,r,s"o ~c~.
/ '(,/~i~Z ..... "x ~fl,qK-,46,~ 9~'7 5~ ~4..
~ 4s°/r c~'e"~or~x'~~s* ~ p,,/ge,///?~1 s'~' ~'
STF~EEI ELEVATION'
f-**~o'*o
..BUILDING ' ENvELOpE SECTK~N / ELEVATIONS
V~CAP, A sT, PARCEL 4
RAHCI-IO CuCAHONGA. CA
X
%
.-~ Ox
X
X
X
2075,2
2058.4
X
O X
X 206g.2c
X
X
I
I
(
2033
/ROOl II~K
' ~ |gILLIt - pareI HHilI
R.s, r^u^(e I:) .,-' .'
,- :fiUCCO el'sIp
· I / ' ~opl~ rJ/~ .....
ov(~ 2
;
,:
"'%L EL~iJ|~SiD£
tF-_E.]. s,on
'#:1"' i* O'
\\
\
I
'4 PARC~
Z. 447 Ac GROSS
PARCEL I~P NO. 15027
IN THE CITY OF .RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CO{)KTY O,F SAN BERN. IRDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
~ SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP N0.334;, AS PER MAP litCORDED IN BOOK33
OF PARCEL MAP.S, PAGES 61 AND 62, RECORDS OF SAN ~RNARDINO COI)NTY, .C~LIFOtINIA
~ SEPTEMBER. 11~7
~t~ ~'t'f'/~:""';;~" ~ -raaC'r Na~ a . ,.t z I 3~;n ~.~{ -Y,':'~ ·
PARCEL
, kj'~ ,..,, -..~,- ,,,- ........
'k.
.. ,.,,,,'
, ~;. ~_..u'.'." ",,cARA""""""...'.--'~ .Rn'E
.
~,~f,Z,,~,-,,,,.,.. -,--~""'
T l fill ~J29a "'L "
f -q:,
· blB IT;J I 33 °~4 : :,,
......
~. ::.';'...:::.,:i'..4;':.': .... ...,.
SURVEYORS NOTES
PARCEL MAP NO. 15027
IN THE Cl'h' OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A SUBDM SION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 3342 AS PER MAP
RECORDED IN BOOK 33, PAGES 61 AND 62:. OF PARCEL MAPS
RECORDS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SEPTEMBER. 1997.
OWNER'S STATEMENT
WE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT WE ARE ALL AND THE ONLY
PARTIES HAVING ANY RECORD TITLE INTEREST IN THE LAND
SUBDIVIDED AS SHOWN ON THE ANNEXED MAP, AND WE
HEREBY DEDICATE TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
FOR PUBLIC USE 'VICARA DRIVE, AN 'EASEMENT FOR
STREET, HIGHWAY AND RELATED PURPOSES, AS SHOWN
ON THE MAP.
WE ALSO HEREBY RESERVE UNTO OUR HEIRS AND ASSIGNS
AND THE FUTURE OWNERS OF THE LOTS HEREIN AFFECTED
THAT CERTAIN PRIVATE EQUESTRIAN TRAIL EASEMENTS,
AS SHOWN UPON THE ANNEXED MAP,
un/a aar ~/~ aM aaf/~,9 ~rd Ma~ Oamar~ o; tt~ /ot~
,4nd~r~on
NOTARY
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~
COU,NTY OF SAN BERNARDIN,O~ SS:
ON '~ ,. : , ' -, '- ,BEFORE ME,
DIrD~r~i, dAI ~ v ADD~:'AD~'F'~ t r~/'~kl AkI~'~E"DCr'%kl
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW 98-27, AND DENYING THE APPEAL THEREOF, REGARDING
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 3,283 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF VICARA DRIVE, EAST OF SAPPHIRE STREET
AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1061-141-47.
A. Recitals.
1. On November 11, 1998, Don Anderson filed an application for the approval of
Development Review 98-27, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Development Review 98-27 request is referred to as "the application."
2. On March 9, 1999, the City Planner appmved DevelOpment Review 98-27, by letter of
March 9, 1999, for the construction of a 3,283 square foot single family residence.
3. The decision represented by said letter from the City Planner to the applicant was
timely appealed by residents north of the project site.
4. On the 14th day of Apdl 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the appeal of the application's approval.
5. 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 April 14, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission
hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property zoned Very Low Residential located on the
north side of Vicara Drive, east of Sapphire Street, on Lot 4 of Parcel Map 15027, and is rough
graded. The surrounding properties are existing two-story single family residences. The
appellants all live uphill and to the north of the subject property; and
b. The application proposes to construct a two-story single family residence with
front sethack of 47.5 feet from curb face on Vicara Ddve, a roar setback of 63.5 feet from north
property line, a setback of 40 feet from west intedor property line, and a setback of 35 feet from
the east property line. The Development Code requires a 42*foot front setback, a 30-foot rear
setback, and 10- and 15-foot intedor side setbacks; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-27 - ANDERSON
Apdl 14, 1999
Page 2
c. The application proposes a structure with a height of 28.5 feet which is consistent
with the 30-foot height limitation for hillside areas. The proposed house design features a gable
roof with ddge line running perpendicular to the street from the front to the. rear of the house,
which further diminishes the height of the structure as the roof slopes away from the ridge line to
the sides of the house. The easternmost portion of the house is proposed as one-story, which
further reduces the mass of the house as viewed from surrounding properties; and
d. The proposed pad elevation of 2,048 feet is approximately 20 feet below the pad
elevations of the residences to the north; hence, the majodty of the proposed house is below the
pad grade of the appellants' homes. Further, the proposed pad grade is consistent with the
existing grade of the subject property; and
e. The proposed lot coverage of 13.5 percent will not exceed the 25 percent
maximum lot coverage allowed in the Very Low Residential District based on the total lot covered
area of 2,738 square feet on a 20,160 square foot lot; and
f. The proposed Conceptual Grading Plan is in compliance with Hillside
Development Regulations and was approved with conditions by the Grading Committee on
March 2, 1999. The proposed project will drain south onto Vicare Drive and will continue to accept
drainage from the adjoining parcels to the north, as noted on the recorded Parcel Map No. 15027;
and
g. The application includes completion of improvements for the private equestrian
easement located at the rear of the subject property; and
h. No evidence was presented by the appellants to document view or access dghts
overthe subject property, norwas any evidence presented indicating that the proposed structure
would block the appellants views.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above
referenced meeting of April 14, 1999, and upon the specific findings of fact set forth above, this
Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the proposed project is consistent with 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 use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not
be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth above, this Commission hereby
upholds the City Planners decision approving Development Review 98-27 subject to the
conditions as set forth in the City Planner's letter of March 9, 1999.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-27
April 14, 1999
Page 3
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF APRIL 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary
I, Dan Coleman, Acting 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 the14th day of April 1999 by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
Apd114, 1999
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Rick Gomez, Community Development Director
Brad Buller, City Planner
Larry Henderson, AICP, Principal Planner
Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT POLICY
DISCUSSION: Dudng the General Plan update process, consultants will be gathering information
about the community and analyzing potential altematives and their anticipated impacts. This work,
at some point, must be able to develop a preferred alternative for the General Plan Update.
Developer initiated General Plan Amendments (GPA) can significantly impact the review and
approval process. If these amendments are considered dudng the General Plan Update they would
complicate and fragment the consultant's work products.
Attached is a listing of those amendments which are in process and those that staff anticipates may
be filed in the near future (Exhibit "A").
Staff recommends that the City consider establishing a policy regarding General Plan Land Use
Amendment requests dudng the update process from the following options:
Continue to allow GPA applications to proceed as normally scheduled dudng the City's
established GPA cycles. Presently the City has established regularly scheduled cycles for
GPA review and action as follows:
The 2nd meeting of the Planning Commission in the month of January. The
deadline for submittal shall be no later than 5:00 p.m., November 15, of the
preceding year.
The 2nd meeting of the Planning Commission in the month of May. The
deadline for submittal shall be no later than 5:00 p.m., March 15, of the same
year.
The 2nd meeting of the Planning Commission in the month of September.
The deadline for submittal shall be not later than 5:00 p.m., July 15, of the
preceding year.
One floating date which may be scheduled as necessary by the City Council
or Planning Commission.
ITEM J
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA POLICY
April 14, 1999
Page 2
Establish a city-wide moratorium on all GPAs dudng the entire update process as established
by State law.
3. Establish a site specific moratorium on GPAs during the entire update process as established
by State law.
Establish a site specific and acreage limitation (10 acres) moratorium on GPAs during the
entire update process as established by State law.
Establish a city-wide moratorium on all GPAs until an intedm General Plan update is endorsed
by the City and then allow those GPAs which are consistent with the Draft General Plan to
proceed through the amendment process. GPA requests that are not consistent would be
denied without prejudice to reapply after the General Plan is formally adopted. The consultant
expects to have a draft General Plan ready for City consideration by mid September 1999.
In addition to Nos. 2 through 5, a deadline for land use amendments requested for
consideration within the General Plan update process should be establish'ed. Such a policy
may allow for some land use questions to be included and analyzed in the draft General Plan
altematives. Staff recommends a deadline of May 12, 1999, for such proposals and requiring
the payment of the established GPA fee plus a consultant time and material fee to cover
added General Plan update costs due to expanded analysis by the consultant. The resultant
analysis would be used in formulating alternative land use plan(s).
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission select from Options No. 2
through 6. Staff prefers Option No. 3, and secondly Option No. 6. Option No. I could easily
complicate the process of updating the General Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Brari Buller
City Planner
BB:AW/mlg
Attachment:: Exhibit "A" - Pending and Proposed GPA Applications
PENDING AND PROPOSED GPA APPLICATIONS
(Refer to attached map for locations)
Presently there are three GPA's in progress as follows:
GPA 99-01 (Medium to Low-Medium) at the northeast corner of Highland and Lemon
Avenues has been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and is
scheduled for City Council consideration on April 21. 1999.
GPA 99-02 (Low to Low-Medium) for 5.1 acres at the southeast comer of 19th Street and
Hermosa Avenue is to be considered by the Planning Commission on May 12, 1999.
GPA 98-02 (Medium, Medium-High and Regionally Related Commercial to Low-Medium)
for 192 acres north of the Victoda Mall site is tentatively scheduled to be forwarded to the
Planning Commission in mid-June 1999.
These three projects will easily fit into the consultant's draft General Plan and their inclusion should
not create any significant difficulties.
Staff has had discussion with development representatives on potential GPA applications at the
following locations:
Office to Commercial at the northwest intersection of Haven Avenue and the Route 30
freeway.
Low-Medium to Commercial at the southeast comer of Haven Avenue and the Route 30
freeway.
Medium to Low-Medium east of the future Day Creek Boulevard on the north side of Base
Line Road.
Medium to Low-Medium at the southwest intersection of East Avenue and the I-15 Freeway
and Low-Medium to Medium between Etiwanda and East Avenues, north of the commercial
land on the north side of Foothill Boulevard.
Low-Medium to Commercial or Office for land adjacent to the 1-15 Freeway, north of the
commercial land on the north side of Foothill Boulevard.
Industrial Park to Low-Medium for about 18 acres south of the intersection of 6th Street and
Archibald Avenue adjacent to the existing Gdffin residential development.
10.
Industrial Park to Residential for land around the golf course at the northwest comer of
4th Street and Milliken Avenue.
These projects may cause significant difficulties depending on when they are formally submitted.
The next Planning Commission GPA cycle is for September 22, 1999 (filing deadline is July 15,
1999), which is after the anticipated completion of the draft General Plan.
EXHIBIT "A"
Pending and Proposed GPA Applications