HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/05/12 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY
MAY 12, 1999
7:00 PM
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chamber
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Chairman McNiel __
Vice Chairman Macias __
Com. Mannerino __ Com. Stewart __ Com. Tolstoy __
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
April 28, 1999
Adjourned Meeting of April 28, 1999
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.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
98-33 - RYLAND HOMES -The design review of building elevations
and detailed site plan for previously approved Tentative Tract 15798,
consisting of 45 lots on 19.26 acres of land in the Low Residential
District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan,
located west of the I-15 Freeway on the south side of Highland Avenue
- APN: 227-071-32. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
99-10 - BUTLER - A request to construct a 72,051 square foot
warehouse building on 4.4 acres of land in Subarea 8 (General
Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the west side
of White Oak Avenue between Arrow Route and Jersey Boulevard ~
APN: 209-144-27. Related file: Preliminary Review 98-16. Staff has
prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for
consideration.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-14 - PREMIER HOMES: A request to
revise the previously approved design review for 77 of the 191 single
family lots in Tentative Tract 15814 to provide a different architectural
product on Lots 115 through 191 in the southern podion of the tract,
located on 18 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8
dwelling units per acre) within the Victoria Vineyards of the Victoria
Community Plan, located on the southwest corner of Highland and
Rochester Avenues - APN: 227-011-09 and 13.
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. All such opinions
shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after
speaking.
D=
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 99-07 - SPERR AND ASSOCIATES - A request to modify a
previously approved master plan and construct a 16,747 square foot
drug store with a drive-thru on a 2.86 acre parcel in the Central Park
Plaza within the Neighborhood Commercial District of the Terra Vista
Community Plan, located on the southwest comer of Base Line Road
and Ellena West - APN: 227-182-10. Related file: Conditional Use
Permit 89-18. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
15692 - PRUTTING -A subdivision of 4.75 acres of land into 4 parcels
in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre),
located on the west side of Hellman Avenue, south of Hillside Road -
APN: 1061-611-02. Staff has prepared an Environmental Notice of
Exemption for consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 99-02 - CURRY BRANDAW ARCHITECTS - An
application to change the General Plan land use designation from Low
Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-
8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 5.1 acres of land located
on the southeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and 19th Street -
Page 2
APN: 1076-111-09. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration. (TO BE CONTINUED TO
MAY 26, 1999)
ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTAND DEVELOPMENTDISTRICT
AMENDMENT 99-02 - CURRY BRANDAW ARCHITECTS - An
application to change the Development District zoning designation
from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium
Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 5.1 acres of
land located on the southeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and 19th
Street - APN: 1076-111-09. Staff has prepared a Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. (TO BE
CONTINUED TO MAY 26, 1999)
VI. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
APPEAL OFASIGN REQUESTWITHIN UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM
NO. 134 - FUNCOLAND -An appeal of the City Planner's decision
regarding a wall sign for Funcoland, a retail store within the Terra
Vista Towne Center in the Community Commercial District of the Terra
Vista Community Plan, located at 10730 Foothill Boulevard, Suite #140
APN: 1077-421-75.
I. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT POLICY
VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place forthe general public to address the Commission. Items
to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda.
VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS
IX. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an
11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only
with the consent of the Commission.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ADJOURN TO A
WORKSHOP IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING IN THE RAINS
ROOM TO DISCUSS PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 99-04.
THAT MEETING WILL ADJOURN TO 5:00 P.M. ON MAY 26,
f999, FOR A FIELD TRIP TO VIEW RECENTL Y COMPLETED
PROJECTS WITH RESPECT TO DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE PROCESSING. THE TOUR WILL LEA VE FROM
THE PLANNING DIVISION CONFERENCE ROOM.
Page 3
I, Gaff Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby cefiify that a true, accurate copy
of the foregoing agenda was posted on May 6, 1999, at least 72 hours
prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500
Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga.
VICINITY MAP
"k CITY HALL
Page 4
(' CITY OF RANCHO CUCA~IONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
May 12, 1999
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-33 -
RYLAND HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan
of previously approved Tentative Tract 15798, consisting of 45 lots on 19.26 acres
of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda
Specific Plan located west of the 1-15 Freeway on the south side of Highland
Avenue. APN: 227-071-32
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
Backqround: The Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract 15798 on July 23, 1997,
for 45 single family lots. The current request is for a Design Review of the homes, grading,
and landscaping.
B. Project Density: 2.3 lots per acre
Surroundincl Land Use and Zoninq:
Noah - HighlandAvenue(futureRoute30Freeway)andvacantland;Very-LowResidential
(less than 2 dwelling units per acre)
South - County Flood Control basin; Open Space
East Single family homes, vacant land, and the 1-15 Freeway; Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre)
Single family homes (Tract 13063) and City drainage channel; Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre)
West
General Plan Desiqnations:
Project Site - Low Residential
Noah Very-Low Residential
South - Flood Control
East Low Residential
West Flood Control and Low Residential
Site Characteristics: The 19.26 acre site is vacant and slopes gently from noah to south at
approximately 2 to 3 percent. The site is directly east of an existing single family tract
developed by Citation Homes. Highland Avenue is proposed to be realigned along the project
frontage to accommodate the Route 30 Freeway on the north side of Highland Avenue. The
site contains several large Eucalyptus trees which appear to be remnant windrows and are
required to be replaced.
ITEM A
Y
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 98-33 - Ryland Homes
May 12, 1999
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
General: Four home plans are proposed, one single story and three two-story. The homes
range in size from 2,566 square feet to 3,558 square feet. Plan 4 has a specially designed
wide-shallow floor plan to accommodate the shallow lots along the south side of Smokestone
Place.
A 13.5-foot high sound wall (or combination wall/berm as proposed by applicant) is required
along the northern tract boundary to reduce future freeway noise to acceptable levels. A 4-
to 6-foot high retaining wall is proposed along the south project boundary to accommodate the
grade of the site. This wall will have a fence wall above for an overall height of up to 11 feet
(6 feet of retaining with 5 feet of fence walt). This wall will be directly visible from the 1-15
Freeway as the south tract boundary borders a Flood Control basin. A similar combination
retaining wall/fence wail is proposed on the west side of Lot 38, which is adjacent to a
drainage channel with single family homes further to the west. The Design Review Committee
requested vine planrings to mitigate the appearance of the walls.
Desicln Review Committee: The Committee (Stewart, Henderson) reviewed the project on
April 20, 1999. and requested that the project be revised and brought back for further review.
The Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Henderson) reviewed the revised project on May 4, 1999,
and recommend approval with conditions. See attached Design Review Committee Action
Agendas.
Technical and GradinQ Review Committees: The project was reviewed by both Committees
and, together with the recommended conditions of approval, determined to be in conformance
with the applicable standards and ordinances.
Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant.
Staff completed Part II of the Initial Study, the Environmental Checklist and identified potential
environmental impacts as follows:
The site is subject to excessive future noise levels associated with the Route 30
Freeway. A noise study was conducted for the Tentative Tract Map which
recommended a 13.5-foot high sound wall or combination berm/wall along the northern
edge of the site in order to reduce on-site noise levels to an acceptable level. The
applicant's Grading Plan includes such a berm/wall combination.
The site is located in an "undetermined but possible flood hazard area" per the Federal
Insurance Rate Map. A Drainage Report was conducted which identified quantities of
water that may drain to the site and methods for handling the flows.
Highland Avenue is planned by Caltrans to be replaced with an emergency-only access
route in association with the Route 30 Freeway construction. This would eliminate full
secondary access for the proposed tract. The project includes reconstruction of
Highland Avenue from East Avenue through the frontage of the subject site after
completion of the freeway. Also, signalization and line-of-sight corrections at the future
Highland Avenue/East Avenue are necessary to mitigate potential traffic conflicts.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 98-33 - Ryland Homes
May12,1999
Page 3
An Arborist's Report was conducted and found that none of the trees are worthy of
preservation. The Etiwanda Specific Plan allows removal of Eucalyptus windrows with
replacement planting with minimum 5-gallon Spotted Gum Eucalyptus trees.
Staff believes that the project will not have a significant impact on air quality: however, a letter
was received from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQM D) commenting that
an analysis of emissions is necessary to address air quality impacts associated with the
project (see copy attached to Initial Study Pad II). Staff's response to the South Coast Air
Quality Management District is that their Air Quality Management Plan accounts for the
existing land use designations in its programs. The proposed Development Review proposes
construction of 45 single family homes consistent with the existing land use designation for
the property. The subject property is zoned Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre)
by the Etiwanda Specific Plan which was adopted on July 6, 1983. Also, according to Table
6-2 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the threshold of single family homes that could cause
a potential air quality im'pact is 166 homes. Therefore, no increase in air quality impacts is
expected from the project. The above identified potential impacts require mitigation measures
as conditions of approval, which have been included in the attached Resolution; therefore,
staff recommends the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Environmental
Assessment and Development Review 98-33 through adoption of the attached Resolution of
Approval with Conditions and the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
City Planner
BB:BLC:Is
Attachments:
Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"
Exhibit "C"
Exhibit "D"
Exhibit "E"
Exhibit "F"
Exhibit "G"
Exhibit "l"
Site Utilization Map
Site Plan
- Grading Plan
- Landscape Plan
- Floor Plans
- Elevations
- Initial Study
Design Review Committee Action Agendas
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
t
VF~rIY LOW (1~2 DUS/AC) i ~
1
STARLIGHT RIDGE
RYLAND HOMES
SEE SHEET NO. 3
a~Z m~,~
SEE
SHEET
NO. 2
TYPICAL FRONT YARD LANI)SCAI'I.Z
PLANT LEGEND
~NDSGAPE P~N
OPT. BEDROOM 5
STARLIGHT RIDGE
RYLAND HOMES
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA,
FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 1
46~/3BA
2566 S~.
OPT. BEDROOM 4 & 5
STARLIGHT RIDGE
RYLAND HOMES
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA,
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2
4BR/3BA
3093 S.F,
A
SECOND FLOOR PLAN A
PLAN 2
4BR/3BA
3093 S.F.
STARLIGHT RIDGE
RYLAND HOMES
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA,
STARLIGHT
RYLAND
RANCHO
HOMES
CUCAMONGA,
CA,
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2'1 .NS~OE>
4BR/3BA
3093 S.F.
STARLIGHT RIDGE
RYLAND HOMES
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA.
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2'1 IINS~DE>
48R/3BA
3093 9.F.
A
BEDROOM 5 OPTION
STARLIGHT RIDGE
RYLAND HOMES
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA,
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2-O~OUTs~DE>I
,RR/3DX
3093 $,F,
STARLIGHT RIDGE
RYLAND HOMES
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA,
SECOND FLOOR PLAN A
PLAN 2-O{OUTSIDE)
4BRI38A
3093 S.F.
~TAIzlLIC~HT FIID(~E
RYLAND HOMES
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA,
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 3
5BR/3BA
3558 S.F.
3
STARLIGHT RIDGE
RYLAND HOMES
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA,
SECONO FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 3
5BRI3BA
3558 S.F.
STAF::ILI(~HT I::IIDGF
I:::IYLAINID
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA.
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 3'0 ~OUTStDE~
5BR/3BA
3558 S.F.
STARLIGHT RIDGE
RYLAND HOMES
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA,
..... J
~EC~OND FLOOR PLAN 3
PLAN 3'O ~ou~slo~
5BR/38A
3558 S.F.
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
ALTERNATE GARAGE
PLAN 4
58R/2.5BA
3300 S.F,
PLAN 4'0 (OUTSIDE)
STARLIGHT RIDGE
RYLAND HOMES
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA,
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 4
5BR/2.5BA
3300 S.F.
W/ALTERNATE GARAGE
PLAN 4-0
STARLIGHT RIDGE
RYLAND HOMES
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA,
pLAN I
STARLIGHT RIDGE
RYLAND HOMES
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA,
REAR"'
..... 1A
ROOF PLAN 1A
RIGHT
PLAN I
STARLIGHT RIDGE
RYLAND liOMES
RANClIO CUCAMONGA,
COUNTRY TRADITIONAL
2A HEARTLAND
SANTA BARBARA
PLAN 2
STARLIGHT RIDGE
RYLAND HOMES
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA,
SANTA BARBARA 2C CRAFTSMAN 2D
PLAN 2-1 & 2-0
STARLIGHT RIDGE
RYLAND HOMES
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA,
LEFT ELEVATION 2B REAR ELEVATION 2B
ROOF PLAN B
;~, ,
STARLIGHT RIDGE
RYLAND HOMES
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA,
RIGHT ELEVATION 2B
PLAN 2 (PLAN 2-1 & 2'0 SIMILAR)
C,~O,UN~TRY TRADITIONAL ..... 3A HEARTLAND ~""""'"' ~"=~ ' 3B '
' ~-'~ / / ,.// .... -':-- "
SANTA BARBARA 3C CRAFTSMAN
PLAN 3
STARLIGHT RIDGE
RYLAND HOMES
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA,
COUNTRY TRADITIONAL 3A HEARTLAND 3B
PLAN 3-0
STARLIGHT RIDGE
RYLAND HOMES
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA,
ROOF PLAN 3C
PLAN 3 (PLAN 3-0 SIMILAR)
STARLIGHT RIDGE
RYLAND !4OMES
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA,
COUNTRY TRADITION '~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ 4A HEARTLAND "~ ~ 4B
PLAN 4 PLAN 4-0
STARLIGHT RIDGE
RYLAND liOMES
RANClIO CUCAMONGA, CA.
REAR 4D
ROOF PLAN 4D
STARLIGHT RIDGE
RYLAND HOMES
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA,
RIGHT 4D
PLAN 4 iPLA. 4-o S~M~LaR~
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: Development Review 98-33
2. Related Files: Tentative Tract 15798
Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW 98-33 - RYLAND HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed
site plan of previously approved Tentative Tract 15798 consisting of 45 lots on 19.26 acres
of land in the Low Residential District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan located west of the I-15
Freeway on the south side of Highland Avenue - APN: 227-071-32.
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Denise Petersen
Ryland Homes
201 East Sandpoint. Number 100
Santa Ana, CA 92702
5. General Plan Designation: Low Residential
6. Zoning: Etiwanda Specific Plan, Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) District
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Vacant land and future Route 30 Freeway corridor
to the north. vacant land and single family homes to the east, single family homes (Tract
13063) to the west, and a flood control basin to the south.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Brent Le Count. (909) 477-2750
Initial Study for
Development Review 98-33
City of Rancho Cucamonga
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
(V') Water
( ) Air Quality
(v') Transportation/Circulation
(v') Biological Resources
( ) Energy and Mineral Resources
( ) Hazards
(v') Noise
( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance
( ) Public Services
( ) 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 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
April 20, 1999
Initial Study for
Development Review 98-33
City of Rancho Cucamonga
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
a)
b)
c)
d)
USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v")
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
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?
() () () (v)
() () ()
() () () (v)
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in
or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?
b) Seismic ground shaking?
() () () (v)
() () () (v)
· Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-33 Page 4
c)
d)
e)
0
g)
h)
i)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
Seiche hazards?
Landslides or mudflows?
Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
Subsidence of the land?
Expansive soils?
Unique geologic or physical features?
()
()
()
()
()
()
( ) (v)
( ) (v)
( ) (v)
() () (v) ()
() () () (v)
() () () (v)
() () () (v)
Comments:
0
The site will be graded/topography altered to accommodate the building pads for
eventual home construction and roads. The grading will be conducted under the
supervision of a licensed surveyor or registered geologist to ensure compliance with
Building Code requirements.
WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
b)
c)
d)
g)
h)
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding?
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?
() () (v) ()
() (v) 0 ()
() ()
() ()
()
()
()
(}
(v)
(v)
(v)
(v)
(v)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-33 Page 5
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies?
) () () (Y)
Comments:
a)
The absorption rate will be altered because of the pawng and hard scape proposed.
All waters will be conveyed to approved drainage facilities which have been
designed to handle the flows.
b)
The site is located in a Flood Zone 'D' designation, undetermjned but possibly a
flood hazard, on the Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The Preliminary Drainage
Repod (Webb, March 24,1997) addressed the project drainage assuming that the
Route 30 Freeway would be constructed prior to development of this tract. After
freeway construction, approximately 2.3 acres will continue to drain to the
subject property. Drainage shall be conveyed in a 24-inch pipe to Mulberry
Street and will be carried overland in the street to the south. This drainage
shall be collected by catch basins and shall be conveyed in pipes to the
existing Victoria Basin immediately south of the tract. If the tract development
precedes the freeway construction, further drainage studies shall be
necessary to mitigate any potential flood hazard due to a possible breakout
of the Etiwanda Spreading Grounds levee. The final drainage report shall be
approved prior to final map approval.
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate?
Create objectionable odors?
()
()
()
()
(v)
(v)
(v)
(v)
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
() (v) () ()
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-33 Page 6
b)
c)
d)
g)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( )
Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ( )
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( )
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( )
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( )
Rail or air traffic impacts? ( )
()
()
()
()
()
()
(v)
(v)
(v)
(v)
(v)
(v)
Comments:
a)
Highland Avenue is planned by Caltrans to be replaced with an emergency-only
access route in association with the Route 30 Freeway construction. This would
eliminate full secondary access for the proposed tract. The project includes
reconstruction of Highland Avenue from East Avenue through the entire frontage ol'
the site after completion of the Route 30 Freeway. As mitigation, a full street
connection at the intersection of East Avenue and Highland Avenue Is
required, including traffic signal improvements (new or upgrades) and line-of-
sight corrections, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. With the
construction of the Route 30 Freeway, Caltrans is proposing to close the
Highland Avenue access at East Avenue including the removal of the traffic
signal and provide for emergency access only. This development is
responsible to restore and/or upgrade said access. However, if this
development precedes Caltrans Route 30 improvements, a cash deposit in lieu
of construction will be required and necessary temporary improvements
constructed, as determined by the City Engineer and Caltrans.
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.)?
() () () (v)
() (v) () ()
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-33 Page 7
c)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)?
() () () (v)
d)
Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and
vernal pool)?
() () () (v)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
() () () (v)
Comments:
b)
The site contains several large Eucalyptus trees which appear to be remnant
windrows. The Etiwanda Specific Plan allows Eucalyptus windrows to be removed
subject to replacement. As mitigation, existing on-site Eucalyptus windrows
shall be replaced with minimum 5-gallon Spotted Gum Eucalyptus trees
planted 8 feet on center in accordance with Etiwanda Specific Plan.
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?
() () (v)
( ) ( ) (v)
() () (v)
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
b)
c)
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? ( )
() () (v)
() () (v)
() () (v)
Initial Study for
Development Review 98-33
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? ().
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fiammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( )
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 8
() () (v)
() () (v)
10.
NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
() () () (v)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) (V) ( )
Comments:
b) The site is subject to noise levels in excess of 60 Ldn due to proximity to the Route
30 corridor, and in particular, the 1-15 Freeway/Route 30 interchange. A noise study
was prepared during processing of the Tentative Tract Map which indicates that a
13.5-foot high sound wall along the noilh perimeter of the site will reduce freeway
noise to an acceptable level. The project design includes such a noise barrier;
therefore, the impact is considered less than significant.
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)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( )
Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( )
schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-33 Page 9
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)
b)
d)
f)
g)
Power or natural gas?
Communication systems?
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
Sewer or septic tanks?
Storm water drainage?
Solid waste disposal?
Local or regional water supplies?
()
()
()
()
(v)
()
()
(v)
(v)
(v)
(v)
()
(v)
(v)
Comments:
e)
The site is located in a Flood Zone 'D' designation, undetermined but possibly a
flood hazard, on the Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The Preliminary Drainage
Report (Webb, March 24,1997) addressed the project drainage assuming that the
Route 30 Freeway would be constructed prior to development of this tract. After
freeway construction, approximately 2.3 acres will continue to drain to the subject
properly. Drainage will be conveyed in a 24-inch pipe to Mulberry Street and will be
carried overland in the street to the south. This drainage will be collected by catch
basins and will be conveyed in pipes to the existing Victoria Basin, immediately
south of the tract. If the tract development precedes the freeway construction, further
drainage studies will be necessary to mitigate any potential flood hazard due to a
possible breakout of the Etiwanda Spreading Grounds levee. The final drainage
report should be approved prior to final map approval.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal.'
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
() () () (v)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Create light or glare?
() () (v) ()
Comments:
c)
Additional light and glare will be created as a result of the project since the site is
now vacant. Light from street lights and homes will be required to be directed
downward in such a fash:~.a,,2~/not impact other property.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-33 Page 10
14.
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
C)
d)
e)
Disturb paleontological resources?
Disturb archaeological resources?
Affect historical or cultural resources?
Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area?
()
()
()
()
()
(v)
(v)
(v)
(v)
(v)
15.
RECREATION. Would the proposak
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)
b)
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?
Short term: Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one which occurs
in a relatively brief, definitive period of time.
Long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.)
()
()
()
()
()
(v)
(v)
Initial Study for City o~' Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-33 Page 11
c)
d)
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.)
Substantial adverse: Does the project have
environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
() () () (v)
() () () (v)
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in the following earlierdocument(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):
(v)
Etiwanda Specific Plan EIR
(SCH #82061801, certified July 6, 1983)
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES
Item 4.b Flood Hazard
After freeway construction, approximately 2.3 acres will continue to drain to
the subject property. Drainage shall be conveyed in a 24-inch pipe to Mulberry
Street and will be carried overland in the street to the south. This drainage
shall be collected by catch basins and shall be conveyed in pipes to the
existing Victoria Basin immediately south of the tract. If the tract development
precedes the freeway construction, further drainage studies shall be
necessary to mitigate any potential flood hazard due to a possible breakout
of the Etiwanda Spreading Grounds levee. The final drainage report shall be
approved prior to final map approval.
Item 6.a. Traffic Congestion
A full street connection at the intersection of East Avenue and Highland
Avenue Is required, including traffic signal improvements (new or upgrades)
and line-of-sight corrections, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. With the
construction of the Route 30 Freeway, Caltrans is proposing to close the
Highland Avenue access at East Avenue including the removal of the traffic
signal and provide for emergency access only. This development ts
responsible to restore and/or upgrade said access. However, If this
development precedes Caltrans Route 30 improvements, a cash deposit in lieu
of construction will be required and necessary temporary improvements
constructed, as determined,~e City Engineer and Caltrans.
RDR-2~.-1999 11: 15 FROI'I ~ F01'IES TO J. cJ~Dc347Z2E~? P. 03
Initial Study
Development Review 98-33
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 12
Item 7.b. Binlogir.~l Resources
Existing on-site Eucalyptus windrows shall be replaced with minimum 5--cjallon
Spot~d Gum Eucalyl~tu~; tree~ planted 8 feet on center in accordanoe with
Etiwanda Specific Plan.
APPLICANT CERTIFIC,~TION
I certify that I am the appricant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I
have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measuro,s. Furthcr, I havc revi~ed the
project plans or propOSalS and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where dearly no significant environmental effects would
TOT~L P.03
\
RESPONSE TO CONI~MENTS - DEVELOPMENT R,EVIEW 98-33
INITIAL STUDY PART II
A letter was received from the South Coast Air Quality Management District conunenting that an
analysis of emissions is necessary to address air quality impacts associated with the project (see
copy attached, dated April 28, 1999).
Response: The South Coast Air Quality Management District's Air Quality Management Plan
accounts for the existing land use designations in its programs. The proposed Development
Review proposes construction of 45 single fanlily homes consistent with the existing land use
and zoning designation for the property of Low Residential, 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre. The
City's General Plan land use designation for the property was adopted in April 1981. Also,
according to Table 6-2 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, dated November 1993, tile threshold
ofsingle family homes that could cause a potential air quality impact is 166 homes. Therefore,
no increase in air quality impacts is expected from the project.
[ South Coast
Air Quality Managernent
21865 E. Copley Drive. Diamond Bar. CA 9 ~ 765-4182
(909) 396-2000 · http://www.aqmd.gov
District
FAXI~D: APRIL 28, 1999
April 28, 1999
Mr. Brent Le Count, Associate Planner
Planning Division
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Notice of Intent to Adopt Negative Declaration for the Proposed Design I,levie~v for
19.26 acre Tentative Residential Tract - Rvland Homes, Citv of Rancho Cucamonlg~
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) appreciates the opportunity to
comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as
guidance for the Lead Agency and should be incorporated into the Final Negative
Declaration.
Please provide the AQMD with written responses to all comments contained heroin prior to
the adoption of the l:inal Negative Declaration. The AQMD would be happy to work with the
Lead Agency to address these issues and any other questions that may arise. Please contact
Gordon Mizc, Transportation Specialist - CEQA Section, at (909) 396-3302. if you have any
questions regarding these commcnts.
Sincerely,
Steve Smith. Ph.D.
Program Supervisor, CEQA Section
Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources
Attachment
SS:GM
SBC990421-06
Control Number
RECEIVED
MAY 0 3 1999
Cily ol Rancho Cucamongs
P~anning Division
Mr. Brent Le Count -1- April 28, 1999
Notice of Intent to Adopt Negative Declaration for the Proposed Design Review for
19.26 acre Tentative Residential Tract - Rvland Homes, Cih' of Rancho Cucamonf, a
The initial study provides no information supporting the conclusion of no significant air
quality impacts, despite the project description stating that 19.26 acres is planned for
development, the size of which has the potential for significant impacts. Without
quantitative information, the AQMD cannot evaluate whether or not air quality impacts
fi'om this project are significant. Simply concluding that the A.Q. impacts are
insignificant without calculating the construction and operational emissions is not
appropriate.
In the Final Negative Declaration, please provide a summary or table showing the
projected emissions, the control efficiencics ofthe proposed mitigation measures if
necessary, emissions reduced and remaining emissious.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: Development Review 98-33
Public Review Period Closes: May 12, 1999
Project Name:
Project Applicant: Denise Petersen, Ryland Homes
Project Location (also see attached map): Localed west of the 1-15 Freeway on the south side of
Highland Avenue - APN: 227-071-32.
Project Description: The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for previously
approved Tentative Tract 15798, consisting of 45 lots on 19.26 acres of land in the Low Residential District
(2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an
Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is
proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment.
[] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but:
(1)
Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this
proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or
mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required.
Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all
related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at
10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847.
NOTICE
The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period.
May 12. 1999
Date of Determination
Adopted By
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:00 p.m. Brent Le Count April 20, 1999
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-33 - RYLAND HOMES -The
design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for previously approved Tentative Tract
15798 consisting of 45 lots on 19.26 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units
per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan located west of the I-15 Freeway on the south side of Highland
Avenue - APN: 227-071-32.
Desiqn Parameters: The 19.26 acre site is currently vacant and slopes from north to south at
approximately 2 to 3 percent. The site is surrounded by a drainage channel and single family homes
in Tract 13063 to the west, a County Flood Control basin to the south, single family homes, vacant
land, and the 1-15 Freeway to the east, and Highland Avenue and the under-construction Route
30 Freeway to the north. The site contains a number of Eucalyptus tree windrows, which are required
to be replaced per an mitigation measure for the Tentative Tract Map. A 13.5-foot high sound wall (or
combination wall/berm as proposed by applicant) is required along the northern tract boundary to
reduce future freeway noise to acceptable levels. A 4- to 6-foot high retaining wall is proposed along
the south project boundary to accommodate the grade of the site. This wall will have a fence wall
above for an overall height of up to 11 feet (6 feet of retaining with 5 feet of fence wall). This wall will
be directly visible from the 1-15 Freeway as the south tract boundary borders a Flood Control basin.
A similar combination retaining wall/fence wall is proposed on the west side of Lot 38, which is adjacent
to a drainage channel with single family homes further to the west.
Four home plans are proposed, one single story and three two-story. The homes range in size from
2,566 square feet to 3,558 square feet. Plan 4 has a specially designed wide-shallow floor plan to
accommodate the shallow lots along the south side of Smokestone Place.
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:
Re-plot homes to comply with the Etiwanda Specific Plan requirement that 50 percent of homes
be plotted with either side-on garages, detached garages, or garages behind the front part of
the homes. The project has nine homes with garages either side-on to the street (3 homes)
or behind the front of the home (6 homes). Six of these homes have front porches projecting
out beyond the garage to achieve compliance with the 50 percent rule. The Committee should
discuss whether this meets the intent of the 50 percent rule. The remainder of the project must
be revised to comply with the 50 percent rule (23 homes). Staff would not support a variance
request.
Re-plot houses to comply with the Eliwanda Specific Plan requirement that 50 percent of
homes be plotted not parallel to the street frontage. Only 20 percent homes (9 houses) are
plotted not parallel to Ihe street frontages. The Eliwanda Specific Plan provides great flexibility
in side yard setbacks to encourage non-parallel plotting of homes. The required side yard
setbacks are 0 feet and 20 feet. Project proposes setbacks generally ranging from 10 feet to
27 feet; therefore, there is ample room to re-plot houses. Further, if necessary, the developer
could adjust lot lines on the final map to accommodate re-plotting. Staff would not support a
variance request.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 98-33 - RYLAND HOMES
April 20, 1999
Page 2
SecondaN Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
The combined retaining wall/fence wall along the south tract boundary shall have a fence wall
portion not to exceed 5 feet in height with the top 2 feet decorative wrought iron (overall
maximum height of 11 feet). The wall shall also have the same stone covered pilasters used
for the remainder of the tract. Provide vine plantings, either at the base of the wall or through
weep holes at the junction between the retaining portion and the fence portion, and train vines
to climb south side of wall.
The masonry wall along the west tract boundary shall have decorative pilasters and vine
planrings similar to the south wall requirement to enhance views of the wall from existing homes
to the west across the drainage channel.
Carry decorative elements used on front elevation. such as corbels and shutters, around to
side and rear elevations as well.
The "floating" gables shown on side and rear elevations appear awkward. especially at the
second floor level. Suggest continuing these elements down to ground level or eliminating.
Provide a minimum back-up distance/turning radius of 24 feet for driveways serving side-on
garages. These driveways should be curved rather than having hard, 90 degree corners.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
Provide Eucalyptus replacement windrow planting per Environmental Mitigation Measure No. 3
for Tentative Tract 15798.
2. All homes shall have a minimum front setback of 25 feet from the front property line.
3. Any wall in excess of 6 feet in height shall require approval of a minor exception.
Where wood siding is shown on the front elevation of a home, it shall be wrapped around the
side and rear elevations as well.
Fieldstone veneer shall be natural stone rather than a cultured stone product. Other stone
veneer forms such as slate may be manufactured product.
Provide retaining wall(s) as necessary to maximize useable fiat yard area for Lot 15 as required
by City's Development Code.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to above comments.
Desiqn Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Pare Stewad, Larry Henderson
Staff Planner:
Brent Le Count
As-I
DRC COMMENTS
DR 98-33 - RYLAND HOMES
April 20, 1999
Page 3
The Committee requested that the project be revised and brought back for further review in light of
staffs comments and the following additional comments:
Having front porches project out in front of the garages for some home plans is not considered
to comply with Etiwanda Specific Plan requirement for 50 percent of homes to have garages
plotted side-on, or behind the front part of the home. The garages shall either be plotted side-
on, or much further back behind the front part of the home. The Committee prefers a mix.
The Committee is open to interpreting significant variation is front yard setback for non-parallel
home plotting.
3. Provide significantly deep (8-10 feet) front porches.
The Committee does not recommend provision of retaining walls in corner side yard slope
areas to increase useable side and rear yard areas.
The applicant agreed to staffs comments as well as Committee direction.
A5'2,
CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS
7:00 P.M.
Brent Le Count
May 4.1999
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-33 - RYLAND HOMES -The
design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for previously approved Tentative Tract
15798 consisting of 45 lots on 19.26 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units
per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan located west of the I-15 Freeway on the south side of Highland
Avenue - APN: 227-071-32.
Desicon Review Committee Action:
Members Present: LarW McNiel, Pare Stewart, Larry Henderson
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
The Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Henderson) reviewed revised plans and recommend approval.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW
NO. 98-33 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15798, CONSISTING OF 45 LOTS
ON 19.26 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
(2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC
PLAN, LOCATED WEST OF THE 1-15 FREEWAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: APN 227-071-32
A. Recitals,
1. Ryland Homes has filed an application for Design Review No. 98-33 for Tentative Tract
15798, 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 12th day of May 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting on May 12, 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 district 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, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-33 Ryland Homes
May 12, 1999
Page 2
e. The site contains several large Eucalyptus trees, which will to be removed and
replaced in conformance with the windrow preservation provisions of the Etiwanda Specific Plan;
and
f. The design of the project, including home design, roadway alignment,
landscaping, and grading will provide efficient use of land to accommodate single family homes;
and
g. The homes are designed consistent with the architecture guidelines of the
Etiwanda Specific Plan.
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.
Plannine Division:
1) All conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 15798 shall apply.
2)
Emergency access plans providing continuous, 24-hour, all-weather
secondary access shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission.
3)
The combined retaining wall/fence wall along the south tract boundary
shall have a fence wall portion not to exceed 5 feet in height with the
top 2 feet decorative wrought iron (overall maximum height of 11
feet). The wall shall also have the same stone covered pilasters used
for the remainder of the tract. Provide vine planrings, either at the
base of the wall or through weep holes at the junction between the
retaining portion and the fence portion, and train vines to climb the
south side of the wall.
4)
The masonry wall along the west tract boundary shall have decorative
pilasters and vine plantings similar to the south wall requirement to
enhance views of the wall from existing homes to the west across the
drainage channel.
5)
Provide a minimum back-up distance/turning radius of 24 feet for
driveways serving side-on garages.
6)
Any wall in excess of 6 feet in height shall require the approval of a
Minor Exception.
7)
Fieldstone veneer shall be natural stone rather than a cultured stone
product. Other stone veneer forms. such as slate, may be
manufactured product.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-33 Ryland Homes
May 12, 1999
Page 3
8)
The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action
brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because
of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative. to relinquish
such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City. its agents,
officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which
the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court
to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion,
participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but
such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under
this condition.
Enclineedncl Division:
1) All conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 15798 shall apply.
Environmental Mitiqation Measures
1)
After freeway construction, approximately 2.3 acres will continue to
drain to the subject property. Drainage shall be conveyed in a 24-inch
pipe to Mulberry Street and will be carried overland in the street to the
south. This drainage shall be collected by catch basins and shall be
conveyed in pipes to the existing Victoria Basin immediately south of
the tract. If the tract development precedes the freeway construction,
further drainage studies shall be necessary to mitigate any potential
flood hazard due to a possible breakout of the Etiwanda Spreading
Grounds levee. The final drainage report shall be approved prior to
final map approval.
2)
A full street connection at the intersection of East Avenue and
Highland Avenue is required, including traffic signal improvements
(new or upgrades) and line-of-sight corrections, to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer. With the construction of the Route 30 Freeway,
Caltrans is proposing to close the Highland Avenue access at East
Avenue including the removal of the traffic signal and provide for
emergency access only. This development is responsible to restore
and/or upgrade said access. However, if this development precedes
Caltrans Route 30 improvements, a cash deposit in lieu of
construction will be required and necessary temporary improvements
constructed, as determined by the City Engineer and Caltrans.
3)
Existing on-site Eucalyptus windrows shall be replaced with minimum
5-gallon Spotted Gum Eucalyptus trees planted 8 feet on center in
accordance with the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-33 Ryland Homes
May 12, 1999
Page 4
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF MAY 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
A'I'I'EST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Bullet, Secretary for the PIanning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of May 1999, by the following
vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT#:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-33
45 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
RYLAND HOMES
WEST OF 1-15 FREEWAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHLAND AVENUE
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909)477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
General Requirements
Completion Dale
The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City. its
agents. officers. or employees. because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative,
to relinquish such approval The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents. officers. or
employees. for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents. officers. or
employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may. at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation
shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
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
Conditional Use Permit, Variance, or Development/Design Review approval shall expire if
building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date
of approvaL No extensions are allowed.
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 herein, Development Code
regulations, the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
10.
11.
12.
Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and
State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be
submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division
to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy.
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 prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved
use has commenced, whichever comes first.
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 pu blic view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete
or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single
family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults.
Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the
adopted Street Namin9 Policy prior to approval of the final map.
All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner,
including proper illumination.
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.
The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) and Articles of Incorporation of the
Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions
and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the
City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the
name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever
said information changes.
Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall
condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining
property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property
owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing wails/fences along the project's
perimeter.
For single family residential development. a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each
support post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two './,-inch lag bolts, to withstand high winds.
Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall extend at
least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade.
SC - 4119/99
Completion Date
13. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant.
14. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron to maintain an open feeling and
enhance views.
15. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk.
16. For residential development. return walls and corner 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. 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 private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope. but less than 2:1
slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion
control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be
installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in verticat height and of 2:1 or greater
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger size
shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks
in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or
larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in
staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall
include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
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.
Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation 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 perimeter parkways. walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included
in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and
coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the
Engineerin9 Division.
All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and approval
prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth
characteristics of the selected tree species.
Project No, DP, QB-3~
Completion Date
Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
New windrow planting of Eucalyptus Maculata (Spotted Gum) is required. The size, spacing,
staking, and irrigation of these trees shall comply with the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance
(RCMC 19.08.100).
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
E. 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 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.
Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to
existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may
include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation
Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees.
Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tractJparcel map recordation 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.
F. New Structures
Roofing material shall be installed as for wind-resistant roof covering at wind velocity not less
than 90 mph.
G 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.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
H. General Fire Protection Conditions
Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. The developer
shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or
consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) forthe Rancho Cucamonga Fire
9.
10.
11.
12.
Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the
development. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation
of the final map occurs.
Fire flow requirement shall be 1250 gallons per minute.
__ a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval.
~ b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site
hydrants shall be conducted by the builde~developer and witnessed by fire
department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy.
Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed,
and operahie prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing
materials. etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel.
Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants,
if any. will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-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 prior to final
inspection.
Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted:
All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22.
Emergency access, a minimum of 26 feet wide, shall be provided. and maintained free and clear
of obstructions at all times during construction. in accordance with Fire District requirements.
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.
Gated/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire
Safety Division for specific details and ordering information.
$ 132.00 Fire District fee(s), and a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District prior 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.
Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC. UFC,
UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15.
DATE:
TO:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
May 12, 1999
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:
Brad Buller, City Planner
BY:
Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-10 - BUTLER - A
request to construct a 72,051 square foot warehouse building on 4.4 acres of land in
Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the west
side of White Oak Avenue between Arrow Route and Jersey Boulevard,
APN: 209-144-27. Related File: Preliminary Review98-16.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq:
North Industrial Buildings; Subarea 8 (General Industrial) Industrial Area Specific Plan
South - Industrial buildings under construction (Master Development); Subarea 8 (General
Industrial) Industrial Area Specific Plan
East - Vacant land; Subarea 9 (Minimum Impact Heavy industrial) Industrial Area Specific Plan
West Industrial Buildings; Subarea 8 (General Industrial) Industrial Area Specific Plan
General Plan Desiqnations:
Project Site - General Industrial
North General Industrial
South - General Industrial
East Heavy Industrial
West General Industrial
Site Characteristics: The 4.4 acre vacant site lies towards the east edge of the Rancho Cucamonga
Business Park which is a large master planned group of industrial buildings similar to the type
proposed. The site slopes at approximately 2 to 3 percent from north to south with a 4-foot high
slope along the south boundary.
Parkincl Calculations:
Number of Number of
Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces
of Use Footaqe Ratio Required Provided
Office 4,000 1/250 16 30
Warehousing 68,051 1/1000 1st 2,000 3._~8 6_~8
1/2000 2nd 20,000
1 ~4000 above 40.000
TOTAL 72.051 54 98
Y
ITEM B
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 99-10 Butler
May 12, 1999
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
General: This review is for environmental clearance only. The site is surrounded to the north, west,
and south by existing industrial buildings and industrial buildings under construction, and to the east
by vacant land. The proposed pad elevation is approximately 8 feet above the elevation of the pads
to the south (Master Development). Therefore, the building will be visually prominent from the south.
Fifteen dock-high loading doors are proposed along the south wall of the building. The building is
proposed to be "L" shaped, wrapping around the loading area so that a portion of the building
screens the loading from the view of the street. Following issuance of a Negative Declaration, the
City Planner will conditionally approve the project.
Desiqn Review Committee: The Committee (Stewart, Henderson) reviewed the project on April 20,
1999, and recommend approval to the City Planner.
C. Technical Review Committee: The Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval.
Environmental Assessment: Pad I of the Initial Study was completed by the applicant and staff
completed Part II. Staff identified potential impacts related to flooding since the storm drain system
that sen/es the site and vicinity does not have adequate capacity to handle increased flows from the
added impervious surfaces. A mitigation measure limiting the amount of runoff from the site will
mitigate this to a less than significant impact. The primary mitigation will be on-site retention. The
proposed project driveways are offset from existing driveways on the opposite side of the street
which creates a danger of conflicting left turn movements. As mitigation. the project driveway
locations shall be revised to align with driveways across the street. If the Planning Commission
concurs, then issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission issue a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for Development Review 99-10.
City Planner
BB:BLC:Is
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Grading Plan
Exhibit "D" - Landscape Plan
Exhibit "E" - Floor Plan
Exhibit "F" - Elevations
Exhibit "G" - Sight Lines
Exhibit "H" - Design Review Committee Action Agenda dated April 20, 1999
Exhibit 'T' - Initial Study, Part II
200' tadlu8 map , site plan
vlclnltf,~ap_ project Information tabutetlone
SHEET 2 OF 7
IDR e 99-f0
WHITE OAK FACILITY
R. C. _PZopertlee
hID plnckert archltecte, Inc,
[V 656~ 17S~ :E$~ :G| 9a Jc~V uoN I]MD'OO~-|BVO\/_I|B6\IOSVD\pDeD\ :N
overall site plan
__~ vlclnlfLma~ project I~formatlnn tabulations
~.. ~ .::~ ~ ~ ..~ ~., .....
ells plan keynotes
site plan t3eneral notes
ella lege_nd
SHEET I OF 7
IDR · 99o10
WHITE OAK FACILITY
_R.__C.. Pipparties
............
hill plnckert archlfacls, Inc. I
(V 656~ I]G:B;':{::j~ 9~ JciV uoN fiMp'|-H]VO\/~[86e3\ppe3\:N
~ r,3~
D
Z
T
BUILDING AREA
72,051 S.F.J
T
., T
BUItDING A floor plan
SHEET 5 OF ?
WHITE OAK FACILITY
R. C. Properties
hill plnckert architects inc.
WI'ffi'E OAK FAC[U'TY
~! _C.__Ptopettlel
SIte Secffons
WHITE OAK FACILITY
R. C, Properties
hrll plnckert archlfecte Inc,
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
9:10 p.m.
Brent Le Count
April 20, 1999
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-10 - BUTLER - A request to
construct a 72,051 square foot warehouse building on 4.4 acres of land in Subarea 8 (General
Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the west side of White Oak Avenue between
Arrow Route and Jersey Boulevard - APN: 209-144-27.
Desicln Parameters: The site slopes at approximately 2 to 3 percent from north to south with a 4-foot
high slope along the south boundary. The site is surrounded to the north, west, and south by existing
and under construction industrial buildings, and to the east by vacant land. The proposed pad
elevation is approximately 8 feet above the elevation of the pads to the south (Master Development).
Therefore, the building will be visually prominent from the south. Fifteen dock high loading doors are
proposed along the south wall of the building. The building is proposed to be "L" shaped wrapping
around the loading area so that a portion of the building screens the loading from view of the street.
No landscaping is proposed along the south property line because the applicant contends that the
loading activity will conflict with landscaping.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Secondan/Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
Provide substantial tree planting along the south property line to screen views of the loading
and truck storage area from the south.
Increase use of sandblasted concrele Suggest providing sandblasted concrete for horizontal
bands running around building.
3. Provide undulating berms within landscape setback along White Oak Avenue.
The access gate to the loading area should be opaque to fully screen views of the loading area
from White Oak Avenue. The gate should also be automated rather than manually operated
to ensure that the gate is open the minimum time necessary to allow trucks in and out. Note
that perforated sheet metal has been used with success in the industrial area to screen loading
areas and accommodate wind loads.
Provide vine planting along base of masonry screen walls on either side of access gate to
soften appearance of walls and to enhance the employee eating area.
Proposed slopes around employee eating area and main office entry area should be as natural
looking as possible by rounding off top and toe of slope and providing variable slope angle
where possible.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
All roof and ground-mounted equipment shall be fully screened from surrounding property and
public rights-of-way.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 99-10 - BUTLER
April 20, 1999
Page 2
2. Provide a minimum of 1 tree per 30 linear feet of building wall plus 1 tree per 30 linear feet of
site perimeter.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the above comments.
Desicln Review Committee Action:
Members Present; Pam Stewart. Larry Henderson
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
The Committee recommended approval subject to staffs comments. The applicant agreed to all of the
comments.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
'1. Project File: Development Review 99-10
2. Related Files: Preliminary Review 98-16
3. Description of Project:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-10 - BUTLER - A request to construct a 72,051 square foot
warehouse building on 4.4 acres of land in Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial
Area Specific Plan, located on the west side of White Oak Avenue between Arrow Route
and Jersey Boulevard - APN: 209-144-27
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Darrel Butler
R.C. Properties, LLC
3241 Alta Laguna
Laguna Beach, CA 92652
5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial
6. Zoning: Subarea 8 (General Industrial) Industrial Area Specific Plan
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The property is surrounded by developed land with
similar industrial buildings as are proposed and vacant land to the east.
8. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
9. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Brent Le Count
(909) 477-2750
10. Other agencies whose approval is required:
None
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-10 - Butler 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
(V') Biological Resources
( ) Energy and Mineral Resources
( ) Hazards
( ) Noise
( ) Mandator'/Findings of Significance
( ) Public Services
( ) 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.
(v)
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
April 19. 1999
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-10 - Butler 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? ( ) ( ) (V) ( )
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V)
Comments:
b) The site is located within an area of potential habitat for an endangered species, the
Delhi Sands flower loving fly, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Pursuant to a memorandum of understanding with the County of San Bernardino,
a habitat assessment (impact Sciences, July 28, 1998) has been prepared which
indicates that the site does not currently support high quality potential sand fly
habitat and that the site does not function as habitat linkage or corridor.
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposah
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? ( )
() (v)
() (v)
() (v)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-10 - Butler Page 4
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in
or expose people to potential impacts involving.'
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
0
g)
h)
Fault rupture?
Seismic ground shaking?
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
Seiche hazards?
Landslides or mudflows?
Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
Subsidence of the land?
Expansive soils?
Unique geologic or physical features?
No
() () (v)
() () (v)
() () (v)
() () (v)
() () (v)
()
()
(v)
()
()
()
()
()
(v)
(v)
()
(v)
Comments:
h)
General Plan Figure V-2 indicates Tujunga-Delhi soil association forthe subject site.
The General Plan states, "The Tujunga-Delhi soil association may have soil bearing
capacities that could limit some development. Structures proposed on this soil type
should be permitted only after a site specific investigation has been performed that
indicates the soil can adequately support the weight of the structure." A soils
analysis will be required as a condition of approval prior to issuance of grading or
building permits.
WATER. W/I/the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) (v')
b) Exposure of people or properly to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( ) (v')
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( )
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ( ) ( )
()
()
(v)
(v)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-10 - Butler Page 5
e)
g)
h)
~)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements?
() () () (v)
() () (v)
() () (v)
() () (v)
()
()
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? ( )
(v)
Comments:
a/b)
The storm drain system which serves the subject site and vicinity does not have
adequate capacity to handle increased flows. The impervious surfaces associated
with the proposed project would add significantly to the demand on the storm drain
system. As mitigation, the runoff (Q100) from the site shall not exceed the
capacity of the existing public storm drain system to the south. The amount
of on-site retention shall be based on a proration of available capacity on a per
acre basis for the area tributary to the cul-de-sac at the south end of White
Oak Avenue (Vincent Avenue), just north of the A.T.& S.F. railroad main line.
Reference the hydrologylhydraulic study prepared for Parcel Map 12959 to the
north on file with the City.
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposak
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? ( )
() () (v)
() (v)
() (v)
() (v)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-10 - Butler Page 6
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (~') ( )
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) (v') ( ) ( )
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
t} Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( )
g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( )
Comments:
a)
The project will increase the number of vehicle trips in the area, as the site is currently
vacant; however, the impact upon the surrounding street system will be less than significant
because the street system was designed to accommodate growth.
b)
The proposed driveways are offset from existing driveways on the opposite side of the
street. This can lead to vehicular conflicts, especially during left turn movements. The
driveways shall align with the driveways on the east side of White Oak Avenue, With
mitigation, 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)? ( ) ( ) (v') ( )
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees,
eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-10 - Butler Page 7
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and
vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
No
() () () (v)
() () (v) ()
Comments:
a/e)
The site is located within an area of potential habitat for an endangered species, the
Delhi Sands flower loving fly. Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, a
habitat assessment (Impact Sciences, July 28, 1998) has been prepared which
indicates that the site does not currently support high quality potential sand fly
habitat and that the site does not function as habitat linkage or corridor.
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?
) () () (v)
) () () (~)
) () () (~)
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve.'
a)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticicles, 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?
S,gnrr~s~t
() () () (~)
() () () (~)
() () () (~)
() () ()
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-10 - Butler Page 8
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fiammable
brush, grass, or trees?
No
() () () (v)
10.
NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( )
No
() () (v)
() () (v)
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)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Fire protection? ( )
Police protection? ( )
Schools? ( )
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( )
Other governmental services? ( )
() () (v)
() () (v)
() () (v)
() () (v)
() () (v)
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)
b)
c)
Power or natural gas?
Communication systems?
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
(v)
(v)
(v)
(v)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-10 - Butler Page 9
e)
0
g)
Storm water drainage?
Solid waste disposal?
Local or regional water supplies?
()
()
()
()
()
()
() (v)
() (v)
() (v)
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?
()
()
()
( ) (v)
() (v)
() (v)
14, CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Disturb paleontological resources?
Disturb archaeological resources?
Affect historical or cultural resources?
Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area?
() (v)
() (v)
() (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?
()
()
()
()
()
()
No
(v)
(v)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-10 - Butler 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 animat.
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Short term: Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one which occurs
in a relatively brief, definitive period of time.
Long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process.
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards.
and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The
following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review
in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices. 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all
that apply):
(v)
General Plan EIR
(Certified April 6. 1981)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-10 - Butler Page 11
(v)
Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
(v)
Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR
(Certified September 19, 1981)
Mitigation Measures:
Item 4. Water:
a)
The runoff (Q100) from the site shall not exceed the capacity of the existing public
storm drain system to the south. The amount of on-site retention shall be based on
a proration of available capacity on a per acre basis for the area tributary to the cul-
de-sac at the south end of White Oak Avenue (Vincent Avenue), just north of the
A.T.& S.F. railroad main line. Reference the hydrology/hydraulic study prepared for
Parcel Map 12959 to the north on file with the City.
Item 6. Transportation:
1)
The proposed driveways shall align with the driveways on the east side of White
Oak Avenue.
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I
have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the
project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would
occur.
Print Name and Title:
Date:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act Section 2109f and 2f092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: Development Review 99-10 Public Review Period Closes: May 12, 1999
Project Name: Project Applicant: Darrel Butler, R.C. Properties, LLC
Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the west side of White Oak Avenue between
Arrow Route and Jersey Boulevard - APN: 209-144-27.
Project Description: Arequesttoconstructa72,051squarefootwarehousebuildingon4.4acresofland
in Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an
Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is
proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment.
[] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but:
(1)
Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this
proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or
mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required.
Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all
related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at
10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847.
NOTICE
The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period.
May 12. 1999
Date of Determination
Adopted By
CITY OF RANCFIO CUCAMONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
May12,1999
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-14 - PREMIER HOMES - A request to revise the
previously approved design review for 77 of the 191 single family lots jn Tentative
Tract 15814 to provide a different architectural product on Lots 115 through 191 in
the southern podion of the tract, located on 18 acres of land in the Low-Medium
Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) within the Victoria Vineyards of the
Victoria Community Plan, located on the southwest corner of Highland and
Rochester Avenues - APN: 227-011-09 and 13.
BACKGROUND: In June of 1998, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract 15814 and
design review for 191 single family lots proposed by Fieldstone Communities. Premier Homes is
purchasing 77 of the 191 lots from Fieldstone Communities and is proposing new house designs
in the southern portion of the Tract. Fieldstone Communities, which is proceeding with construction
of the unaffected lots, will construct the entire Tract boundary wall and perimeter landscaping
according to tract conditions.
PROJECTANDSITEDESCRIPTION: FieldstoneCommunitieshasalmostcompletedtheirmodels
and is presently grading the project site for Tract development. The site is bounded by the future
Route 30 freeway to the north, Rancho Cucamonga High School to the south, a flood control basin
to the east, and existing single family homes to the west.
ANALYSIS:
General: The Tract will contain Fieldstone's house designs in the northern 114 lots and
Premier's in the southern 77 lots. Premier is proposing 2 floor plans with 3 elevations each
ranging in size from 2,507 to 2,948 square feet (up to 3,125 square feet with an optional
bedroom). These plans are comparable in size to Fieldstone's plans, which range in size from
2,262 to 3,014 square feet. Premier's floor plan has a 2-car garage on the front elevation, but
a 3rd-car tandem space in the interior, and on wider lots, a 3rd/4th-car garage option (3ocar
garage visible from the street). Each elevation has very different roof massing and
distinguishing architectural enhancements. Staff feels Premier's architectural design will
enhance the previously approved project.
ITEM C
Y
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 99-14- PREMIER HOMES
May 12, 1999
Page 2
Desicon Review Committee: On April 20, 1999, the Design Review Committee (Stewart,
Henderson) reviewed the project and recommended approval of the project with conditions
(Exhibit "C").
Environmental Assessment: The proposed project is a request to revise the architectural
features of a previously approved design review application. The Planning Commission
adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the approval of tentative tract and design review
forthe project site on June 24, 1998. The previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
is still valid and applicable to this project.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Development Review
99-14 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions.
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:RVB:mlg
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" - Site Plan
Exhibit "B" - Elevations
Exhibit "C" - Design Review Committee Action Comments dated April 20, 1999
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
SITE PLAN
.[
CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
SiTE PLAN
TRACT NO. 1,5814
®
CItY Or RANCHO CUCAMONGA
TRACT NO. 15814
SE[ SHEIT 2 or 4
®
C$'[¥ OF RANCHO CUCAMOHGA
TRACT NO. 1.5814
SEE SH[ET
®
TRACT NO. 15814
I I
I
LL.~7~~
I I
II
I II
III~F~TI I I
F
lax
.~'~, (Ill I (l~ t, __ [i _
iI
II
I
2C
RIGHT
I Ax LEFT
2B RIGfIT
2B REAR
2B LEFT
,c R,6HT
IC tEFT
PREMIER GROUP
RANCHO
CUCAHONGA
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:30 p.m.
Rebecca Van Buren
April 20, 1999
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-14 - PREMIER HOMES: A request to revise the previously approved
design review for 77 of the 191 single family lots in Tract 15814 to provide a different architectural
product on Lots 115 to 191, in the southern podion of the tract, located on 18 acres of land in the Low-
Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) within the Victoria Vineyards of the Victoria
Community Plan, located on the southwest corner of Highland and Rochester Avenues -APN: 27-011-
09 and 13.
BackGround: Fieldstone Communities submitted a tentative map and design review, which were
approved by the Planning Commission in June of 1998. Premier Homes is purchasing 77 of the 191
lots and is proposing new house designs in the southern portion of the tract. Fieldstone, which is
proceeding with construction of the unaffected lots, will construct the entire tract boundary wall and
perimeter landscaping according to tract conditions.
Desien Parameters: The tract will contain the Fieldstone's house designs in the northern 114 lots in
the tract and Premier Homes in the southern 77 lots. Premier is proposing 2 floor plans with
3 elevations each ranging in size from 2,507 to 2,948 square feet (up to 3,125 square feet with an
optional bedroom). These plans are comparable in size to Fieldstone's plans, which range in size from
2,262 to 3,014 square feet. Premier's floor plan has a 2-car garage on the front elevation, but a 3rd-car
tandem space in the interior, and on wider lots, a 3rd/4th-car garage option (3-car garage visible from
the street). Each elevation has very different roof massing and distinguishing architectural
enhancements. Staff feels Premier's architectural design will enhance the previously approved
project.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Expand the use of stone and brick veneer on Plan 1 elevations.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Design Review Committee approve the project
subject to the modifications as recommended above.
Desicln Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson
Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren
The Committee (Stewart, Henderson) discussed veneer treatments and felt the Plan I elevations
include intricate building massing and stone/brick features true to the architectural style as presented.
The Committee recommended approval of the project with a condition that shutters and divided lights
on side/rear elevations be included on strategic interior lots in addition to the key visibility lots.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW NO. 99-14, THE REVISED DESIGN REVIEW OF BUILDING
ELEVATIONS AND DETAILED SITE PLAN FOR 77 OF THE 191 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS IN THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT
15814, SPECIFICALLY LOTS 115 THROUGH 191, LOCATED ON 18
ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OF
THE VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF HIGHLAND AND ROCHESTER AVENUES, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-011-09 AND 13.
A. Recitals.
1. Premier Homes has filed an application for the approval of Development Review
N0. 99-14, as described in the title of This Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Development Review request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 12th day of May 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 May 12, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission
hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located on the southwest corner of Highland
and Rochester Avenues in the southern portion of Tentative Tract 15814, approximately 18 acres
consisting of Lot Nos. 115 through 191 of Tentative Tract 15814, and is presently being rough
graded for development of streets and pad sites for said Tentative Tract; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is the future Route 30 freeway, to the
south is Rancho Cucamonga High School, to the east is a flood control basin, and to the west are
existing single family homes; and
c. The proposed project is a request to revise the architectural features of a
previously approved design review application for 77 single family lots on approximately 18 acres
of land.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above,
this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 99-14 - PREMIER HOMES
May 12, 1999
Page 2
and
a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan;
b. That the proposed use 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 use 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. The Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration forTentative Tract
15814 and design review for the project site on June 24, 1998. Habitat assessment and biological
protocol surveys were prepared for the project site in June of 1998 (Glenn Lukos Associates) and
are less than one year old from this date. The Planning Commission finds the previously-adopted
Mitigated Negative Declaration is still valid and applicable to this project.
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.
Plannincl Division
1 ) All conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 15814 shall apply to this
project,
2)
The developer shall provide shutters and divided lights on side/rear
elevations on strategic interior lots and key visibility lots. Lots with the
additional treatment shall be shown on plans submitted for plan
check, prior to issuance of building permits.
3)
The developer shall provide front yard landscaping in substantial
compliance with the Landscape Plan submitted for design review of
Tentative Tract 15814,
4)
The developer shall install decorative block walls along all comer side
yards and the southerly side yards of Lots 143 and 159. The
developer shall install decorative block wall returns on interior
divisions between residences.
5)
All retaining walls exposed to public view shall be treated with a
decorative exterior finish or be composed of a decorative block
material.
6)
Garden and retaining walls extending into front setbacks shall have
a decorative cap and an end pilaster or "square block" to provide
definition.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 99-14 - PREMIER HOMES
May 12, 1999
Page 3
7)
The Landscape Plan shall be revised to continue the landscape
palette in the slope area in the southwestern portion of the project
adjacent to Lark Avenue and to enhance landscaping on lots at street
corner knuckles where driveways are concentrated.
8)
A landscape area shall be provided between the back of the sidewalk
and any walls in corner side yard situations to break up the massing
of the walls and minimize graffiti potential. Corner side yard walls
shall be shifted to provide a landscape area between the back of
sidewalk and the walls per Planning Commission policy.
9)
Decorative driveway treatment shall be included on all lots. Details of
ddveway materials, textures, and scoring patterns shall be shown on
plans submitted for plan check.
10) The developer shall revise approved Street Plans to reflect drive
approach and street tree relocations, if any.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF May 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
A'FFEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. at a regular meeting of
the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of May 1999. by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
Development Review 99-14
Premier Homes
Southwest corner of Highland and Rochester Avenues
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THA T APPL Y TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACTTHE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
General Requirements
The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its
agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative,
to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or
employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City. its agents, officers, or
employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation
shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
B. Time Limits
Approval shall expire. unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not
issued or approved use has nol commenced within 5 years 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 herein, Development Code
regulations, and the Victoria Community Plan.
Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions
of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approve(~
use has commenced, whichever comes first.
Approval of this request Shall not waive compliance with arl sections of the Development Code,
all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at/he
time of building permit issuance.
All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be
located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete
or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single
family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults.
,
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 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
requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction
activity, dust control measures, and security fencing.
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 Yrinch lag bolts, to withstand high winds.
Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall extend at
least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade.
10. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant.
11. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry.
12. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other Stone veneers may be manufactured
products.
D. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans)
1. On flag lots, use a 12-foot driveway within flag to maximize landscape area.
E. Landscaping
A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping
in/he 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 private slopes of 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1
slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion
control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be
installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger size
shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks
/
/
/
/
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
__/ /
in excess of 8 feet in vedical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or
larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in
staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall
include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development
Code and/or Innovative Standards - Victoria Community Plan. This requirement shall be in
addition to the required street trees and slope planting.
The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included
in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and
coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the
Engineering Division.
All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
F. Environmental
The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway project
in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any
property.
G. Other Agencies
The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location
of mail boxes. Multi4amily residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for
mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the
overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of
building permits.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
H. Site Development
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.
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 Beauti~cation 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
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.
I. New Structures
Roofing material shall be installed 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
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 geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the
time of application for grading plan check.
4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits.
APPLICANT S HALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
K. Street 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 include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement,
drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees.
2. Improvement Plans and Construction:
Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety
lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be
posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City
Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior
to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer"s Office in addition to any
other permits required.
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 conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction
project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and
interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside
of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer.
Notes:
(1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200
feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
(2)
Conduit shall be 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 corners 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 during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded
upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be
installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots.
h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check.
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 conformance with
adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project
intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or
industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required.
5. A permit shall be obtained from Caltrans for any work within the following right-of-way: Highland
and Rochester Avenues.
Public Maintenance Areas
A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall
be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance
of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways. medians,
paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance
District: Highland Avenue, Rochester Avenue, and Lark Drive.
A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
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: The Rochester Parkway shall match the parkway to the east.
M, Drainage and Flood Control
A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map
approval or the issuance of building permits. whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall
be installed as required by the City Engineer.
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.
5
Utilities
Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas,
electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.
Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardtrio. A letter of compliance from
the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first.
O. General Requirements and Approvals
1. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way: Caltrans.
A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to/he City, covering the estimated operating costs for all
new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to
building permit issuance if no map is involved.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
P. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project.
2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,000 gallons per minute.
A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department
personnel prior to water plan approval.
For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall
be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel
after construction and prior to occupancy.
Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed
and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing
materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel.
Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants,
if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a 4"
and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the
Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers.
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 District's fire lane standards, as noted:
X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22.
/ /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
6
All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed a minimum of 14'6" from ground
up so as not to impede fire apparatus.
Plan check fees in the amount of $0 have been paid. An additional $132 shall be paid:
X Prior to final plan approval.
Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms,
etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans.
Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, U FC,
UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
Q. Security Hardware
1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors.
2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. ff windows are within
40 inches of any locking device. tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used.
3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices.
Windows
1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted
from frame or track in any manner.
Building Numbering
1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime
visibility.
CI'I~Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
May 12, 1999
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-07 -
SPERR AND ASSOCIATES - A request to modify a previously approved master
plan and construct a 16,747 square foot drug store, with a drive-thru on a 2.86 acre
parcel in the Central Park Plaza within the Neighborhood Commercial District of the
Terra Vista Community Plan, located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road
and Ellena West -APN: 227-182~10. Related File: Conditional Use Permit 89-18.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
Surroundincl Land Use and Zoninq:
North - Vacant land zoned Medium-High Density Residential
South - Commercial shopping center and a day care facility zoned Neighborhood
Commercial, vacant land zoned Low-Medium Residential beyond
East Vacant land zoned Medium-High Residential
West Commercial shopping center zoned Neighborhood Commercial
General Plan DesiQnations:
Project Site - Neighborhood Commercial
North Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre)
South - Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre)
East Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre)
West Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre)
Site Characteristics: The site is located within the Central Park Plaza shopping center in an
undeveloped pad at the corner of Base Line Road and Ellena West. The pad was graded and
planted with tuff with the construction of the shopping center. Base Line Road is a Special
Boulevard; Ellena West is a local road and a secondary access point to the shopping center.
Central Park, from which the shopping center takes it name, is located diagonally across from
the shopping center.
ITEM D
Y
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 99-07 - SPERR AND ASSOCIATES
May 12, 1999
Page 2
D. Parkina Calculations:
Number of Number of
Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces
of Use Footaqe Ratio Required Provided
Shopping Center 112,998 4.5/1000 508 510
ANALYSIS:
General: The applicant is proposing a 16,747 square foot Rite-Aid drug store in the
undeveloped pad at the corner of Base Line Road and Ellena West, and a free-standing drive-
through facility south of the drug store, next to the Ace Hardware building. The Planning
Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 89-18 in 1989 for the shopping center master
plan. The master plan for the shopping center indicated additional shop buildings which would
abut the Ace Hardware building. A large area of the Ace Hardware building's east wall was
intentionally left "blank" to accommodate future construction. The placement of the remote
drive-thru precludes the easterly expansion of the Ace Hardware building. Staff requested the
applicant add architectural features to the east wall of the Ace Hardware building to provide
a finished appearance. Ace Hardware wall treatment includes a colonnade constructed of
pre-cast concrete columns with thick cornice creating a series of archways consistent with the
architectural style of the remainder of the shopping center.
The project contains a truck loading area on the Base Line Road frontage, a major special
boulevard. Typically, we would expect a loading area to be located in the rear or along a side
street; however, this pad does not have a rear and the Ellena West frontage was problematic
(too visible, access conflicts). The applicant worked diligently to try to design an at-grade
truck loading area to avoid negative visual impacts. The Base Line Road frontage was
chosen because the loading area is approximately 5 feet below the Base Line Road surface
and there is room to design the loading area as part of the building. The truck loading area,
shown on the "north elevation," is concealed within a tower element and a screen wall with
cornice, columns, stone wainscot, metal trellis and vines.
Desicln Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Fong) reviewed
the project on April 6, 1999. The Committee (Stewart, Henderson) reviewed revised plans on
April 20, 1999, and recommended approval of the project as contained in the attached Design
Review Committee Action Comments (Exhibit "H").
Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee reviewed the project and
determined that, with the recommended conditions of approval, the project is consistent with
all applicable standards and policies.
Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study was completed by the applicant and
staff completed Part II. Staff has determined the proposed project will not have a significant
effect on the environment and recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 99-07-SPERR AND ASSOCIATES
May12,1999
Page 3
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 the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use
Permit 99-07 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions and issuance
of a Negative Declaration.
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:RVB:mlg
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Grading Plan
Exhibit "D" - Landscape Plan
Exhibit "E" - Building Elevations
Exhibit "F" - Remote Drive-Thru and Ace Hardware Wall Elevations
Exhibit "G" - Central Park Shopping Center Master Plan Approved In 1989
Exhibit "H" - Design Review Committee Action Comments Dated April 6
and April 20. 1999
Exhibit 'T' - Initial Study Part II
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
/
OP I
OFF~E
PARK
MH
MEDIUM HIC.~I
'\
\
\
O ,/
/
/
MEOIUM HIGH
DENSI'Ft'
I
PLANT
0
EAS~T ,/WEST ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
KEY PLAN
EAST ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
ACE HARDWARE
~Fr~,~T elrv. EXIST,~ACE HARDWARE P~A~r.T~L ELEVATION ~
, :,..:- ,......- ~.,~AR.,. ,..
L
,I.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:50 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren April 6. 1999
ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-07 - SPERR AND
ASSOCIATES - A request to modify a previously approved master plan and construct a 16,747 square
foot drug store with a drive-thru on a 2.86 acre parcel in the Central Park Plaza within the
Neighborhood Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located on the southwest corner
of Base Line Road and Ellena West -APN: 227-182-10.
Desiqn Parameters: The site is located within the Central Park Plaza shopping center. The applicant
is proposing a Rite-Aid drug store in the undeveloped pad at the corner of Base Line Road and EIlena
West, and a free-standing drive-through facility south of the drug store, next to the Ace Hardware
building. The master plan for the shopping center indicated additional shop buildings which would abut
the Ace Hardware building. A large area of the Ace Hardware building's east wall was intentionally left
"blank" to accommodate future construction. The placement of the remote drive-through precludes
the easterly expansion of the Ace Hardware building. Staff requested the applicant add architectural
features to east wall of the Ace Hardware building as a part of this application. Ace Hardware wall
treatment includes a colonnade constructed of pre-cast concrete columns, wood trellis, and a raised
planter. Above the colonnade are accent diamonds on the wall surface.
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.
The project is proposing a truck loading area on the Base Line frontage, a major special
boulevard. Typically, we would expect a loading area to be located in the rear or along a side
street; however, this pad does not have a rear and the Ellena frontage was problematic (too
visible, access conflicts). The applicant worked diligently to try to design an at-grade truck
loading area to avoid negative visual impacts. The Base Line frontage was chosen because the
loading area is 5+~- feet below the Base Line Road surface and there is room to design the
loading area as part of the building. The truck loading area, shown on the "north elevation," is
concealed within a tower element and a solid screen wall with cornice, columns, stone wainscot,
and decorative scoring on wall insets. Provide additional design improvements as follows: (a)
increase depth of columns for greater shadow effect; (b) replace scoring with tile in wall insets;
and (c) add a metal trellis (3-inch) to tower wall inset for vines.
Staff suggests the Committee consider replacing the square tower at the drug store entrance with
an octagon tower and cupola, to match the octagon tower in the western portion of shopping
center (see exhibit). If the square tower is retained, staff recommends opening up the arch and
adding additional cornice detail on the upper portion of the tower.
3. Increase the plaza area and add amenities at the northeast corner of the Ace Hardware Building.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues.
1. Add architectural detail to the northwest corner of the building and the east elevation.
2. Add landscape area and tree wells along the west elevation.
3. Create a larger outdoor plaza area at the drug store's front entry. Add a seat wall to the two
round planters at the front entry.
DRC COMMENTS
CUP 99-07 - SPERR & ASSOC.
April 6, 1999
Page 2
4. Increase end-planter widths and berming in the parking lot. Staff will provide an exhibit at the
meeting.
Narrow the entry to the remote drive-through to a single lane width and shift the drive-through
entry away from the Ellena West driveway to provide an easier, safer turn and greater landscape
area.
6. Add more trees to the Base Line landscape setback to screen entry to loading area.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion.
1. All building materials, such as, but not limited to tiles, wainscot, trellis, and column shall match.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the above comments.
Attachment
Desiqn Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam 'Stewart, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren
The Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Fong) reviewed the project and recommended the project return on
a consent calendar basis with the following revisions:
1. Ace Hardware buildinq: Provide more extensive architectural treatment to the east wall.
Rite Aid buildinq: Replace the blue horizontal stripe (a plaster bump out) on elevations with a
reveal line and tan cornice to trim diamond windows/insets. Add wall treatment portraying
arches and trellis to the east elevation.
3. Site Plan: Revise to tapered drive-thru entrance, expand end planters, and expand plaza area.
The Committee requested the applicant provide overlays to reflect modifications to the colored
elevations, and provide a material sample of the perforated metal as shown on the north elevation near
the truck loading area. The Committee was satisfied with the location of the truck loading area, the
treatment of the entrance tower, and the architectural concepts proposed for the Rite Aid building.
CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren April 20, 1999
ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-07 - SPERR AND
ASSOCIATES - A request to modify a previously approved master plan and construct a 16,747 square
foot drug store with a drive-thru on a 2.86 acre parcel in the Central Park Plaza within the
Neighborhood Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located on the southwest corner
of Base Line Road and EIlena West - APN: 227-182-10.
This project was continued from the April 6, 1999 meeting. Revised plans which incorporate the
architectural and site plan modifications will be presented at the meeting.
Staff Recommendation: Staff will provide a recommendation at the meeting.
Attachment: Design Review Committee Action Comments for April 6, 1999
Desiqn Review Committee Action;
Members Present: Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson
Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren
The Committee (Stewart, Henderson) reviewed revised plans. Paul Devers, applicant/architect, noted
that the canopies in the entry tower arch insets may be a high maintenance item due to their color and
southern exposure. He stated he was looking into the decorative metal work that has been applied to
other arched insets in Terra Vista, such as Montgomery Ward Auto Express. The Committee
recommended approval of the project with a condition indicating the City Planner may approve an
alternate archway treatment to replace the canopies in the entry tower inset.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: Conditional Use Permit 99-07
2. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit 89-18 (master plan for Central Park Plaza
shopping center)
Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 99-07 - SPERR AND ASSOCIATES - A request to modify a previously approved
master plan and construct a 16,747 square foot drug store. with a drive-thru, on a 2.86 acre
parcel in the Central Park Plaza within the Neighborhood Commercial District of the Tetra
Vista Community Plan, located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Ellena West -
APN: 227-182-10.
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Paul Devers
Sperr & Associates
8001 N. 7th Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85020
5. General Plan Designation: Neighborhood Commercial
6. Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is located within the Central Park Plaza
shopping center in an undeveloped pad at the corner of Base Line Road and Ellena West.
The pad was graded and planted with turf with the construction of the shopping center. To
the north is vacant land zoned Medium-High Density Residential, to the south is a day care
facility with vacant land zoned Low-Medium Residential beyond, to the west are commercial
and office developments, and to the east is vacant land zoned Medium-High Residential.
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
(909) 477-2750
10. Other agencies whose approval is required:
Cucamonga County Water District
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Conditional Use Permit 99-07 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
{ ) Transporlation/Circulation
( ) Biological Resources
( ) Energy and Mineral Resources
( ) Hazards
( ) Noise
( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance
( ) Public Services
( ) Utilities and Service Systems
( ) Aesthetics
( ) Cultural Resources
( ) Recreation
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
(X) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
()
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment.
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
()
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
()
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
1 ) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR. including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Re~ec~Van Buren, Associate Planner
April 8, 1999
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Conditional Use Permit 99-07 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?
( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) (x)
w
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?
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Conditional Use Permit 99-07 Page 4
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)
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 flow of groundwater? ( )
Impacts to groundwater quality? ( )
d)
g)
h)
( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) (x)
()
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
()
()
()
(x)
(x)
(x)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Conditional Use Permit 99-07 Page 5
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
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?
Create objectionable odors?
d)
(x)
(x)
(x)
(x)
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal
result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
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)?
Rail or air traffic impacts?
g)
(x)
(x)
(x)
(x)
(x)
(x)
(x)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Conditional Use Permit 99-07 Page 6
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?
()
()
()
()
()
()
(x)
(x)
(x)
(x)
(x)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
proposal.'
a)
b)
c)
Would the
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( )
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( )
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
( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) (x)
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a ) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including. but not limited to: oil.
pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)?
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Conditional Use Permit 99-07 Page 7
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with ~ammable brush,
grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
10.
NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
11.
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services?
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
'b2o
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Conditional Use Permit 99-07 Page 8
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?
) )
(x)
(x)
(x)
(x)
(x)
(x)
(x)
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
(x)
(x)
(x)
14.
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Disturb paleontological resources? ( )
Disturb archaeological resources? ( )
Affect historical or cultural resources? ( )
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( )
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ( )
()
()
()
()
()
(x)
(x)
(x)
(x)
(x)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Conditional Use Permit 99-07 Page 9
15.
RECREATION, Would the proposal.'
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational oppodunities?
( ) ( ) ( ) (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
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal, or eliminate impodant examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory? ( )
b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to
achieve shod-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A shod-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.) ( )
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? ( )
( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) (x)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Conditional Use Permit 99-07 Page 10
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following
earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply):
(X) General Plan EIR
(Certified April 6, 1981)
(X) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
(X) Terra Vista Planned Community EIR
(SCH #81082808, certified February 16, 1983)
(X) Other: Nec~ative Declaration for CUP 89-18
City of Rancho Cucamonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.:
Project Name:
Project Location (also see attached map):
Conditional Use Permit 99-07 Public Review Period Closes: May 12, 1999
Project Applicant: Spetr & Associates
Southwest corner of Base Line Road and Ellena West -
APN: 227-182-10
Project Description: A request to modify a previously approved masterplan and construct a 16,747 square
foot drug store with a drive-thru on a 2.86 acre parcel in lhe Central Park Plaza within the Neighl~orhood
Commercial Distdct of the Tetra Vista Community Plan.
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an
Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is
proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment.
[] The initial Study identified potentially significant effects but:
(1)
Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed 1o by the applicant before this
proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or
mitigate the effects to a point where cleady no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required.
Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all
related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at
10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847.
NOTICE
The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period,
May 12. 1999
Date of Determination
Adopted By
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 99-07, A REQUEST TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
MASTER PLAN AND CONSTRUCT A 16,747 SQUARE FOOT DRUG
STORE, WITH A FREESTANDING DRIVE-THRU, ON A 2.86 ACRE
PARCEL IN THE CENTRAL PARK PLAZA WITHIN THE NEIGH BOPHOOD
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OF THE TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN,
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND
ELLENA WEST, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
APN: 227-182-10.
A. Recitals.
1. Sperr & Associates has filed an application for approval of Conditional Use Permit 99-
07, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution. the subject
Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 12th day of May 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that
date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced heating on May 12, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission
hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to irregularly shaped parcel located on the south side of
Base Line Road with a street frontage of over 400 feet and on the west side of Ellena West with
street frontage of over 400 feet, and is presently a graded, vacant pad site within an existing
commercial shopping center (Conditional Use Permit 89-18); and
b. The property to the north and east is vacant land in the Medium-High Density
Residential District, to the south is a day care facility in the Neighborhood Commercial District with
vacant land in the Low-Medium Residential District beyond, and to the west is the commercial
shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial District;
c. The proposed project is a request to modify a previously approved master plan
and construct a 16,747 square foot drug store, with a drive-thru, on a 2.86 acre parcel in the
Central Park Plaza within the Neighborhood Commercial District of the Tetra Vista Community
Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 99-07-SPERR AND ASSOCIATES
May12,1999
Page 2
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above,
this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan;
and
b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code
and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and
c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of
the Development Code; and
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 facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration,
together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the
application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon
the findings as follows:
a. That the Negative 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 753.5c of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed
project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which
wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative
Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning
Commission dudng the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption
of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth
below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 99-07 - SPERR AND ASSOCIATES
May 12, 1999
Page 3
Plannincl Division
1)
The developer shall provide additional trees to the Base Line Road
landscape setback to screen the entry to the loading area, to the
satisfaction of the City Planner. Trees shall be consistent with the
species existing in the landscape setback, and shall be shown on
Landscape Plans submitted for plan check.
2)
The developer may submit an alternate archway treatment to replace
the canopies in the entry tower arch insets, subject to the review and
approval of the City Planner.
3)
The developer shall provide material sample of the perforated metal
screening proposed as a component of the truck loading area screen
wall, for City Planner review and approval, prior to issuance of
building permits.
4)
All building materials and colors, such as, but not limited to, accent
tiles, trellis, cornices, and column details, shall match the architectural
features of the Central Park Plaza shopping center.
5) The improvements to the east wall of the Ace Hardware building shall
be completed, prior to final occupancy.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF MAY 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
A'FI'EST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Butler, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed. and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of
the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of May 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
Conditional Use Permit 99-07 (Rite Aid)
Drug Store
Sperr and Associates
Southwest corner of Base Line Road and Ellena West
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
General Requirements
Completion Orate
The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City. its
agents. officers. or employees. because of the issuance of such approval. or in the alternative.
to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City. its agents. officers. or
employees. for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City. its agents. officers. or
employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may. at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation
shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
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
Conditional Use Permit, Variance, or Development/Design Review approval shall expire if
building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date
of approval. No extensions are allowed.
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 Plannin9 Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code
regulations, and the Terra Vista Community Plan.
/ /
ProiectNo. CUPqq-0?
Completion Date
Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions
of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
All site, grading, landscape, irrigation. and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment.
building. etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved
use has commenced. whichever comes first.
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.
Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and
the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits.
All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be
located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete
or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single
family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults.
D. Shopping Centers
The Master Plan is approved in concept only. Future development for (each buitding pad/parcel)
shall be subject to separate DevelopmentJDesign Review process for Planning Commission
approval. Modifications to the Shopping Center Master Plan shall be subject to Planning
Commission approval.
A uniform hardscape and street furniture design including seating benches, trash receptacles,
free-standing potted plants, bike racks, light bollards, etc., shall be utilized and be compatible
with the architectural style. Detailed designs shall be submitted for Planning Division review and
approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
Provide for the following design features in each trash enclosure, to the satisfaction of the City
Planner:
Architecturally integrated into the design of (the shopping center/the project).
Separate pedestrian access that does not require the opening of the main doors and
to include self-dosing pedestrian doors.
C=
Large enough to accommodate two trash bins.
d. Roll-up doors.
Trash bins with counter-weighted lids.
Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis.
Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of the enclosure and
designed to be hidden from view.
4. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours.
5. The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash and
debris remain for more than 24 hours.
6. All operations and businesses shall be conducted to comply with the following standards which
shall be incorporated into the lease agreements for all tenants:
a. Noise Level - All commercial activities shall not create any noise that would exceed
an exterior noise level of 60 dB during the hours of 10 p.m. until 7 a.m. and 65 d8
during the hours of 7 a.m. until 10 p.m.
b. Loading and Unloading - No person shall cause the loading. unloading, opening,
closing, or other handling of boxes. crates, containers, building materials, garbage
cans. or other similar objects between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless
otherwise specified herein, in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to
a residential area.
7. Textured pavement shall be provided across circulation aisle. pedestrian walkway, and plaza.
They shall be of brick/tile pavers, exposed aggregate, integral color concrete, or any combination
thereof. Full samples shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits.
8. The lighting fixture design shall compliment the architectural program. It shall include the plaza
area lighting fixtures, building lighting fixtures (exterior), and parking lot lighting fixtures.
9. The design of store fronts shall compliment the architectural program and shall have subtle
variations subject to Design Review Committee approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
10. Any outdoor vending machines shall be recessed into the building faces and shall not extend into
the pedestrian walkways. The design details shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner
prior to the issuance of building permits.
11. Cart corrals shall be provided for temporary storage. No permanent outdoor storage of shopping
carts shall be permitted unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission. The shopping
carts shall be collected and stored at the approved designated place at the end of each work day.
Building Design
1. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main
building colors.
Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans)
1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. When a side of any parking space abuts
a building, wall, support column, or other obstruction, the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet
wide.
2. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall
contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb).
3. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided
throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open
spaces/plazas/recreational uses.
Projet1 NO, CUP q~-O?
Completion Date
All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances,
and exits shall be striped per City standards.
Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more
parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall, whichever is greater, of the total number of
stalls for use by the handicapped.
/ /
/ /
/ /
Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily
residential projects or more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required
automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first
50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of
the required automobile parking spaces. Warehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle
storage spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent on the required automobile parking spaces with a
minimum of a 3-bike rack. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required
exceed 100. Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater. the number shall be rounded off
to the higher whole number.
G. Landscaping
3.
4.
5.
Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in
accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The
location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be
shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's
recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting. and trimming methods.
/ /
A minimum of 20% of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30% within
commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger.
W~thin parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking
stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21.
Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one
tree per 30 linear feet of building.
All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope. but less than 2:1
slope. shall be. at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion
control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be
installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger size
shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks
in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or
larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in
staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall
include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
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.
Completion Date
Signs
The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval.
Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require
separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
t. 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 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.
Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition
to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate.
Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee. Drainage Fee,
School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees.
Street addresses shall be provided by the Build ing Official, after tract/parcel map recordation 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.
J. New Structures
Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering
use, area, and fireoresistiveness.
K. 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.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
L. General Fire Protection Conditions
Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants,
if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-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.
2. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) wiZl be required as noted below:
X
Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15.
Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking,
plastics manufacturing, spray painting, fiammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact
the Fire Safety Division to determine if the sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations.
3. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of
sprinkler system.
4. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below:
X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15.
5. 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.
6. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall
be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific
details and ordering information.
7. $132.00 Fire District fee(s), and a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District prior 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.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
M. Security Lightin9
1, All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power.
These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell.
2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with
direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire
development,
3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures.
N, Security Hardware
1. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within
40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used.
2. All garage or rollin9 doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices.
3. All roof openings 9lying access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal gates,
or alarmed.
O. Windows
1. Store front windows shall be visible to passing pedestrians and traffic.
Building Numbering
1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime
visibility,
Q, Alarm Systems
1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and
employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in
turn save dollars and lives.
SC - 4/19/99
CITY OF RANCI.IO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
May 12, 1999
Chairman and Member of the Planning Commission,
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer
ENVIRONMENTALASSESSI~IENTANDTENTATIVE PARCELl%lAP 15692
- PRUTTING - A subdivision of 4.75 acres of land into 4 parcels in the Very Low
Residential District ( 1-2 dwel ling units per acre), located on the west side of Hellman
Avenue, south of Hillside Road - APN: 1061-611-02. Staff has prepared an
Environmental Notice of Exemption for consideration.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION
A. Action Requested: Approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map as shown on Exhibit "B".
B. Existint~ Zoning: Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre).
C. Surroundinu. Land Use and Zonins~:
North - Flood Control
South - Vacant
East - Single Family
West - Flood Control
D. Surroundin~ General Plan Develor~ment Code Designations:
Project Site - Very Low Residential
North - Flood Control
South - Very Low Residential
East - Very Low Residential
West - Flood Control
E. Site Characteristics:
The property fronts Hellman Avenue and slopes to the southwest. A drain is proposed to
be installed at the southwest corner of the property to carry storm flows from the site to the
Flood Control easement to the west. There are three mature trees on the site, one ofwhich
is an oak tree.
ITEM E
PLANNING COM]V[ISSION STAFF REPORT
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15692 - PRUTTING
May 12, 1999
Page 2
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The parcel map was previously approved August 14, 1996 but expired on August 14, 1998. The
parcel map will subdivide the property into four lots. The two lots fronting Hellman will be 22,500
square feet each. The remaining two lots will be 79,620 square feet each. The westerly lots can be
further subdivided into 3 one-half acre lots each for a total of 8 one-half acre single family custom
lots at build out. This first portion of the subdivision will dedicate the cubde-sac for the ultimate
condition and build the street fronting the first lots (see Exhibit "C'). Hellman Avenue fronting the
project will be fully improved.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Staff has concluded that the site is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), Categorical Exemptions, Section 15315, Class 15, Part II of the Initial Study
is not required. Therefore, staff has prepared an environmental Notice of Exemption for
consideration.
CORRESPONDENCE
This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper. the
property has been posted and notices were sent to all property owner within 300 feet of the project
site.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Parcel Map 15692 by adoption
of the attached Resolution and approval of the Environmental Notice of Exemption.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dan James
Senior Civil Engineer
DJ:MEP:dlw
Attachments: Site Plan (Exhibit "A")
Parcel Map/Vicinity Map (Exhibit "B")
Alignment of future cubde-sac (Exhibit "C')
Environmental Assessment Part I (Exhibit "D")
Resolution and Recommended Conditions of Approval
TENTATIVE PARCEL NO. 15692
IN THE CiTY OF RA~'ICHO CUCAMONGA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
-I
CITY OF
RANCH0 CUCAMONGA
ENGINEERING DIVISION
ITEM:
TITLE:
EXHIBIT:
Site Plan
TPM 15692
~ILLS~DE
J
CITY OF
RANCH0 GUCAMONGA
ENGINEERING DIVISION
ITEM:
TITLE:
EXHIBIT:
VICINITY MAP
Tentative Parcel
Map 15692
.blASTER PLAN PATRICIA PRUTTING
Ref: Tena~ive tract map
12710 (2-88)
D
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ENGINEERING DIVISION
ITEM: Master Plan
TITLE: TPM 15692
EXHIBIT: "G"
.ENVIRON:'.,ENTAL
INFORMATION FORM
The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of
the proposed project so that the City may review the project pursuant to City
policies, ordinances, and guidelines; the California Environmental Quality
Act; and the City's Rules and Procedures to Implement CEQA. It is important
that the information requested in this application be provided in full;
INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the
responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at
the time of submittal; City staff will not be available to perform work
required to provide missing information-
GENEPJ~L INFOEMATION
Application Nuz~er for the project to which this form pertains:
Tentative Parcel Map ~15692
Project Title:
Patricia Prutting
Name & Address of project owner(s):
6453 nuckthorn Ave., Alta T, oma, CA 91701
N~u~e & Address Of developer or project s~nsor:
Same
Contact Person & Address:
Same
Telephone Nnm~r:
(909) 94~-9490
Name & Address of person preparing this form (if different from above):
Telephone N,,m~M~r:
C I T Y o f
R A~--'~H O C U C A M O N G A
~"~r'/--//~?//'/,~
P~O~ i~TI(~ & DES~IPTI~
Information indicated by asterisk (') is
CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff.
not required of non-construction
'1) Provide a full scale (8-1/2 X 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s)
which includes the project site, and indicate the site boundaries.
2) Provide a set of color photographs which show representative views into
the site from the north, south, east and west; views into and from the
site from the primary access points which serve the site; and
representative views of significant features from the site- Include a
map showing location of each photograph.
West side of ~Iellman Ave.
3) Project Location (describe):
between ~{illside & Wilson Ave., Alta Loma.
4)
Assessor's Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessary):
1067-671-02
4.75 AC.
'5) Gross Site Area (ac/sq. ft.):
206970
Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets & proposed
dedications):
756,165 SF (Lots +- Equest. Easement and Drainac~ ~n~ment.
7)
Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would
affect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessary):
n/a
8)
Include a description of all permits which will be necessary from the
City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in order to
fully implement the project:
9)
Describe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the
project including information on topography, soil stability, plants and
animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic
aspects. Describe any existing structures on site (including age and
condition) and the use of the structures- Attach photographs of
significant features described. In addition, site all sources of
information (i.e., geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and
archeological surveys, traffic studies):
Site is relatively flat rectangular in shape. Elev.~ 173B
on the ~.)orth, Elev. + 1720 on the South, Elev. t 1730 on the East,
Elev. + I/Zb On ~ne West. FlOOr( Coll~roi uenrl arid clzal~md,.)~ basin
bounds'the North, vacant flood control property and drainage hounds
the west, existing tlellmafi ~ve. Dounds she ~asg, v,lcaxlL ~l.Lvate lar.
bounds the South.
The site is covered with light brush and weeds that are ~lsced 2-3
times a year as a weed abatement requirement. There are two mediu~
size trees on the site, one which may have to De remover] ~or
cohstruction.of residence. No existing trails are on or around
property. There areno structures on the sxte.
The site soils are stable per soils report Dy/--~{ P;ngineerlng
dated, 11-2-84.
There is some view to the {,4outh. or the valley below axl<~ ~O the
~orth,the mountains overlooking Alta Loma are close and very visih].
~0)
Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Site
all sources of information (books, published reports and oral history):
The site ~vas used'2. by the Ioamosa Water Company in the 1930's
as a distribution point for irrigation water for the adjacent
citrus groves. The book titled, "The History of Alta Loma"
refers to irrigation in the 30's and 40's for citrus groves.
11)
Describe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site
(aircraft, roadway noise, etc.) and how they will affect proposed uses:
n/a Porposed uses will not be a noise.source.
~2)
Describe the proposed project in detail- This should provide an
adequate description of the site in terms of ultimate use which will
result from the proposed project. Indicate if there are proposed phases
for development, th~ extent of development to occur with each phase, and
the anticipated completion of each increment- Attach additional
sheet(s) if necessary:
The TMP proposed use is for subdivision of the site into four lots,
two lots of + 22,500 s.f. and the remaining two lots of equal size.
I propose to build 1-house on each of the 22,500 lots (to be complet
in one year). I propose to apply for a tentative tract of six
additional lots total on the remaining two parcels, and improving
a cul de sac street into the oroject w~hin th~ n~c~ tw~ y~r~.
Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and
animals and any .cultural, historical or scenic aspects- Indicate the
type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use
(one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) and scale
of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.):
Adjacent to the r~orth is a San Bernardino County flood control
debri basin; adjacent to the west is flat flood control property.
with a drainage channel running through it; adjacent to the South
is vacant land t~ith one house to the South of the vacant land.
Adjacent to the East and across the street is single family
residences on + 1/2 ac. sites. Per the City master plan this area
is all residential on L ac. lots. The existing houses have + 30'
setbacks to existing Hellman Avenue and are 1 to 2 story houses.
Rear yards of existings are 1/4 ac. in size to several ac. in size
14)
Will the proposed project change the pattern, scale or character of the
surrounding general area of the project?
NO
15)
Indicate the type of short-term ~nd long-term noise to be generated,
inclucLing source and amount. How will these noise levels affect
adjacent properties and on-site uses. What methods of sound proofing
are proposed?
Then is no appreciable noise to be generated in the ultimate plan
of B custom residences.
by the construction of
minimal.
Short term noise will only be generated
the intial two houses and this will be very
o~6)
Indicate proposed removals and/or .replacements of mature or scenic
trees:
There are only tt.~o medium trees on the site. The tree on ~roposed
lot ~2 may have to be removed for the construction of a house.
several trees will be planted as part of the landscaping ot ~uture
houses.
E/O
17)
Indicate any bod/es of water (including domestic water supplies) into
which the site drains:
The site does not drain into any existing bodies of water.
The site drains to the South-West into an existing flood
Control ditch.
18)
Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage
estimates)- For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga
County Water District at 987-2591.
600 7200
a. Residential (gal/day) Peak use (gal/day)
19)
b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) Peak use (gal/min/ac)
Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal- X Septic Tank
Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. If
discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected
daily sewage generation: (see Attachment A for usage estimates). For
further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water
District at 987-2591-
a. Residential (gal/day)
b. Industrial/Commercial (gal/day/ac)
RESIDENTIAL pRCkTECTS
20)
Ntu~ber of residential u.nits:
Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes, ~Lnimum lot size and ~ximum
lot size:
20,300 S.F. to 24,500 S.F.
Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units):
The intial house will be lived in by owner. None of the
residences will be used for rent.
2~)
22)
Anticipated range of sale prices and/or rents:
lived
Sale Price(s) $ n/a houses to be to $
in by owner.
Rent (per month) $ to $
Specify number of bedrooms by unit type:
4 bedrooms per house. (Brothers and myself.)
23)
Indicate anticipated household size by unit type:
3 persons
24)
Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing
within the project: Contact the appropriate School Districts as shown
in Attachment B:
a. Elementary: -0-
1
b- Junior High:
-0-
c. Senior High:
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTR/AL AND INSTITUTIONAL p~OJECTS
25)
Describe type of use(s) and major function(s) of commercial, industrial
Or institutional uses:
n/a
26) Total floor area Of commercial, industrial,
type:
n/a
or institutional uses by
27) Indicate hours of operation:
n/a
28)
29)
n/a
Number of employees: Total:
Maximum Shift:
Time Of Maximum Shift:
Provide breakdown of anticipated job classifications, including wage and
salary ranges, as well as an indication of the rate of hire for each
classification (attach additional sheet if necessary):
n/a
30)
Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that currently reside in
the C~a
For commercial and industrial uses only, indicate the source, type and
amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be verified through the
South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572-6283):
n/a
32)
Have the water, sewer, fire, and flood control agencies serving the
project been contacted to determine their ability to provide adequate
service to the proposed project? If so, please indicate their
response.
Yes the have contacted. Yes they can provide service
33)
In the known history of this property, has there been any use, storage,
or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials? Examples of hazardous
and/or toxic materials include, but are not limited to PCB'S;
radioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides; fuel, oils, solvents,
and other flammable liquids and gases. Also, note underground storage
of any of the above. Please list the materials and describe their use,
storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use,
if known-
n/a
34)
Will the proposed project involve the temporary or long-term use,
storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic ~terials, including but
not limited to those examples listed above? If yes, provide an
inventory of all such materials to be used and proposed method of
disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and
shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans.
n/a
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached
e~ibits present the data and information required for adenate evaluation of
this project to the ~st of my ability, that the facts, statements, and
infor~tion presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief. I f~ther ~derstand that additional infomation my be required to
be s~mitted before an adenate evaluation can ~ ~de by the City of ~ncho
Cucamonga.
5-10-95
Date: Si~ature:
Owner
Title:
ATTACHMENT A
Water Usage
Average use per day
Rasidenttal
Single Family
Apt/Condo
Cx~-~rcial/Industrial
General and Regional Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
General Industrial
Industrial Park
Peak Usage
For all uses
Average use X 2.0
600 gal/day
400 gal/day
3000 gal/day/ac
1500 gal/day/ac
1500 gal/day/ac
3000 gal/day/ac
Sewer Flows
Residential
Single Family
Apt/Condos
270 gal/day
200 gal/day
Commercial/Indust_rial
General Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
General Industrial
Heavy Industrial
2000 gal/day/ac
1000-1500 gal/day/ac
2000 gal/day/ac
3000 gal/day/ac
Source: Cucamonga County Water District Master Plan, 9/86
APPENDIX E
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
TOz
Clerk of the Board
San Bernardino County
Auditor/Control let-Recorder
385 N. Arrowhead, 2''a Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92415
FROM: City ofRancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
AT'IN: Engineering Division
Environmental Assessment and Tentative l~arc'el Mat~ 15692
Project Title
West side of Hellman Avenue Sollib of Hillside Road
Project Location - Specific
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Project Location - City
4 lot Subdivision
Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project
City of Rancho Cttcamon~a
Name of Public Agency Approving Project
Ms. Patricia Prutling
Name of Person or Agency Carr)'ing Out Project
San Bernardino County
Project Location - County
Exempt Status: (Check One)
X
Ministerial (Sec. 15073)
Declared Emergency (See. 15071 (a))
Emergency Project (See. 15071 (b) and (c))
Categorical Exemption. State type and section number.
Article 19. Class 1 fc). Section 15301 of CEOA
Reasons why project is exempt:
Maria Perez (909) 477-2740 2314
Contact Person Area Code Telephone Extension
If filed by applicant: I. Attach certified document &exemption finding.
2. Has a notice &exemption been filed by the public agency approving the
project? Yes__ No X
Date Received for Filing
Signature
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15692, LOCATED ON THE WEST
SIDE OF HELLMAN AVENUE SOUTH OF HILLSIDE ROAD, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 1061-611-02
WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 15692 was submitted by Ms. Patricia
Prutting, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing into 4 parcels, the real property situated in the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, identified as APN
1061-611-02, located on the west side of Hellman Avenue south of Hillside Road; and
WHEREAS, on May 12, 1999, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public
hearing for the above-described map.
NOW THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made:
1. That the map is consistent with the General plan.
That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with
the General 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 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission can approve the Environmental Notice of
Exemption based upon the findings as follows:
That the site is exempt pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act, Categorical Exemptions, Section 15315, Class 15, which
states the following:
Consists of the division of property in urbanized areas
zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use into
four or fewer parcels when the division is in conformance
with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or
exceptions are required, all sen/ices and access to the
proposed parcels to local standards are available, the
parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel
within the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not have
an average slope greater than 20 percent.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
PARCEL MAP 15692 ~ PRUTTING
May 12, 1999
Page 2
SECTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map Number 15692 is hereby approved subject to the
attached Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions:
EnQineerinq Division:
The portion of the interior street fronting Parcels I and 2 shall be a
fully dedicated 60-foot local street. The balance of the cul-de-sac
street shall be an irrevocable offer of dedication of the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
An irrevocable offer of dedication shall be made for a public drainage
easement between the future two southwesterly lots as seen in the
applicant's master plan or previously proposed Lots 5 and 6 of
unapproved Tract 12710 and along the southern property line of the
southwest lot fronting San Bemardino County Flood Control property.
The portion of the interior street fronting Parcels 1 and 2 shall be fully
improved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, including barricades
per City Standards.
4. A Drainage Acceptance Agreement shall be recorded for Parcels 3
and 4.
The existing overhead utilities on the project side of Hellman Avenue
shall be undergrounded along the entire project frontage extending
to the first pole off-site (north and south), prior to public improvements
acceptance or occupancy. whichever occurs first. The Developer may
request a reimbursement agreement to recover one-half the City
adopted cost for undergrounding from future
development/redevelopment as it occurs on the opposite side of the
street. 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.
The drainage and equestrian easements shall be reserved as
"PRIVATE" drainage and equestrian easement on the final map.
Plannincl Division
A 12-foot drive approach with 10-foot vehicle gate and 5-foot step
thru access for horses shall be installed where local feeder trails meet
Hellman Avenue upon development of Parcels I and 2.
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
8'7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
PARCELMAP 15692- PRUTTING
May12.1999
Page 3
approval prior to approval and recordation of the Final Parcel Map
and prior to approval of street improvement and grading plans.
Developer shall upgrade and construct all trails, including fencing and
drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements.
Local Feeder Trails (i.e., pdvate equestrian easements) shall, at
a minimum, be fenced with two rail, 4-inch lodgepole "peeler"
logs to define both sides of the easement; however. developer
may upgrade to an alternate fence material.
Local Feeder Trail entrances shall also provide access for
service vehicles, such as veterinarians or hay deliveries,
including a 12-foot minimum drive approach. Entrance may be
gated provided that equestrian access is maintained through
step-thrus.
Local Feeder Trail grades shall not exceed 0.5 percent at the
downstream end of a trail for a distance of 25 feet behind the
public right-ofiway line to prohibit trial debris from reaching the
street. Drainage devices may be required by the Building
Official.
The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall not
prohibit keeping of 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&Rs.
The CC&Rs are subject to the approval of the Planning and
Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded
concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building
permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to
the City Engineer.
Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected
with a construction barrier in accordance with Municipal code Section
19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those
trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted
trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant
shall follow all of the arborist's recommendation regarding
preservation, transplanting and trimming methods.
The existing oak tree shall be preserved in place in accordance with
Municipal Code Section 19.08.110. The equestrian easement shall
be widened to provide a minimum I O-foot clearance between the tree
trunk and trail fencing.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
PARCEL MAP 15692- PRU'FFING
May 12, 1999
Page 4
Building and Safety
A 6-foot private drainage easement shall be provided between pdvate
equestrian easement and proposed parcel with a 3-foot improved
drainage swale for cross lot drainage.
2. The drainage swale shall be altered as necessary to accommodate
the trees that are to be preserved.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF MAY 1999
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATI'EST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day
of May 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. [.~::~ ~
Those items checked are Cm~ditions of AoorovaL
A. Dedications and Vehicular Access
,/ I. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails,
public pascos. public landscape areas, street trees, 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 strccts (measured from
centerline):
total feet on
total feet on
total feet on
total feet on
3. An irrevocable offer of dedication for roadway purposes sicall be made for the private streets.
4. Comer propcRy line cutoffs shall bc dedicated per City Standards.
5. Vehicular acccss rigliB shall bc dedicated to the City for the rollowing strccts, cxccpt fur approved
openings:
7.
8.
9.
10.
I1.
Reciprocal access easements ensuring access to all parccls shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with
the final pal'eel map.
Rcciprocal access easements ensuring access to all parcels shall bc provided by C. C. & R.'s or deeds and
shall bc recorded prior to or concurrent with the final parccl map.
All existing casements lying within future right-of-way arc to be quitclaimed or delineated on the final
parcel map per City Enginccr's requirements.
Easements for public sidewalks and/or strcet trccs placed outside the public right-of-way sicall bc
dcdicatcd to the City.
Private drainage easemenu for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on thc
final p~ccl map.
Additional street right-of-way shall bc dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum or 7 fcct
measured from the face or curbs. If curb adjaccnt sidewalk is used along the right turn lane, a parallel
street trcc casement shall be provided.
12.
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests necessary
to construct the required public improvements and, if he/she should fail to do so, the developer shall at
least 1,0 days prior to submiBal of the final parcel map for approval, enter into an agrcenlcnt to complete
the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the
property interests required for the improvcntcnts, Such agreemaul 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 comn~encenlent of the appraisal. Titis condition applies in
particular, but not limited, to:
,/
All public improvements, (interior stxeets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas,
ere. ) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street
improvements shall include, but are not linlited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches,
sidewalks, street lights, and street trees.
2. A minimum, of 26- foot wide pavement witl~in a 40- foot wide dedicated right-uf-way shall be
constructed for all half-section streets.
Construct the following missing perimeter street improvements including, but not lirahod to:
Street Name Curb AC Side- Drive 5trcct Street Comm. Median Bike Other
~ Pvml waJk Appr, LighB Trccs Trail Island Trail
GuUct
Notes: (=) Median Island includes landscapinl~ and irrtl~atinn on meter. (b) Pavement construction and overlays will be
determined durina plan check. (c) Is so marked, sidewalk will be curviilncar per 5TD. #t 14. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu
ofconstruclion fee shall be provided for Ibis item.
,/
Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans including sircut trees and street lights, prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by tile City Engineer.
b. Prior to any work being perfonncd in the public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction
perutit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's office in addition to any other permits required.
c, Pavement striping, marking, traffic, street name signing, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal couduit with pull boxes shall be installed on any ncw construction or reconstruction ol'nlajor,
secondary or collector streets for future signals. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at
3 feet outside of BCR, ECR or any other locations appruved by tile City Engineer.
Nolcs: (I) All pull boxes shall be No. 6 unless o~crwisc specified by the City Enginccr. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized
slccl with pullrope.
e. Handicapped access rantps shall be installed on all comers of iutcrsections per City Standards or as
directed by the City Engineer,
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours
during construction. A street closure perutit may be required. A cash deposit sitall be provided to cover
the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Conccntrated drainage flows shall not cross sidcwalks. Under sidcwalk drains shall bc installed to City
Standards, cxccpt for single fanlily lots.
h. Street names shall be approvcd by the City Planner prior to submiltal for first plan check.
5. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all private streets sitall be provided for rcvicw and
approval by the City Engineer, Prior to any work being performed on the private streets, fees sitall be paid and
consu'uction permits shall be obtained from the City Engineers office in addition to any other permits required.
6. Street trees, a minimum of 15 - gallon size or larger sitall be installed per City Standards in accordance
with the City's street tree program.
7. Intersection line of sight designs shall be revicwcd by thc City Engineer for conformance with adopted
policy. On collector or larger street, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including
drivcways.
8. A Permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any work within the following right-of-way.
9. All public improvements on the rollowing streets shall be operationally complete prior to the issuance of
building permits.
Public Maintenance Areas
I. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall bc submined
to the City Engineer for rcvicw and approval prior to final parcel map approval. The following landscaped
parkways. medians, pascos, cascmcr~ts, trails, or other areas shall be annexed into the Lar~dscapc Maintenance
District:
2. A signed consent and waiver foml to join and/or form tile appropriate Landscape and Lighdng Districts
shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval. Formalion costs shall be borne by tl~e
developer.
3. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer
until accepted by the City.
4. Parkway landscaping on the following strcct(s) shall conform to the results ofth¢ rcspectivc Beautification
Master Plan:
Drainace and Flood Control
I. The project (or portions thereof) is located within a Flood Ilazard Zone; dlcrcforc. flood protection
measures shall be provided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer.
2. It shall be the dcvelopcr's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone designation removed from
the project area. The devcloper's engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans, and hydrologic/hydraulic
calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall bc obtained from FEMA, 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.
5. A permit fi'om the San Bcmardino County Flood Control District is required for work within it's right-of-
way.
6. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from
the outer edge of a mature tree trunk.
7. Public storm drain casements shall be gradcd to convcy overflows in the cvcnt of blockage ill a sump
condition.
4
,/
v/
v/
[mprrP.'ement Completion
1. If the required public improvements are not completed prior to approval of the final parcel map, an
improvement security accompanied by an agreement executed by the Developer and the City will be required
for:
CtZt, U S'Rze -'r , peo e &F?5 Az, oN(,,, kub
2. If the required public improvements are not completed prior to approval of the final parcSeelT~m~
improvement certificate shall be placed upon the Final Map, stating that they will be completed upon
development for:
t-,-la e"e'r- -'r'eeT5 ;DE p/~t'dcc'Z5 / A,,~ D Z-; ;UL~ ~ /zgrZ4
IIJIPL2OVm'JQuT~>i Ir, lCCvr')lh(.~ F"J~nIAI~I~F F,4CtL;T/Sr5) UP~Kd
or~ e'/7'k/'e~ PAtce'L 5DE 4.
Ijlilities
I. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system. waler, gas, electrical
power, telephone and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with tile Utility Standards. Easements shall
be provided as required.
2. Waler and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet requirements of the Cucamonga County'
Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health
Department of the County of San Bernardtoo.
3. Approvals have not been secured from nil utilities and other interesled agencies involved. Approval of
the final parcel map will be subject to any requiremeals that may be recclved from them.
4. TIle developer shall bc responsible for the rclocation of cxisting ulilitics as necessary.
C, ener:fi Requirements and kpprnvalS
I. The tentative map approval is valid for the 24 month period following the approval date. Time extensions
may be granted by the Panning Commission, if requested prior to file 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 & R's) approved 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 tile estimated cost
of apportioning tile assessments under Assessment District , among tile newly created parcels.
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.
5
7. Prior to ~nalization ofa~y development phase, sufficient improventent plans ~hall be completed beyond
the phase boundaries to assure secondan' access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the Cit~ Engineer
Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map.
8. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan Drainage Fees shall
be paid prior to final parcel map approval.
9. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way.
IO. 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 parcel map approval. Formation costs shall be borne by the
developer.
I I. Prior to recordarion of the 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 dis~ct prior to the recordation of the final parcel map. Fur~er, if the affected school district has
not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of
the project and prior to the recordation of the final parcel map for said project, this condition shall be deemed
null and void.
This condition shall ~ waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school districts have
entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts as a result of this project.
12. MclIo Roos Community Facilities District requirements for the Rancho Cucarnonga Fire Protection District
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 permiu be issued or a map recorded. until (I) the Notice of
Determination (NOD) regarding the associated environmental action in filed and posted with Clerk of the Board
of Supervisor~ of the County of San Bemardino; and (2) any and all required handling charges, are paid to the
County Clerk ofthe County of San Bernardino. The applicant shall provide the Engineering Deparunent 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 determined 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. 8/l/95
6
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
May 12, 1999
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Salvador M. Salazar. AICP. Associate Planner
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-02 -
CURRY BRANDAW ARCHITECTS - An application to change the General Plan
land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to
Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 5.1 acres
of land. located on the southeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and 19th Street -
APN: 1076-111-09.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
AMENDMENT 99-02 - CURRY BRANDAW ARCHITECTS - An application to
change the Development District zoning designation from Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for
approximately 5.1 acres of land, located on the southeast corner of Hermosa
Avenue and 19th Street - APN: 1076-111-09.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the above-mentioned project be continued to the
June 9, 1999, Planning Commission meeting, inasmuch as additional time is needed to analyze the
proposed land use and Development District Amendment.
Respectfully submitted,
City Planner
BB:SS:mlg
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
May 12, 1999
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Salvador M. Salazar, AICP. Associate Planner
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-02 -
CURRY BRANDAW ARCHITECTS - An application to change the General Plan
land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to
Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 5.1 acres
of land, located on the southeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and 19th Street -
APN: 1076-111-09.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
AMENDMENT 99-02 - CURRY BRANDAW ARCHITECTS - An application to
change the Development District zoning designation from Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for
approximately 5.1 acres of land, located on the southeast corner of Hermosa
Avenue and 19th Street - APN: 1076-111-09.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the above-mentioned project be continued to the
May 26, 1999, Planning Commission meeting, inasmuch as additional time is needed to analyze
the proposed land use and Development District Amendment.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:SS:mlg
ITEMS F & G
Y
CITY OF RANClIO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
May 12, 1999
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner
APPEAL OF A SIGN REQUEST WITHIN UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 134 -
FUNCOLAND - An appeal of the City Planner's decision regarding a wall sign for
Funcoland, a retail store within the Terra Vista Town Center in the Community
Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at 10730 Foothill
Boulevard, Suite #140 - APN: 1077-421-75.
BACKGROUND: The appellant, Funcoland, submitted a first sign application on January 11, 1999,
with the approval of the landlord. All approved sign programs in the City have a provision requiring that
the landlord review a tenant's sign for compliance before the plan is submitted to the City for a permit.
Staff reviewed Funcoland's sign application with the newly approved Uniform Sign Program and denied
itbasedonthenoncompliancewiththesigncriteria. The appellant appealed the City Planner's action.
The Commission reviewed the appeal at their March 10, 1999, meeting. and determined that the
proposed multi-colored sign face did not meet the criteria contained in the approved Uniform Sign
Program. The Commission upheld the City Planner's decision and denied the appeal. Because
Funcoland missed the filing deadline to appeal the Commission's decision, they resubmitted the same
application on March 29. 1999, with the approval of the landlord. In the Development Code there is
a provision that would restrict the same or substantially the same application from being resubmitted
within 12 months of the City's last action to deny the project. The Sign Ordinance does not have this
provision. Therefore. the applicant's request was accepted as complete and processed accordingly.
Again, the application was denied by the City Planner for noncompliance with the Uniform Sign
Program. The appeal to the Commission was filed in a timely manner.
ANALYSIS:
General: Funcoland is a retailer of games within the Terra Vista Town Center shopping complex.
The store is located west of the Ross department store as shown in Exhibit "E.' Funcoland has
a leased space of 1,669 square feet and began operating the business in the fall of 1998. Their
wail sign is in-place, which was installed without approval of a Sign Permit or the necessary
building and electrical permits.
The New Uniform Siqn Proqram for Terra Vista Town Center: Lewis Operating Corporation,
property owner, updated the sign programs for Terra Vista Town Center and Town Center
Square in response to market pressures and tenants' needs. Between June and
September 1998, the Commission conducted three workshops to review the proposed changes,
which involved relaxing of the sign criteria such as increasing the sign letter size, sign area, the
choice of colors (six), and allowing national Iogos, etc. In their workshops. the Commission
specifically discussed the issue of multi-colors signs with Lewis and stated the use of such signs
would detract from the architecture and would not add value to the appearance of the storefronts.
ITEN H
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
USP NO. 134- FUNCOLAND
May12,1999
Page 2
Lewis worked with the Commission in revising the criteria to meet their concerns. On January
13, 1999, the Commission approved the Uniform Sign Program for the two centers, which
included an increase in letter size, length, and sign area for tenants and increased the choice of
colors from three to five.
Current Siqn Criteria for Funcoland: Funcoland is permitted to have one wall sign per building
elevation. with a maximum letter height of 18 inches, maximum length at 75 percent of the leased
store width, and only one color for the sign face. The current Funcoland wall sign is in
compliance with all provisions of the Uniform Sign Program with the exception of the multicolored
letters. The Uniform Sign Program states that only one color is allowed for the sign face. Also,
the City allows the use of graphic Iogos or trademarks to be placed adjacent to the sign copy
(letters) if they are within the allowable sign area and letter height. Exhibit "G" is an example of
a tenant sign with the combination of logo/trademark and copy. This option is available but is not
used by Funcoland.
Reaistered Trademark: The appellant contends that the multicolored sign is a trademarked logo
as shown in Exhibit "H," and is necessary for public recognition. The City Attorney has reviewed
the appeal and advised that the City cannot require the alteration of a registered trademark.
However, the City Attorney stated that based on recent court cases, "A State, political subdivision
or agency remains free to regulate where, and whether signs may be placed and how large they
may be." Therefore, the City retains the power to prohibit the use of a registered trademark or
require it to be reduced in size.
Conclusion: Based on the above analysis, staff believes approval of the multicolored Funcoland
wall sign is inconsistent with the Uniform Sign Program and will set a precedent for the City and
lead to other similar requests.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the City Planner's
decision and deny the appeal through adoption of the attached Resolution.
City Planner
BB:NF:DG:mlg
Attachments:
Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"
Exhibit "C"
Exhibit "D"
Exhibit "E'
Exhibit "F"
Exhibit "G"
Exhibit "H'
Exhibit "1"
Resolution
- Appellant's Appeal Letter dated April 8, 1999
- City Planner's Denial letter dated April 1, 1999
- Proposed Wall Sign Elevation
- Photo of Funcoland Wall Sign
- Site Plan
- Excerpt from Uniform Sign Program
- Example of Tenant's Sign with Logo/Trademark and Letters
- Funcoland's Registered Trademark
- Planning Commission Minutes dated March 10, 1999
of Denial
Manha Molina
Permit Department
April 8, 1999
Outdoor Advertising & Lighting, Inc.
Customer Service
Planning Department
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
R. Cucamonga, CA 91729
Re: Letter of Appeal - FuncoLand Signage
Dear Planners,
We are appealing the Planning Commission to reverse the decision of the planning
department regarding allowable signage for FuncoLand. The name, font and specifically
colors are a nationally recognized and registered trademark of the company. The multi-
colored name is necessary for proper public recognition.
By asking that the colors by limited to one color is an infi'ingemcnt of the trademark
code. We ask that the colors of FuncoLand be allowed as the colors in Payless
ShoeSource, Electric Avenue, and the logo in Java City arc allowed.
Lewis Homes agrees that the colors are trademarked, and should be allowed to enhance
the center.
Thank you,
Marlha Molina
9461 Grindlay St., Suite 220 · Cypress, CA 90630 · (714) 995-1252 · FAX (7 14) 995-8222
T H E C I T Y 0 F
ANCHQ CUCANONG
April 1. 1999
A
Ms. Madha Molina
Outdoor Advertising and Lighting
9461 Grindlay Street, Suite 220
Cypress, CA 90630
SUBJECT: PROPOSED WALL SIGN FOR FUNCOLAND
Dear Ms. Molina:
As a result of comparing your sign application dated March 29, 1999, with the Uniform Sign Program
as approved by the Planning Commission on Janua~ 13, 1999, staff has made the following findings
and determination:
The sign criteria that applies to Funcoland are: one wall sign per building elevation. maximum
letter height of 18 inches for upper and lower cases, maximum sign length is 75 percent of the
leased store width, and only one color is allowed for the sign face. The approved colors to
choose from are: red, blue, white, green and yellow.
The sign dimensions of 10 feet, 6 inches in length with 18-inch high Fetters is acceptable and
within the limits of the approved criteria.
3. The multicolor sign face of your sign does not comply with the approved sign criteria.
4. The exisling Funcoland sign was installed without a Sign Permit and Building and Electrical
Permits.
Based upon the above findings, your sign application is denied. The sign shall be removed within
10 calendar days from the date of this letter. This decision shall be final following a ten-day appeal
period beginning with the date of this letter. Appeals must be filed in writing with the Planning
Commission Secretary. state the reasons for the appeal. and be accompanied by a $62 appeal fee.
A solution to the non-conformity of your sign request would be to select one of the approved colors
and replace the sign face of the individual letters with the color you selected. If you have any
questions, please feel free to call me or Nancy Fan9 at (909) 477-2750.
Sincerely,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City Planner
BB:DG:mlg
cc: Richard Reinhardt, Lewis Companies
Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor
Jack Lain. AICe Cir,t Man.agc-r
"="' S.: :.;-_r:~er ..~rrve ':'_. C.A ;; :'2'; (;,:';) 477-2:'St3 * ;AX r;rc~.
- ° - I
SIDE VIEW
A B C D
18" 12 3/4" 10'-6" 3 3/4"
20" 14 1/4"11'-8" 4 1/2"
24" 17" 14'-0" 5"
30" 21 3/8"17'-6" 6 1/4"
36" 25 1/2"21'-0" 7 1/2"
tEATED E~CLUSWELY FOR FUNCOLAND
,DRSS cn'Y DALLAS. TX.
~ LOCAnON VARIOUS cn'Y
sr_w~c~ US 14129 DATE 10-29-97
~ MD SCALE
;COLI~IT RB~rm~ITATIVE STEVEN BERRYMAN
F. mS A~P~O~ DATE
· .DmRDS ~
LEWIS HOMES
COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION
REVIEWED AND APPROVED
SIGN ELEVATION
7t3 889 1000 940 380 9153
NOTES:
IqD[V1DUALLY LIT CHANNEL LETTERS ON BLDG. WALL -
FACES: 12 & T. # 2037 YELLOW, 'O" # 2283 RED, 'U" & '/~'
# 2119 ORANGE, ALL VV1TH 6500 WHTE NEON - 'Ns" VIVD
GREEN VI'JYL OVER WFITE ACRYLIG GREEN NEON - 'C" &
'D" # 2051 BLUE, BLUE NEON - D50 ALUM. BACK - .040 DK.
BRONZE ALUM RETURN - GOLD TRIM - 120 VOLT SERVICE
30 MA. TRANSFORMER
F:~qOME~KARENSXPHOTOS\LA\0325E.JPG (local) - Microsoft Interact Explorer Page 1 of
I/29/99
1:46:24 PM
Funcoland Store Location
TERRA VISTA TR~..N r'cklTco
'L
A trademark/logo may be combined with individual letters if said
trademark/logo is a "registered" or regionally recognized trademark with at
least six (6) open stores and is within the allowable area and size requirements.
A sign shall consist of internally illuminated individual letters. Internally
illuminated individual letters shall consist of one (1) channel letters/logo, two
(2) neon illumination, three (3) plastic face, and four (4) trim cap.
Channel letters/logo shall be made of 22 gauge steel metal, 5" deep, sides
painted medium bronze. Channel letters shall be fastened to and be centered
on the sign fascia.
Letters shall be internally illuminated via neon lighting. Transformer shall be
housed in a raceway located behind the sign fascia and exposed raceways re
prohibited.
Individual letter styles of Tenants shall be allowed. All non Restaurant/Theater
Shop Tenants Tenants shall choose one of the following Plexigias colors: Red
#2793, Blue #2214, White #7328, Green #2108 and Yellow #2037 by Rohm and
Haas Co. or approved equal.
Plastic faces shall be trimmed with a 3/4 trim cap medium bronze to match
letter returns.
Sign copy shall contain legally registered name only. No other services or
product advertising will be allowed.
In addition to the signs described above, each Tenant shall be permitted to
place white vinyl letter (Helvetica Medium letter style) to provide store name
and hours information as spedfled on attached detail sheet. The total area for
this sign shall not exceed 280 square inches. Each restaurant may also display
one (1) menu provided it is contained within the display area show,, on page
23.
Promotional or special event signs, banners and flags shall be in conformance
with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sign Ordinance and must be approved
by Landlord prior to submission to the City.
AI I, TENANTS UNDER 4,tc)~r') sq. fL
Planning Commission Approval
ln-I.ine Shop TennnLq shall be allowed one (1)C~flRS~ as
shown on page 20-22, with a maximum of two (2) wall signs allowed ff the
tenant is on the corner. At the Landlords discFfili~lo.tenant shall be allowed
signage on one (1) of the existing monument si!tmpt~m,C~cnthittdildd,h~r~ Planning
space is available. Commission with conditions and/or as
noted on plans.
Resolution No.
Date ~ I JX~lq'~ Sheet __
OUTDO01~
5EATING
A~EA
h [] 0 0 []
JAVA ~ClTY. !"" "'
1
I1[
Ill IIIIII Illill[
III I[11111 Illill
"ff-r- 4 / ' '1' 1"['I'1'1 I'1']'1'1'1'1 .
II1 7" |1 1
ill I11 hll III IIII IIIII1111111111
II[llllllI
Int. CI.: 35
Pr. io~ U.S. Cls.: 100, 101 mid 102 ""' ..
United States Patent and Trademark Office
SERVICE MARK
PRINCIPAL REGISTER
Rcg. No. 2,085,805
Relllmtcrcd Aug. 5. 1997
Fu'hcpLa
FUNCO. INC. {MINNESOTA CORPORATION)
10120 WE.ST 76TH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MN
FOR: RETAIL STORE SERVICE~ IN THE
FIELD OF COMPUTER PROGRAM ~VIOEO
GAME CARTRIDGES. IN CLASS 33 {U.S. CL&
100, 101 AND 102).
FIRST USE 10-19-1990. IN COMMERCE
IO-19-1990.
OWNER OF U.S. REG. NOS. 1.708,866. 1.896.391
AND OT}IERS.
TIlE/,,{ARK IS LINED FOR TIlE COLOP, S
YELLOW. ORANGE, GREEN. BLUE AND RED.
SER. NO. 75-14~,798. FILED
CATIIERINE KAISER KR. EIIS. F_,XAMINING
A'I'FORNEy
,/
LEWIS HOME9
COMI~ERCIAL CONSTRUCTION
~ AND k~U~'PROVI~D :.
Ix~ ~ ') c/'.. :, ·
m
TOTAL P.03
indicated that if the matter were extended to April 28, as requested by the applicant, it would
extend the time that the sign would be left up with code enforcement action being ~7
abeyance.
Commissioner Mannedno asked if the Commission could continue the matter for a shorter period
i e est
the matter at all and could ce~ainly continue it to an earlier date. ~n continue
Commissioner Mannedno sugg ed that the item be continued tg~e next meeting.
Chairman McNiel asked why the applicant wanted a continuance.
Mr. Buller replied that the applicant indicated they ~a(~d time ~o prepare an appeal. .~(.-
Commissioner Mannedno suggested the matter be continued to March 23 and ask tha~ the
applicant have someone present at th~t,~e'eting to explain any need for a fu~her continuance.
Motion: Moved by Mannednq~(~onded by Macias, to continue Appeal of Sign Permit No. 98-30
to March 23, 1999. Motion C~'ffied by the following vote:
NOES: ~
ONE - carried
APPEAL OF A SIGN REQUEST WITHIN UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 85 -
FUNCOLAND - An appeal of the City Planners decision regarding a wall sign for Funcoland.
a retail store within the Terra Vista Tcwne Center in the Community Commercial District of
the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at 10730 Foothill Boulevard, Suite #140 APN: 1077-
421-75.
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner. presented the staff report.
Commissioner Mannedno asked if staff had seen the approved trademark registration.
Ms. Fong replied that none had been submitted.
Chairman McNiel invited public comment.
David Bliss. OutdoorAdvertising & Lighting. 9461 Grindlay Street, #220, Cypress. provided a copy
of the trademark registration indicating that the mark is lined for the colors of yellow. orange.
green. blue. and red. He requested that they be able to use their registered trademark. He noted
that the staff report suggested that the letters be all one color with a reduced logo box including
the colors. He felt it would be redundant to have a sign reading Funcoland Funcoland.
Chairman McNiel asked the type of business,
Mr. Bliss responded that it is a retail store selling game software. He showed a copy of one of
their advertisements which included their five colors.
Planning Commission Minutes
rx,i t r 'iZ "
/{//
March 10. 1999
Commissioner Stewart asked if the applicant had looked at staffs suggestion.
Mr. Bliss replied that his company was hired to apply for the permit and do the sign installation.
He stated that Funcoland wants to use their nationally recognized colors.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the Sign Ordinance allows logos to be multicolors but it was
not staffs intention to have Funcoland Funcoland on the same sign, He said staff was suggesting
that the colors could be incorporated into a logo box.
Mr. Bliss responded that would not be acceptable to Funcoland. He felt they would not be getting
the identification they deserve.
Chairman McNiel asked why separate colors are necessary since there are no other companies
named Funcoland in the area.
Commissioner Macias asked if the store is currently in operation.
Ms. Fong replied affirmatively.
Mr. Buller observed that the rules of the sign program were in place and known by both Lewis
Homes and Funcoland. but the illegal sign was installed in spite of the rules.
Jeremy Rodriguez, 10400 Arrow Route, K-9, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is the store manager.
He reported that the store has been in operation since September. He requested that they be
allowed to keep the multi-colored sign and said many people know the store by its logo.
Headng no further testimony. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Chairman McNiel asked what position the City could take with respect to trademarks, the Sign
Ordinance, and the sign program for Ihe center.
Michael Estrada, Deputy City Attorney. stated he was not aware that the City's Sign Ordinance
expressly authorizes trademarks. He said there is no requirement that trademarks be allowed on
signs or as part of signs; however, if trademarks are permitted. the City cannot require a change
to the trademark.
Mr. Buller confirmed that there is no provision in the Sign Ordinance to authorize trademarks.
Commissioner Mannerino thought the City Council had already dealt with the issue.
Chairman McNiel stated the City had dealt with the issue a number of times and always with the
same issues. He said the sign program had been in place for 8 to 10 years and a certain integrity
has been maintained in the sign program.
Mr. Buller observed that the matter had been reviewed during the last review of the sign program
and Lewis had specifically requested approval for this sign and it was denied.
Commissioner Mannerino commented that the applicant was told before the sign was ordered and
in place.
Mr. Bullet noted there had been several other requests from tenants for trademarks and they were
denied.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 10.1999
Commissioner Macias observed that the sign is not in compliance with the Sign Ordinance and
was installed in violation of the Ordinance. He commented that if the Commission allows the sign,
it would set a precedent.
Motion: Moved by Macias. seconded by Tolstoy. to deny the appeal and uphold the City
Planner's decision denying the sign request within Uniform Sign Program No. 85.
Commissioner Stewart observed that she had driven through the center and the store is small and
has another neon sign in the window with the identical colors. She noted the store cannot be seen
from Foothill Boulevard because it is set back behind another store.
Commissioner Macias noted that the neon sign is also illegal.
The motion to deny the appeal was carried by the t'ollowing vote:
AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO. MCNIEL, STEWART. TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
HC~t~TY REFERRAL CR99-01 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SPHERE OF
INFLbY=NCE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AMENDMENT (Ref. County Application No.
GPAJCVV'I',I~gN). To amend the County General Plan Text to revise goals and policies
related to lani3t. use and growth management within the city sphere of influence.
Larry Henderson. Princ~pa.! Planner. presented the staff report. He reviewed the proposed
changes including the deletion_of the provision for SANBAG to act as the growth management
forum and the deletion of th~ 'reference to the City's Hillside Development Ordinance. He
indicated that City staff feels the cl~anges will lead to a higher concentration o~' development.
Brad Bullet, City Planner. indicated that the proposed changes came to the City as a total surprise.
He observed that staff called some other cities shortly after receiving the notice and the other
cities had still not received copies. He reported that several other cities, including Highland and
Yucaipa have ndicated they are presenting concem~a_nd will be asking the County to defer action
and meet with the cities to discuss the matter. He stated that Rancho Cucamonga has always
been concerned with what happens in its sphere of influence.gnd these changes seem to erode
the City's influence. He questioned why the City should have a.s, phere of influence.
Chain'nan McNiel asked if staff had talked with County staff'. ',.,
Mr. Buller responded that County staff acted very professional and indicate'd.they would consider
whatever comments we submit. "',
Chairman McNiel invited public comments. but there were none. "-,\.
Commissioner Tolstoy believed the County has consistently disregarded the City's wishes with
respect to development in the sphere of influence. He thought that if the County passes. the
amendment as written. it would give it a license to do away with the sphere of influence.
the City should protest the changes.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 10.1999
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND
UPHOLDING THE CITY PLANNER'S DECISION IN DENYING A SIGN
APPLICATION FOR FUNCOLAND WITHIN TERRA VISTA TOWN
CENTER, LOCATED AT 10730 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, SUITE 140,
AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-421-75.
A. Recitals.
1. The appellant, Funcoland, has filed an application for the issuance of a sign permit as
described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Sign Permit
request is referred to as "the application."
2. On April 1, 1999, the City Planner denied the application as inconsistent with the
Uniform Sign Program for the Terra Vista Town Center.
3. The decision of the City Planner was timely appealed by Funcoland.
4. On the 12th day of May 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga held a meeting on the application and concluded said hearing on that date.
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 during the above-
referenced meeting on May12, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission
hereby specifically finds and concludes as follows:
a, The application applies to proper~y located at 10730 Foothill Boulevard and within
Terra Vista Town CenteG and
b. The property owner, Lewis Operating Corporation, revised Uniform Sign Program
No. 134 for Terra Vista Town Center, which was approved by the Planning Commission on
January 13, 1999. The Uniform Sign Program established a hierarchy of sign criteria by size of
tenants within the center; and
c. On January 11, 1999, the appellant, Funcoland. submitted a sign application for
their wall sign, which was installed without the City's sign approval or the necessary building
permits and electrical permits. The installed sign consists of multi-colored individual letters~ and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
USP NO. 134 - FUNCOLAND
May 12, 1999
Page 2
d. On January 14, 1999, City Planner denied the appellant's sign application
because the multi-colored sign copy was inconsistent with the sign criteria of one color. The
appellant timely appealed the City Planner's action. On March 10, 1999, the Planning
Commission conducted a headng to review the appeal. The Commission denied the appeal and
upheld the City Planner's decision. The appellant did not appeal the Commission's action; and
e. On April 1, 1999, the appellant submitted a new, but essentially the same, sign
application for their wall sign. Based on inconsistency with the approved Uniform Sign Program
No. 134, the City Planner denied the sign application on April 8, 1999. The City Planner's action
was timely appealed.
3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this
Commission hereby denies the appeal and upholds the City Planner's decision.
4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF MAY 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of
the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of May 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
May 12, 1999
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Larry Henderson, AICP, Principal Planner
Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT POLICY
DISCUSSION: At the meeting on April 14, 1999, the Planning Commission discussed various
policies (Exhibit "B") to limit General Plan land use amendments during the process of the General
Plan Update program. The discussion focused on the three staff recommended scenarios as
follows:
Establish a site-specific moratorium on General Plan Amendments (GPAs) during the entire
update process as established by State law.
Establish a city-wide moratorium on all GPAs until a draft General Plan Update is endorsed
by the City. Following that, 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. I and 2. a deadline for land use amendments requested for consideration
within the General Plan Update process should be established. Such a policy may allow for
some land use questions to be included and analyzed in the draft General Plan alternatives.
Staff recommended 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 plans.
The Planning Commissioners' discussion focused on use issues as they would be applied to the
General Plan Update. Rather than any staff-recommended site specific moratorium, the
Commission felt that limiting the amount of commercial land use changes (plus or minus acreage)
was one of the key concerns during the update process. After discussions between Planning staff
and the City Attorneys office, the City Attorney advised against limiting land use amendments to
only specific land use categories.
In light of further discussions with the City Attorney, staff again suggests that the Planning
Commission consider area-wide moratoriums based on land use issues in specific areas of the City.
Since any land use change has the potential to affect neighboring areas regardless of their land use
designation, the City may wish to delay formal consideration of any land use changes in areas
where commercial development requests are anticipated.
ITEM I
Y
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA UPDATE/POLICIES
May 12, 1999
Page 2
There are three designated areas where significant land use redesignation for commercial activities
has been discussed:
The area around the mall site between Base Line Road and Foothill Boulevard east of
the I-I 5 Freeway and west of RochesterAvenuebecause of the enhancement of the I-15
Freeway on/off ramps and large amounts of vacant land.
Generally, area on either side of the I-15 Freeway from Summit Avenue to Arrow Route,
and the area on either side of the Foothill Freeway Corridor from Haven Avenue to the
1-15 Freeway - Staff believes that land adjacent to these very significant transportation
corridors are potentially critical commercial windows to our community and have been subject
to land use change discussions in the past. Staff has defined this area as:
The area 600 feet west of the Haven/Highland Avenues intersection, east to the 1-15
Freeway, north of the freeway corridor in line with (and eastJwest extension of] Lemon
Avenue, south of the freeway corridor in line with Highland Avenue, and
The area 2,000 feet west of the I-15 Freeway between the northern City limit and Arrow
Route and between Miller Avenue and Foothill Boulevard west of Etiwanda Avenue.
The area on the south side of Foothill Boulevard to Arrow Route between the Deer
Creek Channel and the 1-15 Freeway - This area, like the two freeway corridors, has been
discussed in the recent past and continues to be subject to requests for major land use
changes of commercial character.
Again, because any land use change has the potential to significantly affect neighboring properties,
staff recommends that any moratoriums apply to all land use change requests within the
recommended moratorium areas.
Finally, staff also suggests that a 10-acre maximum be established on all GPAs not covered by
the selected area moratoriums. Hopefully this approach will limit the need to amend the General
Plan Uodate/EIR contract to readlust the costly consultant data ~latherinq and analysis.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider endorsing the
following changes to the current GPA policies:
A designated area moratorium on all General Plan land use amendments, in conjunction with
a 10-acre maximum site limitation moratorium in all other areas, as authorized by the State
Government Code.
The payment of the current GPA fee plus a consultant time and material fee to cover added
General Plan Update costs due to expanded analysis by the consultant.
3. This policy is to be applied to all GPA applications not considered complete by May 12, 1999.
Any General Plan land use amendment application will be evaluated with the draft General
Plan Update (after it receives General Plan Update Task Force endorsement), for compliance
with the draft plan's recommended land use policies.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA UPDATE/POLICIES
May 12, 1999
Page 3
The Commission's recommendations will be forwarded to the General Plan Update Task Force and
ultimately to the City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:AW:Is
Attachment: Exhibit "A" - Proposed Moratorium Areas
Exhibit "B" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 14, 1999
VICINITY MAP
Moratorium Areas
AP-,~'^ "d_,-'
f
A.T.& S.F. fir
Exhibit 'A'
CITY OF RANCHO CUC IONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
April 14, 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: During the General Plan update process, consultants will be gathering information
about the community and analyzing potential alternatives 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 dudrig 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 during the update process from the following options:
Continue to allow GPA applications to proceed as normally scheduled during 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,
PLANNING COMMISSIOIv
GPA POLICY
April 14, 1999
Page 2
'AFF REPORT
Establish a city-wide moratorium on all GPAs during the entire update process as established
by State law.
Establish a site specific moratorium on GPAs during the entire update process as established
by State law.
4. 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 interim 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 afterthe 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 established. Such a policy
may allow for some land use questions to be included and analyzed in the draft General Plan
alternatives. 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. 1 could easily
complicate the process of updating the General Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad 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:
1. 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.
2. GPA 99-02 (Low to Low-Medium) for 5.1 acres at the southeast corner of 19th Street and
Hermosa Avenue is to be considered by the Planning Commission on May 12, 1999.
3. GPA 98-02 (Medium, Medium-High and Regionally Related Commercial to Low-Medium)
for 192 acres north of the Victoria 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:
4. Office to Commercial at the northwest intersection of Haven Avenue and the Route 30
freeway.
5. Low-Medium to Commercial at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and the Route 30
freeway.
6. Medium to Low-Medium east of the future Day Creek Boulevard on the north side of Base
Line Road.
7. 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.
8 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.
9. Industrial Park to Low-Medium for about 18 acres south of the intersection of 6th Street and
Archibald Avenue adjacent to the existing Griffin residential development.
10. Industrial Park to Residential for land around the golf course at the northwest corner 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