HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/06/09 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY JUNE 9, 1999 7:00 PM
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chamber
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call
Chairman McNiel __ Vice Chairman Macias __
Com. Mannerino __ Com. Stewart __ Com. Tolstoy __
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. 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.
A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-17 - STEVEN WALKER HOMES - The
design review of detailed site plan and elevations for previously
recorded Tract 14509, an 18-1ot subdivision on 3.84 acres of land in
the Low Residential district (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), located on
the east side of Hermosa Avenue between Wilson Avenue and Banyan
Street - APN: 201-183-01. A Negative Declaration for Tract 14509
was issued on August 12, 1998. (TO BE CONTINUED TO JUNE 23,
1999)
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
98-10 - BARRATT AMERICAN - The design review of detailed site
plan and building elevations for previously recorded Tract 13316,
consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very Low Residential
District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side
of Archibald Avenue. north of Carrari Court - APN: 1074-061-15
through 27. 1074-041-08 through 21. 1074-591-01 through 16,
1074-461-04 through 21, 1074-601-01 through 14, 1074-611-01
through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074-051-09 through 16.
Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts
for consideration.
C. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-03 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES - The
design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for Phases
3 and 4 of Tract 14380, consisting of 38 single family lots in the Low
Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Nodh
Specific Plan, located west of Etiwanda Avenue and north of Wilson
Avenue - APN: 225-461-05 to 42.
IV. 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 GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 99-02 o 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: 1076~111o09. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration. Related files: Development
District Amendment 99-02, Conditional Use Permit 99-08, and Historic
Landmark Designation 99-02. (Continued from May 12, 1999)
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND 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. Related files: General Plan Amendment
99-02, Conditional Use Permit 99-08, and Historic Landmark
Designation 99-02. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration. (Continued from May 12,
1999)
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 99-08 - CURRY BRANDAW ARCHITECTS - A request to
construct and to operate a two-story residential care facility for the
elderly totaling approximately 53, 192 square feet in the Low-Medium
Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) on approximately 5.1
acres of land, located on the southeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and
Page 2
19th Street - APN: 1076-111-09. Related files: Pre-Application
Review 98-08, General Plan Amendment 99-02, and Development
District Amendment 99-02, and Historic Landmark Designation 99-02.
G. VARIANCE 99-05 - HERNANDEZ ~ A request to reduce the corner
side yard setback from the required 15 feet (as measured from'
property line) to 5 feet to construct an accessory structure to be used
as a pool house in the Very Low Residential District (up to 2 dwelling
units per acre) of the Etiwanda Highlands Specific Plan, located at
13910 San Segundo Drive -APN: 226-631-37.
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 99-26 - SAV-ON AND LEWIS OPERATING CORP. - The
development of a 14,841 square foot drug store with drive-thru facility
on approximately 1.7 acres of land within the Terra Vista Town Center,
in the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community
Plan, located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Town
Center Drive - APN: 1077-421-87. Staff has prepared a Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
I. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 99-02 - CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA - An amendment to Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code, consolidating the Industrial Area Specific Plan,
Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, Foothill Boulevard Design
Supplement, Caryn Planned Community Development Plan, and
Residential Commercial/Industrial Design Guidelines into appropriate
sections of the Development Code. Related files: Industrial Areas
Specific Plan Amendment 99-03. Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
Amendment 99-01, and Caryn Planned Community Amendment 99-
01.
J. INDUSTRIALAREASPECIFICPLANAMENDMENT99-03-CITYOF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An amendment to consolidate the Industrial
Area Specific Plan regulatory provisions and design guidelines into the
Development Code. Related files: Development Code Amendment
99-02, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 99-01, and Caryn
Planned Community Amendment 99-01.
K. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 99-01 -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An amendment to consolidate the
Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan regulatory provisions and design
guidelines into the Development Code. Related files: Development
Code Amendment 99-02, Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 99-
01, and Caryn Planned Community Amendment 99-01.
L. CARYN PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 99-01 ~ CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An amendment to consolidate the Caryn
Planned Community Development Plan regulatory provisions into the
Page 3
Development Code. Related files: Development Code Amendment
99-02, Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 99-01, and Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 99-01.
M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
98-02, AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 98-01 -
AMERICAN BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT CO. - A public hearing for a
proposed project to be known as the Victoria Arbors Village on 291.8
acres of land in the Victoria Planned Community, generally bounded
by Base Line Road, future Victoria Park Lane, future Church Street,
future Day Creek Boulevard, Foothill Boulevard, and the Day Creek
Channel o APN: 227-201-04, 13 through 18, 22, 28 through 30, and
36; 222-201-33; 227-161-33.35, 36, and 38; 227-171-11, 12. and 14.
Related file: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 98-01.
(A) Land Use changes for the following areas:
Subarea 1:
Subarea la - from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units
per acre) and Community Facilities to Low-Medium
Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately
7.67 acres of land, generally located on the south side of
Base Line Road, west of the winery; and consideration of
alternative land use designations of Community Facilities.
Subarea lb - from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units
per acre) and Park to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling
units per acre), Park, and School for approximately 57.40
acres of land, generally located east of future Day Creek
Boulevard and 600 feet south of Base Line Road; and the
consideration of alternative land use designations of
Community Facilities for the northeast side of the subarea,
immediately east of the winery.
Subarea lc - from Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling
units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
for approximately 21.13 acres of land for the area generally
located south of Base Line Road and east of future Victoria
Park Lane; and consideration of retaining the Low-Medium
Residential designation.
Subarea ld- from Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling
units per acre), Regional Related Office/Commercial, and
Park to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre)
for approximately 39.45 acres of land, generally located on
the north side of future Church Street and east of future Day
Creek Boulevard; and consideration of alternative land use
designations of Medium Residential (8414 dwelling units per
Page 4
acre) and Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per
acre).
Subarea fe - from Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling
units per acre) and Regional Related Office/Commercial to
Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for
approximately 13.76 acres of land, generally located north of
future Church Street, west of future Victoria Loop Street; and
consideration of alternative land use designations of Medium
Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and Medium-High
Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre).
Subarea 2 - from Regional Related Office/Commercial to Low-
Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), Medium-High
Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre), and High Residential
(24-30 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 53 acres of
land. generally located on the west side of future Day Creek
Boulevard, north and south of future Church Street; and
consideration of retaining the Regional Related
Office/Commercial designation.
Subarea 3. - Re-align the boundaries of the Victoria Community
Plan to include approximately 26 acres of land from the Etiwanda
Specific Plan, generally located on the north side of Church
Street and the west side of Etiwanda Avenue; and a request to
change the land use designation from Office to Low-Medium
Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre); and consideration of
alternative land use designations of a mix of Office and Low-
Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre); and
consideration by the City of retaining the area in the Etiwanda
Specific Plan with an Office designation or a mix of Office and
Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre).
(B) Amend the Circulation and Parks and Recreation Elements of the
General Plan.
(C) Amend various graphics and text for the Victoria Community
Plan.
(D) Consideration by the City of alternative sites for Park and School
within the project area of the Victoria Community Plan.
(E) Modify the permitted and conditionally permitted uses and
various development and design standards for Regional Related
Office/Commercial, Regional Center, and Community Facilities
of the Victoria Community Plan.
The Environmental Impact Report for this project was considered on
May 26, 1999. (Continued from May 26, 1999) (TO BE CONTINUED
TO JULY 14, 1999)
Page 5
N. ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
98-02, AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 98-01 -
AMERICAN BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT CO. - A request to re-align the
boundaries of the Etiwanda Specific Plan by re-designating
approximately 26 acres of land, generally located on the north side of
Church Street and the west side of Etiwanda Avenue to the Victoria'
Community Plan; and consideration by the City of retaining the area in
the Etiwanda Specific Plan and retaining the land use designation of
Office; and consideration of alternative land use designations of a mix
of Office and Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) -
APN: 227-171-11, 12, and 14. Related file: Victoria Community Plan
Amendment 98-01. The Environmental Impact Report for this project
was considered on May 26, 1999. (Continued from May 26, 1999)
(TO BE CONTINUED TO JULY 14, 1999)
O. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR
TRACT 15540 o FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - A request for a
time extension of a previously approved tentative tract map, including
design review, for the development of 159 single family lots on 24.56
acres of land in the Medium residential District (8-14 dwelling units per
acre) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and Development Code
areas located between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route, west of
the Cucamonga Creek Control Channel - APN: 207-211-01, 18
through 21, 31, 32, and 34. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. (TO BE
CONTINUED TO AUGUST 1'1, '1999)
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items
to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda.
VI. COMMISSION BUSINESS
VII. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an
11:00 p.m. adjoumment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only
with the consent of the Commission.
I. Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga. or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the
foregoing agenda was posted on June 3, 1999, at least 72 hours prior to the
meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive,
Rancho Cucamonga.
Page 6
VICINITY MAP
CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUC;AMONGA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 9, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commisssion,
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Brent LeCount, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-17 - STEVEN WALKER HOMES - The design review
of detailed site plan and elevations for previously recorded Tract 14509, an 18-1ot
subdivision on 3.84 acres of land in the Low Residential district (2 to 4 dwelling units
per acre), located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue between Wilson Avenue and
Banyan Street - APN: 201-183-01. A Negative Declaration for Tract 14509 was
issued on August 12, 1998.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends this item be continued to the June 23, 1999, meeting.
City Planner
BB:Is
ITEM "A"
TO: Brent Le Count JUN 0 8 ~99
Associate Planner
10500 Civic Center Drive City0fRanc~ Cucam0nga
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Pinning Divis~n
June 4, 1999
Dear Mr. Le Count,
I am sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel-
opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the
east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts
13316, 15914). In light of recent information I have received
concerning the area, I felt I must express some serious concerns.
First, is the mixture of one and two-story homes for the area. I
feel the City is allowing a dangerous precedent to be set for
future hillside development, and that the project should fully
conform to the Hillside Ordinance. The previous approval of this
oro~ect included a condition limitin~ development to one-story
~ homes. I would think the inclusion of two-story homes would
require a new design consistent with the Hillside Ordinance.
However, it appears the developer is using the previously ap~
proved grading concept. I do not believe the flat pads to be
used "fit the terrain" as the Hillside Ordinance stipulates. My
understanding is that the original one-story only home plan was
intended to minimize visual impact. What is being done to retain
this minimal visual impact? It seems including two-story home
would significantly effect this. I am also aware that the plan-
ning commission has been careful to assure that visual impacts of
structure and yards visible from the street be minimized. Howev-
er, since this is not a community with an association, what
assurance is there that this quality will be maintained over the
coming years? I also notice no public comments were made at the
June 10, 1998 Planning Commission meeting concerning this issue.
As a resident on Hidden Farm Road, located directly across the
street, I must say I had no knowledge of this meeting or even the
development proposal at that time, or I would have been there to
comment.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga, "Environmental Checklist Form"
states the large retention basin along the northern tract bound~
ary poses a potentially significant negative aesthetic impact and
I have concern over its maintenance in the future as well. This
report also mentions concerns of flooding and impact on emergency
access. This is extremely frightening to me. ' '
severe fire danger areS. In the case of a hillside wildfire,
many people would be trying to get to their homes to save pets
and belongings and then get out of the area. The proposed miti-
gation is to install one through street connection from Archibald
to Almond street. How does this solve the emergency exit prob-
lem? Especially when there is only one exit from the new tract
onto Hermosa (by way of Almond) and 3 exits on Archibald. It
seems to me everyone will be trying to exit the area on Archi-
bald, which temporarily narrows to one lane at Hillside!
Lastly, as a Biological and Environmental Sciences Professor
at Mount San Antonio College I must respond to at least some of
the biological comments. The claim that there is "no impact" of
this area on wildlife dispersion or migration corridors is ab-
surd. I took 20 friends on a walk last weekend on Memorial Day.
As we came down Hidden Farm Road in an easterly direction to
Archibald we spotted 3 mule deer in the proposed development area
(in fact just west of the Barratt development sign). Is this
report saying that these deer live in that area exclusively? If
so, I beg to differ. I have seen deer (and other wildlife such
as coyotes) use that area as a corridor. Furthermore, the pro-
posed mitigation of 2.5 acres of native shrub , and undefined
acres all the way out in Cajon Wash to replace close to 100 acres
of native shrub is criminal, in my opinion. It is a crime
against the local wildlife. Not to mention the mitigation to
preserve an oak tree! If the Planning Commission and the Plan-
ning Department truly have any concern for the wildlife of Rancho
Cucamonga, I suggest a volunteer wildlife committee be estab-
lished and work with city planners. This committee should con-
tain local reputable biologists, who do not have a monetary
connection to the project (as development consultants do). For
example, Jim DesLauriers, Biology professor at Chaffey College,
and other members of his department that are Rancho Cucamonga
residents, myself and any other interested parties. These are
people who have a genuine concern and appreciation for the wil-
dlife in the area. These are people who intimately know the
wildlife in the area from frequent observation.
On the City of Rancho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the
goals of the Planning Commission and I assume the planning divi-
sion include; protecting the natural environment and the communi-
ty identity. It also says the review committees value public
participation and encourages it. Therefore, I hope you will
consider some of these points. I also again, thank you for your
help in the past and look forward to talking ~o you in the fu-
ture.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Cynthia J. Shannon
9574 Hidden Farm Road
Alta Loma, Ca. 91737
cc: Brad Buller, City Planner
The Planning Commission
Bill Alexander, Mayor
Diane Williams, Mayor Pro-Tem
Jim Curatalo, City Council
Bob Dutton, City Council
Paul Biane, City Council
Jack Lam, City Manager
'DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
COUNTY OF SAN 8ERNAROINO
AND CULTURAL RESOURCES PuoLIC SERVICES ..O,P
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSEUM PAUL J. OLES
2024 Orange Tree Lane - Redlands, CA 92374 · (909) 307-2669 Museums Director
Fax (909) 307-0539
R E C E | V E D 7 3unc 1999
Planning Commission
City ofRancho Cucamonga JUt'/0 8 '/99tj
10500 Civic Center Drive
P. O. Box 807 City of Rancho Cucamonga
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91727 P~anning Division
Dear Planning Commissioner,
Enclosed for your information is copy of a letter the San Bernardino County Museum
Biology Department sent to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department in regards to
the proposed development at the top of Archibald Avenue. As you can see, it is our opinion that
issues pertaining to the proposed development still have not been adequately resolved, specifically
in regards to the endangered San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat, the endangered Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly, the loss of sage scrub habitat, the wildlife corridor, and the Valley Plan.
Any effort you could provide to resolving these issues would definitely assist the Valley
Plan. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Gerald T. Braden (e×t. 251) or
Robert L. McKcrnan (ext. 232). Thank you for your time.
Best regards,
/'fit.,/__,//./
Gerald T. Braden
Research Biologist
· DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDIN0
AND CULTURAL RESOURCES PuBL csERwcEs .ouP
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSEUM PAUL J. OLES
2024 Orange Tree Lane · Redlands, CA 92374 · (909) 307-2669 Museums Dffeclor
Fax (909) 307-0539
Brent LeCount. Planning Division 4 June 1999
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Dri``'e
P. O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91727
Dear Mr. LeCount
This correspondence responds to the letter from Mr. R Mitchel Beauchamp of Pacific
Southwest Biological Se~'ices Inc. (PSBS) dated 8 January 1999 in regards to comments from
the San Bernardino County Muset,m Biology Department regarding the proposed project on
Tentati,,'e Tracts 13316 and 15914. As you are aware, the San Bernardino Valley County
Museum Biology Department is the technical lead for the San Bernardino Valley Multi-species
Plan (Valley Plan).
So there is no confusion, we respectfully submit the following comments. as well as
previous comments, as part ofour role as the technical lead tbr the ','alley Plan. Mr.
Beauchamp's assertion that these and previous comments are only those of Mr. Braden submitted
on Museum letterhead is not only incorrect. his assertion is unprofessional. and an obvious
attempt to alevalue the opinions of professional County Biologists.
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR)
Tbc .12.;:qc,~:.. !~c!~arrlnl..:l, z: Ihc c";nT~ qc"n-:d:,ll~ (".' ,;/.,. M:.l~,,.'u,:~ ' .:. t,.-c,, -It~,.:)i ~
SBKR since tile late 19S0's We '.','rote tile status review for the SBKR. We are currently
engaged in studies to refine the current distribution of the animal and to define habitat qualit)' for
the animal. We have completed over 500.000 trap nights in captnring the SBKR In brief. our
experience and knowledge of the SBKR are extensive.
The presence or absence of SBKR in areas within its historic range can only be established
through live trapping. ",Valk over sup,'eys for k-rat sign (burrows, scat, dust baths. etc.) and
habitat suitability assessments performed by PSBS cannot determine presence or absence for this
species. as discussed in our previous letter. The confusion apparently results from the application
of survey techniques for the endangered Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (SKR) to surveys for the
SBKR. Based on our experience. and more importantly on our trapping data. sur``'ey techniques
for SKR are ineffective in determining presence or absence of the SBKR To our knowledge. live
trapping [br SBKR has yet to be initiated on the proposed project site. Thus. potential impacts to
the endangered SBKR have not been identified nor mitigated.
Contrary to the assertions of Mr. Beauchamp. the vegetation on tile proposed project site
','.'as not complete removed. based on aerial photographs of the site [toni tile earl.,,' 1990's
Specifically. the washes that bisect the proposed site ,.,,'ere not cleared. SBKR can be found in
both upland and wash areas. but are generally most abundant in ,.',ashes Thus. recent grading of
the proposed project site would not have extirpated SBKR from the area. In addition, the SBKR
exists in areas that regularly undergo major disturbances, such as stream beds and washes.
Grading of the upland habitat would not preclude re-occupation of these areas because the SBKR
is adapted to re-invasion after major disturbances.
The past agricultural history of the project site is simply irrelevant. Biological systems are
not static, they are dynamic. The habitat on the proposed project site has clearly recovered from
historical agricultural practices based on the occurrence of the ex'tensive coastal Sage Scrub
habitat and concomitantly high species diversity on the proposed project site, as indicated in the
biological report.
California Gnatcatcher (CAGN)
Since our previous letter, we have met with Chet McGaugh and Steve Myers of Tierra
Madre Consultants, the biologists who performed the CAGN surveys on the proposed project
site. We are satisfied that the CAGN surveys on the proposed project site did follow standard
survey protocols for the species and we retract our previous comments in this regard.
Nevertheless, discrepancies in regard to the amount and quality of sage scrub habitat on the
proposed project site reported by Tierra Madre versus PSBS remain unexplained.
In addition, a species will not be covered by the Valley Plan unless the Plan provides for
the long term preservation, persistence, and recovery of the species. The long term recovery and
persistence of a species depends on the preservation of unoccupied habitat as well as occupied
habitat. The coastal sage scrub habitat on the proposed project site is high quality CAGN habitat
and is important in meeting the standards of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the recovery
and persistence of the species. The importance of the coastal sage scrub habitat on the proposed
project site to the CAGN and the Valley Plan have not been adequately addressed or mitigated.
The Initial Study for Development Review, page 7, states that the sage scrub habitat on
'.'.:': prr'posc4 prnjcc: site d:;cs t'?t cve~la!:2 s..:'?.hJp habitat for lhc CAG,N'. T!,~s is l:o. corrcc~
Studies by the Biology Department at the San Bernardino County Museum that define habitat
quality for the CAGN have been published in the primary ornithological literature. Based on
those studies, the sage scrub habitat on the propose project site is high quality CAGN habitat.
The absence of CAGN from a site does not mean the habitat is not suitable or low quality.
Quino Checkerspot Butterfly
The USFWS issued a revised Survey Protocol for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly on 25
January 1999 (copy attached). The revised protocol calls for focused habitat assessments
between February I and May 3 or prior to the end of the adult flight season, for food plants and
nectar sources used by the butterfly when the site occurs within the Potential Habitat Area. A
focus habitat assessment involves searching for food plants and nectar sources for the butterfly.
General botanical investigation and botanical inventories are not focused habitat assessments as
described in the revised survey protocol. In addition, the proposed project area is within the
Potential Habitat Area as indicated by the map in Appendix B of the revised protocol. Neither a
focused habitat assessment nor a Quino Checkerspot Butterfly survey have been performed on the
proposed project site.
Both a habitat assessment and, if needed, a focused surveys for the Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly could have been completed this year had our previous comments been heeded.
However, the survey window for the food plants and nectar sources of the butterfly, as well as the
survey window for the adult butterfly, have passed for this year. Potential impacts to the
endangered Quino Checkerspot Butterfly have not been addressed nor mitigated.
Mr. Beauchamp's assertion that the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly distribution does not
extend into San Bernardino or Los Angeles Counties is incorrect. There are hundreds of Quino
specimens from San Bemardino and Los Angeles Counties in museum collections across the
county. As noted in our previous letter, the type specimen for the species was in fact collected in
San Bernardino County.
Perhaps what Mr. Beauchamp meant to say is that the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly has
not recently been found in San Bernardino and/or Los Angeles Counties. To our knowledge this
is correct. However, habitat assessments and surveys for Quino Checkerspot have rarely been
performed in San Bernardino or Los Angeles Counties. The lack of Quino surveys in these
counties was one of the primary reason the USFWS issued the revised survey protocol (pets.
tom. Arthur Davenport USFWS). In short, the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly has not recently
been found in San Bernardino County because no one has made a serious attempt to find it.
Sa~,e Scrub Habitats
We concur with Mr. Beauchamp's comment that whether the sage scrub habitat on the
proposed project site is Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub or Riversidean Upland Sage Scrub is irrelevant
for the purposes of this discussion because both receive the same designation of "very threatened
communities" by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG).
However, agreement on this point, does not resolve the fact that the proposed project will
have a significant impact on a "very threatened habitat" as noted on page 7 of the Initial Study for
Development Review. Acceptable mitigation for loss of sage scrub habitat is typically a 3 to I
rz:i:' OE-SiI,' ~,H'a 'i ::7 1 r.'.tic~ eft-sit: The ',li!i.:! St~ldy for r)c,,'clgp:n,.'!-t l~c-,,ie~,.,, page"
indicates that mitigation for the loss of the sage scrub habitat consist of: I) 2.5 acres of native
shrub land and wetland habitat on the detention basin. 2) Acquisition of native shrub land in an
Alluvial Fan Scrub Mitigation Bank in the Cajon Wash.
Of the 2.5 acres of on site mitigation, there is no indication as to how much is sage scrub
habitat versus wetland habitat and the 2.5 acres is not large enough to support even one territory
for most organisms targeted by the Valley Plan. In addition, the is no guarantee that the 2.5 acres
would not be impacted by detention basin maintenance. Ihe agreement to acquire sage scrub
habitat off-site is vague and incomplete as to size, quality, specific location, longevity, time lines
to acquisition, and most importantly, any assurances that it will actually take place. Ihus, to our
knowledge, the only assured mitigation, at best, appears to be the 2.5 acres on site which would
be a ratio of 0.033acres conserved for every I acre lost due to the proposed project
(2.5acres/75acres).
We may not be aware of additional mitigation measures that have been proposed. But,
without additional information, it is not possible to determine if the proposed mitigation is
sufficient. Based on the information available to us at this time, we conclude that significant
impacts to sage scrub habitat from the proposed project have not been addressed or mitigated.
Mr. Beauchamp is technically correct that Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub habitats can be found
in areas along the Santa Clara River and Big Tujunga wash. However, the extent of the habitat in
these areas is a fraction of the Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub habitat that occurs in San Bemardino
County. In addition, the organisms found in the Santa Clara River and Big Tujunga Wash are not
the same organisms targeted under the ValIey Plan.
Corridor Functions
Mr. Beauchamp's comments on what a corridor ought to consist of miss the point of our
previous comments. Regardless of what one thinks a corridor should consist of, or whether
animals are supposed to move north/south instead ofeasffwest, the proposed project site is
connected to habitats east and west of the proposed project site. We know this to be a fact
because we have witnessed, on a regular basis, east to west and west to east movements of
coyotes and bobcats along horse trails to adjacent habitats in Alta Loma. This is the very
definition of a corridor. It is not hyperbole. It is not theoretical. It is not speculation. The
proposed project will destroy this functional corridor and the impact has not been addressed or
mitigated.
Herpetofauna Surveys and General Rodent Surveys
The project proponent's biologists and County biologists concur on the comments with
regard to herpetofauna and rodent surveys. Organisms targeted by the Valley Plan are either
known to occur or likely to occur on the proposed project site. And, the City of Rancho
Cucamonga is signatory to the Valley Plan. Thus, impacts from the proposed project to the
herpetofauna and rodent species on the proposed project site have not been addressed or
mitigated.
Ret~iona[ Planning Effort: The Valley Plannin~
The dcy'ce te ,vhi"h Ihe \"a!'?y Pl..:: ~qcce,-'ds d'~l~epds an many t~'to:''', ,'or the ]eag~
which is the effectiveness with which signatories to the plan cooperate in temporarily conserviqg
critical habitat areas. This does not mean that all development needs to be put on hold until the
plan is completed. However, it does mean every effort should be made to conserve critical habitat
areas temporarily, such as those on the alluvial fans. until the importance of those areas to the
success ofthe Valley Plan can be determined. The proposed project area has many qualities that
indicate that it will likely be a critical component to the Valley Plan. The site contains at least 75
acres of sage scrub habitat, a very threatened community. The sage scrub habitat is high quality
CAGN habitat. Many of the target species under the Valley Plan are known to occur on site.
Endangered species targeted under the Valley Plan, including the SBKR and Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly, have the potential to occur on site. The site has a functional corridor that allows the
unhindered movement of predators among adjacent habitats. The proposed project site occurs on
the alluvial fan. Impacts to the Valley Plan by the proposed project have not been identified or
addressed.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)/NCCP
The responsibility for compliance with environmental regulations, such as the ESA or
CEQA, is not the responsibility of the FWS or CDFG The responsibility lies with the project
4
proponent(s) and the jurisdiction(s) issuing the permit. While we do understand the frustration of
not receiving a response from FWS or possibly even CDFG after due process, that does not
relieve the responsible parties from their obligations under the environmental laws. We are not
lawyers. But, as County Biologist we are familiar with the state and federal environmental laws,
regulations, and procedures. We are reasonably certain that Mr. Beauchamp's advice will not
exempt the City ofRancho Cucamonga nor the project proponent from litigation and advise the
City of Rancho Cucamonga to take the issue before their own lawyers.
Mr. Beauchamp's reference to agreements under the NCCP program do not apply. To the
best of our knowledge, no jurisdiction in San Bernardino County, including the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, have signed on with the state's NCCP program.
Abandoned Fruit Orchard
Mr. Beauchamp's comment that FWS is unlikely to respond to this issue because it
involves a site "that was an abandoned fruit orchard..." is an absurd attempt to mislead the City of
Rancho Cucamonga into believing that the proposed project site has no biological value, Anyone
who has seen the site knows the comment is unfounded. A casual read of the biological report
indicates the site is not an abandoned fruit orchard based on the high species diversity occurring
on site and the lack of fruit trees.
We apologize for the lateness of our comments, however the issue was only recently
brought to our attention. We hope the City ofRancho Cucamonga finds our comments useful in
arriving at an informed decision concerning the proposed project. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to call Gerald T. Braden (ext. 251) or Robert L. McKernan (ext. 232).
Research Biologist
ec:
Randy Scott: Senior Planner, San Bernardino County
Glenn Black: CDFG
P. J. Woods: FWS Carlsbad
Rancho Cucamonga City Council
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
PETITION CONCERNING DR 98-10
The signers of this petition Oppose the continuation of Hidden
Farm Road across Archibald into the new Barratt development.
They also request the new housing be one-story only homes and/or
fully comply with the Hillside Ordinance.
Printed Name Signature Address
F
~ECEIVE0: 6- 9-99; 16:t5; 6267449931 =:. R CDCAMONGA C0M 0EV;
8G/B9/1999 17:88 G2G7449931 E~
J~ 9, 1999
~ ~ P~ i~i~
C~
h ~ ~ Ci~ of ~cho C~ .
~~ 105~ Civic Cen~r Drive
~ ~, P.O. ~x ~7 .
c~ ~C~on~.CAgl~7 ~o~
~~ A~: ~m. B~I~ L~t
~ Ib. ~: Agcn~ Co~t C~e~ tim
~ ~ ~m~t ~d ~elo~enl ~ew 9~10
~ ~elo~ent ofTchive T~ 13316
~ODUCTION
~~ co~ion pmj~t ~ ~ition of~ 30 ~r~ ~ ~on~
~ ~ or~o~ ~e~n~ng ~e public ~ ~sU of
~~ ~ U~t~ S~, Cm ~d Me~.
A~n ~, ~ i~ Co~il ~ mm~ ~t ~ide in the Ci~ ofhncho
~ ~j~ ~ mem~ ~ su~nm ht c~fly nj~
T~ ~ ~ i ~oj~ si~ for ~ ~c,
C~ ~ ~o~1 ~. ~e d~lo~t of~e s~ ~d
~ly eff~ ~ ~ ~h mm~ ~ut abi~
~ ~ ~, ~bi~ ~ ~l~ife.
Califo~a Envkomenml ~i~ Act, ~1. hblic Re~c~ C~
~ 21~ et ~., ("~QA"). CEQA
S~ible Pining. ~. v. ~ of SumS. (1981) 122
CaI.A~.3d 813, ~0. ~e ~ of~
s~ly ~d g~ly int~d~
~, (2) ch~k ~e a~ur~y ~d dc~ct oreisles of~
~ ~j~t ~t ~is, (3) ~1o~ p~c ~, (4)
~0 Noah ~o~ A~ · S~ 301 · h~a
Ck'y of Rancho Cucamonga/Plann/ng Commission
RE: BarrallAmedcanTr 13316
PER: Spirit of the Sage Council
Page Two
agcncy's responses to comments, (5) disclose legal deficiencies and misapplicatiaa of local, st~e and
(6) to sol/cit and recon-ah~.ml necessary counterproposals. CEQA Guideline § 15200; Selmi./7~e
Judicial Development of the California Env/ronmental 9aality Act (1984) 18 U.C. Davis Law Rev/ew
197, 245; Towards R~snonsibilitv in pla,,.iqg v. CiW Council. (1988) 200 CaI.App.3d 671,682.
SUMMAIIy OF !sO~l:i:lON
The Sage Council is opposed to the project, including project design, as currently and tentat/rely
proposed. The environmental assessment is c~y incomplete, i-nc~uratc and misleadlag. Ther~ is a
lack of adequate Project Alternatives, including an altemat/vc design that assesses load use in
conn_e~t/on w/th City Resolutions and c~ntracts for habitat conservation consistent with the San
Bernsrdino Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conscrvalion Plan (Valley Plan) Memorandum of
Un<kntanding (MOU) and Natural Communities Conservation Plannln~ (NCCP) Program and Act The
City and project proponem have not prepared or provicled the public with a comparison aaalysis of how
the project would effect the creation of a viable HCP/NCCP reserve within the NCCP subregion
SUMIMARy OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Sage Council recommends that the City Planning Commission take no action on the
before you ton/ght and send the project back to staff and legal counsel to complete an cnvironmemal
and legal analysis of how this project and project design may effect the conuactecl regional habitat
conservation plan and Valley Plan. Such environmental ~-nalysis may bc performed by contacting Dr.
Robert McKcrnan and C-mild Braden ofthe San lkrnard/no Na~u'ai History Museum who have been
con~wacted by the local lead agency, San Bernardino County.
In additioa, the Planning Commission sl~ould r~uest that a Subsequent EIR be prepsted for the projec~
that provides a full range of Alternatives and addresses changed enviroumcntal cit~umUmces. The
Planning Cornmiss/on should c~>nsidcr that "quality" of project alternatives rather lima the "quantity".
Currerttly the project fit/Is/n/ts essential purpose to analyze alternatives wh/ch "avo/d" sign/~cant
env/roument2/impaczs. Specifically, no alternative is offered to avoid impacts to the most sensitive
envinmmenlal resources of the entire Project site. In fact, mitigation is/nadccluate because the City and
project proponent have failed to adequately identify biological and cultural impacts.
In addition, we strongly encourage the City to acquire the entire project site for habitat conservation
purposes for wildlife as is consistent with the goal and purposes of the San Bernard/no Cou~ Valley-
wide Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (SBV MSHCP) and Natural Communities
Consewa~on Planning (NCCP) Program of which the City is a signatory to the Memonmdum of
Un&,~d (MOU') although the County ac~s es lead loca/ngency.
86/f19/1999 17:88 6267449931 ESA I',E~ PAGE 83
City of Rancho Cucamonga/Planting Commission
RE: Barrail American Tr 13316
PER: Spirit ofth~ Sa~ Council
CJEQA rexluixts than an Subsequent EIR be prepm'ed when there has been "changed circun~shmces" in
· e environmental impacts ur project itself. Since tentative approval by the City, changing have occurred
in the cnv/ronmental satin&/nchd/ng newly listed federally threatened and endanlgred species (i.e. the
San Bemardino kangaroo-ral), previously unprojected additional losses ofhabiat (cumulative impacts)
and_ new contract approvals specifically fur habiha and wildlife ~on ~
PROJECT CONlrROVF. u.qy
As the City is aware, the referenced TT and proposals before you by the project proponent, for action
tonight, ale extremely contv0ve~ial and strongly oplx~d by adjacent iandholdcrs, residents and the
Sage Council. It is th~ Sage Council's understanding that lattdho|dt~s and residents have signed a
pet/lion lets- in opposilion. Therefore, the SaSe Council reque~s t/at the Planmn~ Commission !~11 th~
pfopo~J ~ the Con~ent Calc-ndar and open it for P~|ic Comment When a project in "controversial"
Commission take public commen~ tonight and i~ the planning staff to provide responses to all
comn,.en~ as well as withholdin~ a final ticcislon toni~t.
As the Ci~ in awa:e, it is ~e |oc~ 04~e~cies respo~ibility to uphold the public trust placed b~ it'$
Resolutions, Ordinances or c'nt~xl into Ag~cm~nts (co,~acts) for ~,tection of natural resources and
sere/t/re bah/tats. such co~m,cts supersede the whimg and ctcs/n:s of corporate landhoiSts ~o destroy
such public msst resources (see Pro-Ec0. Inc. v. Board of Commissioncrs, 57 P.3d 505, 26 ELR 20445
(7~h Cir. 1995).
Over the years the Sa~ Council his wimessed the Planrang Commission and City staff retreat fxom
upholding the public trust in favor of taking the developers position and threats of leSal challenges for
"a lak/n8 of priva:c property." The SaSe Council reminds the City and Planning Commissioners that
such thrcils from developers and submissive ltmdcncics of yours ave unfounded accordin8 to the
"corporations may not possess fundamental rights".
AS you me aware the subsidiary British company "Barran American' is a corporalion and cannot claim
Constitmional ~ ~ are "reserved" for We rite People.
We arc also in att~t~me. nt with the recent concerns raised by the experts, Gerald T. Bradtin, Research
Directof/Field Supentisor of the San Bcmardino County Museum in their June 4, 1999 letter to the Cily
rell~ding :his project
Therefore, the Sage Council recommends thai the City ft..quire a new or subsequent EIR, and not just an
amended o~ supplemental EA to the outchted EIR.
17:88 G2G74~gg31 E~, NEll.~O~< PAXSEE 84
City ofPancho Cucamonga/Plsnni,.qo Cornminion
RE: Barrall AJnerican TT 13316
PER: Spirit ofuhe Sa~c Council
Page Four
The .Sage Council has previously submitted scientific data. litcratm'e and docuxncnts regardin~ the C/ty's
legal respons~ility to protect and conschic public trust resources and lands, including state and fedorally
listed spcc/es as w~ll as forest scn,sitive species. Such information in the City's records and files
includes scientific data on the fedorally listed Coastal California Gnatcatcher and San Bernardino
kangaroo-rat. as well as Stale and Fcdcral codes and r~ilulations that tho City and County have agreed to
uphold through the NCCP and Valley Plan. All such information previously submitted to the City
including tint regarding R/venidcan Sage Scrub habitats, inolud/ng information sulxnittcd during public
comment and on file with the City arc hereby entered imo the administndv~ record for thc referenced
project and proposed actions.
PROJECT DESIGN
Nature's design is the BEST n.a of vital import to the ecosystem
functions of thc rcgion. The tentative and proposed project design does not adequately fit thc natural
topography mad geology of the arca. The highest and best use of the land on the project site would be for
conservation purtnncs and morn spccifictlly to conm'bute towards the recovery of the e-dn_n&~t~ San
Berna.rdino kangaroo mr. Furthe, more the project design is opposed by local residents and constituents
that pIIECT that the project Stay in a natural condition.
The Sage Council appreciates the Planning Commissions consideration of our cornmorris. If you ~J3ould
have any questions plcnsc contact our oflicc. Thank you
Zin,Earth~~
Conservation Programs Director
Spirit of the Sage Council
Diana Santini
5207 London Ave.
Alta Loma, CA 91737
(909) 945-9840
June 3, 1999
The City of Rancho Cucamonga FIE: C E: I V E::
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer
10500 Civic Center Drive JUN 0 8 1999
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
CIT~ OF R. ANCHO CUCA.~,~ONG,~
RE: Tract 13316 ENGINEERING DIVISION
Dear Mr. James:
I am writing regarding concerns over the housing project identified as Tract
13316 which apparently was approved 10 years ago. I recently artended a meeting at
the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center held by the developer of this project. I also met
with Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, on June 2, 1999. Both of these sources have
described the drainage system planned for this housing tract. It is my understanding
that included in the planned drainage system will be a pipe that will be placed
underground for the new homes being built. The pipe will then surface just above
Carrari and empty into a "rip wrap" which will be fenced. My home is the first lot
immediately south of the project on the corner of Carrari and London Avenue. It has
been described that the "rip wrap" will be in my immediate back yard with the gutter and
drainage water directed to empty onto my property.
When I purchased my home in 1993, it was my understanding that the city had
an easement on my property for Natural Drainage Flew that prohibits any construction
on the east portion of my lot. I am not aware of an existing construction easement the
city may hold on my property. My objection is that the drainage will no longer be a
natural drainage but a permanent interruption and deliberate direction of water flow into
my property and permanent construction related to this redirection. This plan for a
fenced "rip wrap" in my backyard will be an unsightly eyesore and may violate the
existing drainage easement rights. In addition, a Geotechnical Evaluation conducted on
my property in 1992 made several observations and recommendations regarding water
drainage. A podion of this report specifically states that "...off-site runoff should not be
allowed to pond on the site and water should not be allowed to flow over any slopes.
Measures should be taken to prevent the undercutting and erosion at the toe of the
slopes that descent into the ephemeral drainage."
My request is that the underground pipe be extended to reach and empty into the
existing storm drain system. I plan to attend the Planning Commission meeting
scheduled for June 9, 1999 to address my concerns. Should this topic not be
appropriate at that meeting, I request that a meeting with the appropriate individuals be
scheduled to expeditiously address this issue.
Diana Santini
Cc: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
Betty A. Miller, Associate Engineer
~6/09/199~ 18:85 9e9387~53~ ~ B~ ~ ~ P~ 02
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNI
AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
- . _ PUBLIC 3E~fCE~ 8ROUP
SAN BERNARDINO COUN~ MUSEUM PAUL J. OLE3
2024 Orangl Tree Laal , R~II~, CA ~2374 · (gel} ~7-266~ : Mueeuml Olrecfor
Fez (fOe) 307-053~
Bren( LeCount; Planning Department 9 June 1999
City orRancho CucaraonS.
10500 Civic Cet~tet Dtlve
P. O. Box 807
Rasw..ho Cucamonga' CA 91727
Dear Bent.
This lena' responds to your request For comments on the potential consqucnces of the
grubbinS of TentatEve Tracts 13316 and 15914. in re~ard to thc aclion's potcntisJ affecu to the
San Bcrnmdino Valley Multi-Spedes PLan (Valley Plan) and cornmerits in our previous lena's.
The San Bet'mlzdino Valley Courrty Museum Biology l:)¢partment provides these comments in
partial fiatl~llmcat of their role as the technical lead for the Valley Plan. We respcctFully make the
following teeoat:ions.
I ) W¢ recommend that aJl reasonable efforts be made Io slop the 8rubbing and fo prevent the
likelihood of gnabbing in the Future, prior to the completion of the environmcmal review and
petmilling ~.
2) We recommend that the project proponent be required to address aJI prcvlo4~s comments in
regards to areas that were not disturbed by the rcccm grobbing of the proposed project site. if
any.
3) The 8fubbin8 occurred prior to the completion ofthe environmcataj' review process f'or the
proposed project site. The grubblng forecloses the opportunity to appropriately determine
through llve rodcat trapping if the endangered San Bernm'dino Kangaroo Pat occurred within the
grubbed/teas. The ipulj~ng forecloses the opportunity to dctctmln¢ through appropriate survey
rnethodologie~ if the endangered Quitto Checkerspot Butlerfly occurTed within the grubbed areas.
The gtubbing forecloses the opportunity to deta.mitte through appropriate survey methodologics
if'orBani~ras targ~ed by the Valley Plan occurred within the grubbed area. Thus, we recommend
that midgallon For the proposed project proceed as if these endarCered species and target species
did in fact occur within the grubbed areas. This is in addition to mitigation that miBht be required
as a consequence of appropriate surveys oFthe remaining tmdistutSed habitat on the site, if any.
Coumy biologists can provide et list o~'tarBet specie3 at were fither known to occur or likely to
occur within the project site upon request.
4) Bee. mac the extent orsage xTub habitat was known for the project :~i tc prior to grubblng.
wc feco,nuend that ~ents ofthe impacts to the sage k-~'xtb habkat be ase~scd tL~ per our
1
e6/e9/1999 18:85 ge9~878539 s~N siz~o co ~LSELM P~E 83
previous conorient letters. However, the City ofRancho Cucamonga Planning Dcpartn,cnt may
wish to consider requirin~ additional mitigation for impacts to the sa~e scrub habitat in
consideration of the plr,,cdent set by whal my be an inter~tionaJ disregard for th~ Iota/. state. and
federal ¢ayb'onmcntal review process¢l and regional plam~tz8 dYons, The Valley Plan would
certainly benefit from preservation ofaddltionaJ sage scn~b habitals, particulaxly those thai are
high quality CAGN habitat.
5) In rt~ards to con~dor issues. The ~,'ubbing ofthe proposed project site does not affec~ the
long term value of the proposed projet1 site as a wi/dlife corridor for these reasons. Clearing of
the projoe she does not n~,essarily proelude movement ofw~ld]ifc through Ihe az'ca. The propose
projet1 s/to has bccn pmlially graded in the past and the habitat has since recovered. Were the site
left alone, tbe hab~'.az would likdy recover u before, g~vcn sufficient time. Absent premature
grub61ng, th~ project proponent wot.dd have had to addr~s the con~dor issue anyway. We
recommend the! the assessment of potential impacts by the proposed pro/ca site to the wildlife
con'idor proceed as pox ore' previous comment letters.
6) FinalJy, w~ r, ecomn',c:nd that/.he Plam't/n8 J2k"partrncn! contact the U.S. Fish and Wildllfe
Service and the California [kpmlment of Fish and Game to obtain rccomn~ndatlons and/or
guidance on how to proceed w~th this issue. The above comments are provided by us in the
comcxt oftbe of Valley Ran. However, gate and federal reguletory agencies may have addition
recommendations or requ/reaTu:ms pu.rsuant to thel.r judsdic~ionaJ roles. As you know, the Valrey
Plan p~s e.s per requirements of'the Endangered SrN~ries Act (ESA) Because the U S. Fish
and WildEft Serv~c:= has rc~ulatory authority under the ESA, solicidn8 comments from the U.S
Fish and WildEre Service in reE, ards to r,:cent ev,mts would probably bc prudent at this timc.
Wc e.R:,feci~e the opportunity to comment on thi~, Issue. We hope you find the
reconu'nendadons usefu/to'wea-ds · conslrucl/ve reg, oludon to recent cv,:nts. |f wc can be of any
assistance, please do not hesitate to ask.
Best regm-ds,
Cm~'ald T. Bradcn
Research Biologlst
2
RECEIVED: 8- 4-99; 16:00; 909 396 3324 -> R CUCAMONGA COM OE;,/; #1
JUN 84 '99 85:0GPM SC~ SSC 989 ~ 38~4 P.1
South Coast
IAir O, uallty Management District
21~55 L Copley Drive. DIamond Bar. CA gi7~5-4182
:9093 3c~S-2000' http://www,aqrnd.gov
Mr. Brent Le Count, Associate Planner
P[a-ning Division
City of l~mcho CucamonSa
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamon~a, CA 91730
Noace of Intent to Adopt Midisted Neaative Dedm'atlon for the Proposed 123
Rbllde Fsmil~ ITame ReeJdmtHel Deyelonmmu~ oll 84 ~c,~2 C~h' of Rfan~-t -
The South Coast Air Qugtt7 Managemeat ]:)imzi~t (AQM]:)) apFeciates the oRn'mnity
to cornmeat on the above-mentioned document, The bliowin8 commems are meant as
ffujdsnc~ for the Lead Agency and should be incorpomXcd into the Final MidSated
Negative D~laralion.
Please pro~cle the AQMD with writlen responses t~ all comments contained herein prior
to the adopdon of the F;-~t Mitigated Negative D~arafion. The AQMD would be happy
to work with the Leed A~en~y to eidress these issues esd any other ~estions tI~ may
arise. Please contact Oordon Mize, Tmnsl~rtat[on Specialist - CEQA Section, at (909)
396-3302, if you have any questions r~gardin~ these commellLs.
S/eve Smith, Ph.D.
ProSram Supervisor, CEQA Section
Plarmi,a, Rz~e Development & Area Source
Attachment
SS:GM
~BLC990519-01
Conlrol Number
3LIN B4 '99 85:B6PP1 Sr, jqOJtD SSC 989 396 3324 P.2
Mr. BrentLe Count -l- June 4, 1999
Notice of htent to Adopt Mitigated Negutive Declaration for the Proposed 123
Sinal~ Family Home Residential Devel01~ment on 84 acres: Cftv of Rsneho
· ThcSCAQMDisunable~oconcu~wiXhxhc"NoIml~fmdix~f~rsirqtmh'xy~
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). ff the Load Agency performed an air quality
analysis ~o reach this conclusion, please l~ovide the analysis in the Final MND.
· Table &2 offhe SCAQMD's CBQA Air Quality I4an,thook(Handbook)refersio
pro.~ec~ operaaons. The SCAQMD ram/conct~ that opcx~omd im.t'~t~ m'C not
stgniflca~X but car~o~ c~c~ wkh the '~o Impact" finding.
· The I:e_~a A2cncy should review Tablo ~-3 of the ~ fithe scrc~h,~ t~blcs .
~ lx~n~.. relied tlpo~ Table ~-3, which hi~!lights ccels~d. xl~ion irn~n~.~S, shows ~12
this project may cxcccd these xhrcshokis. Since no ~ is provided regarding the
t~m|n~ Or [~h~e,~ of the projec~ the SCAQMI) is unsure whether or not a significant
For example, ff ~ ocrcs wcrc graded on a dsi]y b~s, or 30 ~rcs on · q~r~tly b~sis,
t~xe project would cre~ a signific~t PM~0 k, npact This, includi~ sny consm~on
worker trips, hcavyzduty equipment, cl~., nc~ls to bc culuat~i to ensure that a short-
~//~ air o.,,~|14, imp-% is not crea~d.
The Final MN'D ShOUld illelude mi~gation measures ~ connol cfi~ciencies, wh~e
possible, to reducc the projcct's potential air quality impacts.
· NoXeXha~fhe,$CAQlVID'sguidanceonpmpari~drq~ditysmxlyses, as se~ forth in
the CBQA Air Quality Handbook ($CAQMD, 19~3), sm~s tbsx a proposed project
could be found consisten~ wkh an ~plicable general plan and/o~ regional plan but
stiff have a si.m~i~cant impact on air quality trader CEQA by exceeding established
proposed in-ojcct should subst~i~ the findi~ of"No Impact" for ~r qu~ity by
_'.~!y~g the pro~ec:-sl~cci~c consu~caon- and cper~n-mla~ emissions.
· In mummary, thc SCAQMD docs not concur with the "No hnpact~ finding in thc ~r
~ml|ty seci~on Of the MND. Please provide a detailed air qmxlity s~lysis in tho Final
M]qD highli~btin~ worst.case daily emissions. Please refer ~o the SCAQMD's C'~r~A
Handbook, Chapter 9, for as~stauce in pmparin2 the ~n~lysis. fitlie ~,~lysis shows
that there are consu'uction-rela~d emissions associatcd wi~h thc pmjcct, the
SCAQMD recommends th,U S'(a) on ~he checklist be -s,~-ged to react X~e projecX's
air quality stares more a~curately.
r' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 9, 1999
TO: Chairman and Membere of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 -
BARRATT AMERICAN - The design review of detailed site plan and building
elevations for previously recorded Tract 13316, consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres
of land in the Very Low Residential Distdct (less than 2 dwelling units per acre),
located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Cartad Court -
APN: 1074-061-15 through 27, 1074-041-08 through 21, 1074-591-01 through 16,
1074-461-04 through 21, 1074-601-01 through 14, 1074-611-01 through 16,
1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074-051-09 through 16. Staff has prepared a
Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideretion.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A, Site Charecteristics: The site slopes from the northwest to the southeast at a 10 to 15
percent grade. The elevation difference across the site is appreximately 269 feet. There are
two naturel streams that cross the site from north to south. The stream channel has steep
slopes varying from 25 to 30 percent. The two streams carry dreinage from the north, through
the site, to the south. This drainage is preposed to be contrelled by constructing a retention
basin at the northern end of the site with a storm drain which outlets south of the site.
Vegetation on the site is in its natural state with a heavy cover of scrub brushes and grasses.
There is a cluster of three mature eucalyptus trees and one mature oak tree (on Lot 44).
ANALYSIS:
A, Backqround: The subdivision was appreved prior to adoption of the Hillside Development
Ordinance and the map has been recorded. Since then, a Design Review application was
approved. The grading scheme, while based upon a mass grading concept, had undulating
and variable slopes to soften the appearance of the slopes as much as possible. Also, a
condition of approval limited the developer to one-story homes. That Design Review has
since expired. The applicant is now attempting to resurrect the previously approved grading
design but with two-story homes. A Planning Commission workshop was held on June 10,
1998, regarding the current grading scheme to determine whether it is acceptable given the
two-story proposal. The Commission provided the following direction (Exhibit "H"):
ITEM "B"
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 98-10
June 9,1999
Page 2
1. The site is surrounded to the south, east, and west by existing single family
neighborhoods with mass graded, flat pads and two-story homes. The project has a
significant history of resolving design issues pdor to adoption of the Hillside
Development Ordinance. Therefore, the grading scheme is acceptable so long as
two-story homes are sensitively plotted to minimize visual impacts.
2. Home massing should flow with the terrain. Avoid two story high walls without one-story
elements.
3. Provide quality, 360 degree architecture.
4. Establish view corridors between homes as much as possible.
5. The existing neighborhood to the south of the project, especially along Carrari Street,
is believed to be the most affected by the project. Special attention should be paid to
how the project impacts this neighborhood.
B. General: Six home plans are proposed ranging in size from 2,869 square feet to 3,600
square feet. Three of the home plans are single-story, three are two-story. Each home plan
has four elevation styles: Eady Californian, Bungalow, Craftsman, and California Ranch.
While the homes are not proposed to have split level foundations to accommodate the terrain,
they are designed within the 30-foot high building envelope per the Hillside Development
standards. It is proposed to have 20-foot by 20-foot home corrals on several of the lots, each
with access to a horse trail. California Sycamore trees are proposed for slope planting.
C. Desi~n Review Committee: The Committee (Stewart, Hendemon), reviewed the project on
April 20, 1999, and recommend approval with conditions. See the attached Design Review
Action Agenda for further details.
D. Technical Review Committee: The Technical and Grading Review Committees have
reviewed the project and recommend approval subject to conditions outlined in the attached
Resolution of Approval.
E. Tree Removal Permit: The site contains several Eucalyptus trees and an Oak tree. The
applicant has submitted a Tree Removal Permit for Commission consideration for removal of
the Eucalyptus trees. The Oak tree will be required to be preserved in place. Eucalyptus
trees may be removed per the Tree Preservation Ordinance subject to replacement at a ratio
of 1 to 1.
F. Environmental Assessment: On March 27, 1987, the Planning Commission issued a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Tract 13316. Since that time, the California Gnatcatcher
and the San Bemardino Kangaroo Rat have been added to the list of threatened and
endangered species, respectively; therefore, the site is identified as potential habitat by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Also, the original Mitigated Negative Declaration is now over
twelve years old. Staff has completed a new Initial Study for the project. Habitat assessment
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 98-10
June 9,1999
Page 3
and protocol surveys were conducted by Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc.,
consulting biologists permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine potential
habitat value and any potential impacts. The results of the surveys indicate that the site does
not contain suitable habitat for the Gnatcatcher and no Gnatcatchers were detected on site.
The surveys also indicate that the site is not suitable habitat for the San Bernardino Kangaroo
Rat and no signs of the rat were present. Based on this information, the proposed
development of the 84-acre site will not likely result in adverse effects to rare, sensitive, or
endangered animal species. No other potential impacts were identified beyond those
addressed with the original Mitigated Negative Declaration issued by the Commission in 1987.
If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would
be in order.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING: The applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting at City Hall on
May 13, 1999. Several homeowners in the vicinity were present. The pdmary issues included the
drainage outlet south of the tract east of London Avenue, construction phasing, view preseh/ation,
inconvenience due to sewer line installation on Archibald Avenue, and dust control. The detention
basin/storm drainage system for the tract was designed consistent with the conditions of approval
for the Tentative Tract Map. According to the developer, construction will be divided into 15 phases
beginning at the southeast comer of the site. The homes have been designed and plotted to
maximize views to the degree possible. The City has not adopted a view preservation ordinance.
A Standard Condition of Approval requires the developer to provide special street posting and dust
control for construction.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public headng in the Inland Valley DailV
Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within
a 300-foot radius of the project site. Staff has received several letters from area residents opposing
the project. The primary issues are increased traffic, why Hidden Farm Road on the east side of
Archibald Avenue is approved to be aligned with the existing intersection on the west side, drainage,
impacts upon sage scrub and other vegetation and wildlife, noise, cdme, view preservation, and
preservation of a "quiet, peaceful, friendly" atmosphere. See attached Copies of letters (Exhibit "J").
The Final Tract Map was recorded in 1990; hence, the street alignment and lots are already
appmved. The increase in traffic and storm water drainage does not exceed that anticipated by the
General Plan and the street and storm drain system has been designed to accommodate the
project. For public safety reasons, City policy requires that streets intersecting with residential major
streets and collector streets, like Archibald Avenue, align to minimize conflicts between left turning
traffic. Impactstosagescrubandothervegetation/wildlifewereaddressedbythelnitialStudyPart
II based upon detailed biological surveys of the site. The studies concluded that there are no
sensitive animal species on-site and there is only a small area of actual Coastal Sage Scrub; the
removal of which is being mitigated by purchasing off site habitat. The increase in noise due to the
project is not in excess of that anticipated by the General Plan. No uses or activities are proposed
beyond that permitted by the Development Code. The developer anticipates selling prices for the
homes to start in the low $500,000's. Such high priced homes are not typically associated with
increased crime. The homes are designed to preserve views to the degree possible. The City of
Rancho Cucamonga has not adopted a view preservation ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 98-10
June 9, 1999
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development
Review 98-10 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and
issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Furthermore, staff recommends the Planning
Commission forward a recommendation to the General Plan Update Task Force to consider
changing the Land Use Designation for the debds basin from Very-Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling
units per acre) to Open Space by minute action.
City Planner
BB:BL:gs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Grading Plan
Exhibit "D" - Phasing Plan
Exhibit "E" - Walls and Fence Plan
Exhibit "F" - Landscape Plan
Exhibit "G" - Elevations
Exhibit "H" - Minutes of Planning Commission Workshop Dated June 10, 1998
Exhibit "1" - Design Review Action Agenda - Apdl 20, 1999
Exhibit "J" - Letters from Homeowners
Exhibit "K" - Initial Study Part II
Resolution of Approval
DETAILED SITE PLAN ' ~* =-==. "
T~CT NO 13316
; % "'~" .... CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
...... "~' "~ T~CT NO 13316
' .__ ~:3: ..._. ,
SCALE 1"=100'
FENCINCI LE~ENE)
TYPICAL
FENC[/WALL
=lan I Plan
Plan 2 Plan
,,,.,,.,,,,,
,, ,
Plan ~ Plan
"-
~:~:~:~::~:::::::. :~.::.::.::?:: .: .....-....
I .... :::c::~::::::""' ":: :;::::::~
,,, H,,' 'C~":".~: ~:: '. ,::;,:~:T::*'~::: :"" ' ........ :': ~'' ' .....
: ,,,,, ,, :~,,, ,, . · · ~: ,, ,, ~'..:':::-.'.~.'.2~ ,:,:~:,:,,'*:,~'
SiS ~S "' *':'~*:':':"'
~ .-.., FZ:''?' ·, z_
, .
" ' .... '
.,-, .... i ~L. :~.""'
~ ~ ";--.,-..,-,.,,,, .
~ ,,' ! ,, , "' ~' ','. "' ,, L, .:..
' ' ':: 76 103 1~ 105
·:-:-:-:-:-:,:-_..-,-. ,
FI J F J TTPIG'4L PLANTIN~ 'el'~e.LP.~, D JUTE NETTIN~ e,T,4EBILIZER,~, J TREE ON SLOPE
..... ':.~.-!-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-~_=-,-,
· ~..~...- '~.~..~--~-,,~-
· B.,~;,li=_=j~,-,,,.~.,ii~ ....'~,~"~-~'=--.f-."."'-,~- '.,~,.,I~'~-'--~"---''~'',
~ J ~ J PLA.T~.S ~oTEs .................... c J ~.ou~c> cov~.s
~ [ Roof Plan
~..,~... Plan 1
2, 869 sq. ft.
Right
BARRATT AMERICAN, INC. Rancho Cllcalllo~ga
I' ' 'r'~"~' II J q~> ~ <~>
~! .,,,.,,~o,,,,,Plan 1
- 2, 869 sq. ft.
Right
BARRATT AMERICAN, INC.Rancho Cucamonga
Le[t
I
/ ~--~ _~_ ..... ~_~ -~
~.~ 2, 869 sq. ft.
B~TT ~~C~, ~C. Rancho Cucamonga
Left
Rear
~ 1~ ,,.g,,o.Plan 1
J~ ~ 2, 869 sq. ft.
Right
BARRATT AMERICAN, INC. Rancho Cucaraonga
LeFt
I
Rear
~ ~ R~fPlan
l~ ~ar,~,~o;.,~. Plan 2
3, 124 sq. ~.
Right
Len
W EtI'IEtLB :, "u,
, 'rl
~' <1 b I ....
~J I~1 RootPlan
~-,,,,,,,~, Plan 2
3, 124 sq. ft.
Left
B 'RI~IFI I
~.,,,~..,.~.0., Plan 2
V 3, 124 sq. ft.
Right
BSTT ~~C~, ~C. Raacho Cucamonga ,-,,-. ..~,
Left
,"1~ ~ ~ ..
' I]lll I "~' '~ ]"
[illl I
_~ I I
~ I ~ F
I L ....
I
~.~,o~ Plan 2
. 3, 124 sq. ~.
Right
Left
~,,~,,,~Plan 3
, 3, 145 sq. ft.
Right
B~TT ~~C~, ~C. Rancho CucamoHga
LeFt
iT!.na mB'
i ~ ' ' '
Rear
~.~,,Fo~.,~.Plan 3
3,145 sq..ft.
~ig~t
BARRATT A1VIERICAN, INC.Rancho CHcamoflga
LeFt
Rear ~ ,~
<11 .... ~ i~'
~.,:.~ .... ~h
~ R~ R/~
~ . ' ', 3, 145 sq. ft.
B~TT ~~C~, ~C. Rancho Cucamonga .,-. .~,
Left
Re~r ~ -- -~
~ ~-~--
~ Plan 3
I ~°~ 3, 145 Sq. ft.
Right
BARRATT AMERICAN, INC. R3HChO CHC3~OHg3 ~-~,~ .~,
~ ]~ ~ ~,,--, Plan 4
3,392 sq. ft.
Right
BARRATT A1VIERICAN, INC. R8ncho Cucamong8
[~ ~ Ear,~ ca,,~or.i~oPlan 4
,~,~ 3,392 sq. ft.
BARRATT AMERICAN, INC. Rancho Cucamonga
L---~ V
~r
Roof P/aa
[~ m ca,,~__Ra..hPlan 4
3,392 sq. ~.
Right
BARRATT AMERICAN, INC. Rancho Cucamonga
· ,~ i1~i
~ , I
Left
1
~ I
~ ~1~I Fni i.~'i~' '
Rear
~~ ~ ~~ ]' ~,~ Plan5
,,~ ' ' 3,435 sq. ~.
Right
B~TT ~~C~, ~C. Rancho Cucamonga ,-,.. ,0-~...~,
Rear I (1 I~
'[ /- Roof Plan
Right
a~TT ~mC~, inc. Rancho Cucamonga
Left
.~ ~,4~s ~q. ~t.
Right
B~TT ~mC~, inC. Rancho Cucamonga ,-,,-.,-,~,
R oof Plan
600 sq. ft.
Re~
~.,,ga,owPlan 6
-- J 3, 6oo sq. ~.
Right
BARRATT A1VIERICAN, INC.Raacho
: / " CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
June 10, 1998
Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
- Commission to order at 7:20 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga
Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:PRESENT: David Barker, William Bethel, Larry McNiel
ABSENT: Rich Macias, Peter Tolstoy
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Bullet, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Brent Le Count,
Associate Planner
NEW BUSINESS
A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 98-06 - BARRATT - A request for Design Review for Tract
13316, a previously approved tract consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very Low
Residential District (less that 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald
Avenue, north of Carrari Street - APN: 210-07144, 37. and 45.
Brad Buller, City Planner, explained the purpose and goals of the Pre-Application Review process.
David Jacinto. representative from Barrat, indicated that this is a previously approved project which
his group has inherited. He said the project will have fiat pads per the previous approval but Barratt
is proposing two story homes designed to meet the building envelope requirements of the Hillside
Ordinance.
Bart Crandell, project architect, indicated that the pads are wide and fiat and the homes would be
built within the building envelope. He said there are 3 one-story and 3 two-story home plans
proposed. He commented the proposal is diverse because there are six overall plan types, each
with four elevations with color variation. He said substantial setbacks are proposed.
Brent Le Count, Assodate Planner, indicated that the reason for holding the Pre-Application Review
is that the previous approval included a condition limiting development to one-story homes with a
caveat lhat any two-story home proposal would require an entirely new design consistent with the
Hillside Ordinance. He said the applicant is attempting to utilize the previously approved grading,
a mass grading concept with ~at pads. and add two-story homes. He observed applicant's
justification is that lhe homes. whether one- or two-story, meet the building envelope requirements
of the Hillside Ordinance even though they are proposed on fiat pads instead of being designed to
fit the terrain. He indicated the Commission is being asked its opinion as to whether this is an
appropriate direction to take.
Commissioner McNiel asked what the existing grade of the site is.
Mr. Jacinto indicated that the grade is approximately 12 percent.
,,--
~'_ %_. 27 .
Commissioner McNiel asked how much grading is proposed.
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, indicated that the proposal involves significant grading and that the site
is more like 16 percent natural average grade.
Commissioner McNiel questioned what kind of precedent this type of development would set.
Mr. Buller indicated that surrounding home developments to the west and south have typical mass
graded fiat pads with fiat land style homes, and to the east the Woods development also has fiat
graded pads with homes nestled in amongst Eucalyptus Trees. He pointed out that other large tracts
have been built that don't technically meet the Hillside Ordinance so this would not be the first. He
commented this project has a significant history of resolving design issues which happened before
the Hillside Ordinance went into effect. He noted there is a recorded map and an approved
conceptual grading plan. He said the design issue before the Commission was whether to allow two-
story homes without stepping the pads. He believed the project's history is unique enough that it
would not be precedent setting to look at various design options.
Chairman Barker indicated that there are really two issues at hand; one is whether a fiat pad grading
concept is acceptable and the other is whether two-story homes are appropriate. He raised the
question of what the impact of two-story homes would be given the type of terrain involved.
Mr. Jacinto said that the homes are designed to meet the building envelope.
Mr. Bullet indicated that the odginal requirement for one-story only homes was intended to minimize
the visual impact of the project and obviously, two-story homes would have that much more of a
visual impact.
Commissioner McNiel remarked he is not sure what the proper mix of one-story and two-story homes
would be, but that the site is surrounded by developments of similar style and the front elevations
look good. He did not necessarily have a problem with the applicant's proposal but stated side and
rear elevations should have as much quality of design as the front.
Chairman Barker stressed the importance of 360-degree architecture, with all elevations of the best
possible quality. He felt that is especially true for this type of development where an up-slope
neighbor has views of a down-slope neighbor's rear elevation. He expressed concern about the
impact of two-story homes and said the applicant will have to demonstrate that views to the valley
and views to the mountains will not be degraded by the project. He voiced concern about drainage
issues. He felt the focus should be on the total environment created by the project rather than
home-to-home details. If the project does not negatively impact existing surrounding properties, he
was not opposed to two-story development. He commended the project architect for the hidden
garage design. and said he hopes to see more of such quality design.
Mr. Jadnto asked the Commission to elaborate on how to demonstrate that the project will not have
negative visual impacts.
Chairman Barker said that the project should not just be looked at in terms of street scape but also
in terms of flow from east to west and north to south, flow of terrain. He felt it will be difficult to add
two-story homes to the projecFwithout increasing visual impacts and said the homes must be
propedy plotted to avoid these impacts.
Mr. Jacinto claimed that mixing one- and two-story home provides more visual variety because of
the variation in roof lines.
PC Adjourned Minutes -2- June 10, 1998
-...: - -. Mr. Bullet observed that the Hillside Ordinance requires homes to be designed to fit the terrain. He
-: -~: felt the argument of providing variety by mixing one- and two-story homes is really a fiat land design
method and does not necessarily apply in this case.
Commissioner Bethel did not suppot1 the two-story proposal. He voiced concerns about twostory
homes w~thout stepping the pads. He was not convinced that adding various tack-on elements such
as shutters and different architectural styles, such as Mediterranean and Craftsman, can be
developed using the same overall home massing from home to home. He felt the project should be
designed in full conformance with the Hillside Ordinance. He feared that by allowing the project to
proceed, the City is aftowing a dangerous precedent for future hillside development.
Commissioner McNiel thought the overall concept is well rounded. Given the surrounding
development, he did not feel the terraced grading concept with two*story homes will have a negative
visual impact. He recommends focusing on preserving views between homes rather than over
homes. He felt homes should not have repetitive roof lines. He reminded the group that the City
does not have any legislation designed to protect views.
Mr. Buller summarized the Commissioner's comments. He stated the Commission appears
reluctant to allow two-story homes without very careful attention to plotting and design to minimize
visual impacts. He commented that staff can work with the applicant to plot homes based upon the
threedimensional building envelope volume to maximize view corridor opportunities and minimize
visual impacts. He said two-story high walls, without onestory elements such as side and rear
elevations presented tonight, should have one-story elements so that the mass of homes flows with
the terrain. Mr. Buffer reminded the Commissioners that when the tract was originally processed,
neighbors living along Carraft Street were very concerned about having two-story homes along the
south project boundary and that the tract to the south is the most vulnerable to potential visual
impacts from the subject project.
PUBLIC ~
There were no public comments.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
PC Adjourned Minutes -3- June 10, 1998
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:30 p.m. Brent Le Count April 20, 1999
ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 - BARRATTAMERICAN -
The design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for a previously recorded Tract Map
(Tract 13316) consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than
2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrari Court -
APN: 1074-061-15 through 27, 1074-041-08 through 21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074461-04
through 21, 1074-601-01 through 14, 1074-611-01 through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074-
051-09 through 16.
Backqround: The subdivision was approved prior to adoption of the Hillside Development Ordinance.
Since then, a Design Review application was approved. The grading scheme, while based upon a
mass grading concept, had undulating and variable slopes to soften the appearance of the slopes as
much as possible. Also, a condition of approval limited the developer to one-story only homes. That
Design Review has since expired. The applicant is now attempting to resurrect the previously
approved grading design but with two-story homes. A Planning Commission workshop was held on
the current grading scheme to determine whether it is acceptable given the two-story proposal. The
Commission provided the following direction:
1. The site is surrounded to the south, east, and west by existing single family neighborhoods with
mass graded, fiat pads and two-story homes. The project has a significant history of resolving
design issues, prior to adoption of the Hillside Development Ordinance. Therefore, the grading
scheme is acceptable so long as two-story homes are sensitively plotted to minimize visual
impacts.
2. Home massing should flow with the terrain. Avoid two-story high walls without one-story
elements.
3. Provide quality, 360 degree architecture.
4. Establish view corridors between homes as much as possible.
5. The existing neighborhood to the south of the project, especially along Carrari Street, is
believed to be the most vulnerable to the project. Special attention should be paid to how the
project impacts this neighborhood.
Site Characteristics: The site slopes from northwest to the southeast at a 10 to 15 percent grade. The
elevation difference across the site is approximately 269 feet. There are two natural streams that cross
the site from north to south. The stream channel has very steep slopes varying from 25 to 30 percent.
The two streams carry drainage from the north, through the site to the south. This drainage is
proposed to be controlled by constructing a retention basin at the northern end of the site with a storm
drain which outlets south of the site. Vegetation on the site is in its natural state with a heavy cover
of scrub brushes and grasses. There is a cluster of three mature eucalyptus trees and one mature Oak
tree.
Proposal: Six home plans are proposed ranging in size from 2,869 square feet to 3,600 square feet.
Three of the home plans are single story, three are two-story. Each home plan has four elevation
styles; Early Californian, Bungalow, Craftsman, and California Ranch. While the homes are not
proposed to have split level foundations to accommodate the terrain, they are designed within the 30-
foot high building envelope per the Hillside Development standards. Twenty foot by twenty foot horse
corrals are proposed for several of the lots, each with access to a horse trail. California Sycamore
trees are proposed for slope planting.
,r ':f"
DRC COMMENTS
DR 98-10 - BARRATE AMERICAN
April 20, 1999
Page 2
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding
this project:
1. Provide substantial variation in front yard setbacks. In some cases this may require re-plotting
of home plans to accommodate useable rear yard areas given slopes.
2. Plot one-story homes along the south and west sides of Almond Street, on Lots 55 through 61
on Saddlewood Place, and on corner lots wherever possible.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. For the most part, the side and rear elevations have upgraded treatment consistent with the
front elevations. Provide further details, such as corbels, shutters, and belly bands.
2. Provide either decorative masonry walls or decorative wrought iron fencing for interior yard
fences that are visible from surrounding streets, either due to grade differences or proximity to
horse trails (such as along north side of Carrad Street). Wood fencing is only acceptable in
interior yard areas not visible from surrounding streets.
3. Provide at least a 5-foot landscape strip between the back of sidewalk and any wall.
" 4. Locate fence walls at top of slope rather than at toe of slope.
5. Provide a more naturalized rip rap treatment for storm drain outlet south of tract.
6. Provide intensified landscaping, including cascading vines, within terraces between retaining
walls to create a more natural appearance and reduce visual impact of walls and slopes.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. Where wood siding is used on the front elevation, it must be continued around side and rear
elevations as well.
2. The existing Oak tree on Lot 44 shall be preserved and protected in place according to the
requirements of Municipal Code Section 19.08.110.
3. Provide at least a 5-foot landscape strip between the back of sidewalk and any wall.
4. All perimeter walls, between home connecting walls, and retaining walls shall be decorative
masonry with pilasters on freestanding walls. Provide either decorative masonry walls or
decorative wrought iron fencing for intedor yard fences that are visible from surrounding streets,
either due to grade differences or proximity to horse trails (such as along north side of Carrari
Street). Wood fencing is only acceptable in interior yard areas not visible from surrounding
streets.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the above comments.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 98-10 - BARRATE AMERICAN
April 20, 1999
Page 3
Desiqn Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Pare Stewart, Larry Henderson
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
The Committee recommended approval subject to staffs comments and the following additional
comments:
1. Plot one-story home on Lot 60 to preserve views for existing home to the north. No other re-
plotting of homes is necessary.
2. Eliminate the PVC fencing on the north side of the Community Trail on the north side of Carrari
Street and replace with concrete curb/mow strip.
3. Gates shall be wrought iron instead of wood.
4. Provide wrought iron fencing for fences at top of slopes instead of solid masonry walls.
5. Provide a color coded Site Plan showing plotting of one- and two-story homes for Planning
Commission review.
6. Provide a perspective rendering of a typical trail and surrounding landscaping. Suggest a view
/-- of the southwest corner of the site showing the Community and Local Feeder trails on the north
· !, side of Carrari Street and associated slope landscaping.
"°f ' ~ RECEIVED '
To: Brad Buller ""' ~Ae
City Planner [[~ 0
10500 Civic Center Drive . 9 1999
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 City ot Rancho Cucamon a
Dear Mr. Buller, P~anning DivisiOn g
I am sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel-
opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the
east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10. tentative tracts
13316, 15914).. This area of Rancho Cucamonga, known as -Alta
Loma" is a quiet, friendly and peaceful area. I am concerned
that this development threatens the quality of life we now enjoy
due to increase traffic. noise levels and crime. I am concerned
about proper drainage down Archibald and the fact that current
studies on these matters are not being used to access impacts. I
am also concerned about the wildlife that is established in the
area.
On the City of Rancho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the
goals of the Plannin~ Cormnission include; protecting the natural
environment and the community identity. The development of this
area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review
committees value public participation and encourages it by
"neighborhood meetings" to receive input from the residents and
posting public hearing notices. We have not had any type of
"neighborhood meeting" for the applicant to explain their pro-
ject. I understand that since this area was approved for devel-
opment in the early 1980's, the city ie not required to mail
notices or even post the date of a public hearing. However, this
area has changed drastically since the early 1980's whenthls
plan was approved.
In order to preserve the quality of our neighborhood, I am
requesting the city leave this area as "open space." This would
allow it to continue to serve as a buffer for noise, traffic and
drainage between neighborhoods, and a habitat for wildlife.
also urge up to date studies on traffic, noise, crima and drain-
age (especially in high rain years, such as last year's M1 Nino).
I request to be notified of a public hearing, and that the
other surrounding residents be notified as well.
Sincerely, /
cC: The Plm~ning Co,.=.,ission ~'~
Diane Williams, City Council
Ja~s ~ratalo, City Co~cil
Bob Dutton, City C~ncil -
.
To: Brad Buller
City Planner JAN 2
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 -
Dear Mr. Buller,
I am sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel-
opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the
east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts
13316, 15914). This area of Rancho Cucamonga, known as "Alta
Loma" is a quiet, friendly and peaceful area. I am concerned
that this development threatens the quality of life we now enjoy
due to increase traffic, noise levels and crime. I am concerned
about proper drainage down Archibald and the fact that current
studies on these matters are not being used to access impacts. I
am also concerned about the wildlife that is established in the
area.
On the City of Rancho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the
goals of the planning Commission include; protecting the natural
environment and the community identity. The development of this
area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review
committees value public participation and encourages it by
,,neighborhood meetings" to receive input from the residents and
posting public hearing notices. We have not had any type of
.,neighborhood meeting" for the applicant to explain their pro-
ject. I understand that since this area was approved for devel-
opment in the early 1980's, the city is not required to mail
notices or even post the date of a public hearing. However, this
area has changed drastically since the early 1980's when this
plan was approved.
In order to preserve the quality of our neighborhood, I am
requesting the city leave this area as "open space." This would
allow it to continue to serve as a buffer for noise, traffic and
drainage between neighborhoods, and a habitat for wildlife. We
also urge up to date studies on traffic, noise, crime and drain-
age (especially in high rain years, such as last year's E1 Nino).
I request to be notified of a public hearing, and that the
other surrounding residents be notified as well.
Sincerely,
cc: The Planning Commission Bill Alexander, Mayor
Diane Williams, City Council
James Curatalo, City Council
Bob Dutton, City Council
Paul Biane, City Council
Af~R~/v~,~ I/~'IF\/ ~{~-~ fi~/~ ~AP~D/' ~LT~ /~ (A. ~1~7 ~q~U
RECEIVED
Novemb~ 23, 1998
Mr. Brad Bullcr NOV
10~00 C~c C~ ~ City of Rancho Cucamnga
~cho ~c~o~ CA 91730 Planning Divisbn
Dc~ ~. B~:
I o~ ~p~ no~ o[ffi~ ~d d~l~t of~c~ ~13316 ~d 15914. ~ I
p~h~¢d ~ Fop~ ~¢¢ y¢~ ~o, I w~ told ~ ~ a ~ or~cc w~ch ~o~
b~ ~ such a w~ to obs~ct ~¢ ~ew, w~ch ~ ~ major p~ o~ ~ ~U ~m. I
~ ~ot ~t d~'elo~ but ~23 hines o~ ~¢ e~t ~d¢ o~ffie ~d o~c~b~d
Av~u= ~ ~ot co~duc~= to ~ co~'s i~d~. It ~ ~cd. It
ca~, d¢~, ~ffi~s~es, coyotes, owl ~c¢, posses, ~acco~
posted. ~te co~v~, ~¢ si~ s~ ~ ~ ~e 5cl~ out
I ~= ~dd~ ~ ho~¢ ~o~ ~¢ ~d~c offfi~ field for ~¢ y~ ~d I ~v~
fit ~ ~dd~ ~ w,~ ov~ s~ y~m. ~ ~d~ ~d h ~ ~cl~ ~&~ scout
~ ~, md it ~o~s a ~cape of a p~ac~ ~Mmt for ~ r~d~U.
~ ~ so much m~ ~t wo~d b~ b~e~c~ ~ead of 1~ ho~ (~bc~ble).
S~ posted f~ h~e fide' s~, ~ow~ ~ on ~cMb~d A~uc, md hon~
~ w~ pa~ ~ ~ a f~w. ,,
I m r~es~g no~ca~on of &tes ~d ~es of pubEc h¢~ ~ wee ~ a co~ of ~¢
m~¢s ~d p~ f~ ~¢ d~lo~t of ~ ~¢a m heine 1~ n~ hom~. I wo~d
~o ~e Fool ~ ~e ~ ~ not be oh~d ~ a r~t of
f~m upon wMch ~¢ d~c~on to b~d I~ s~c~ wo~d
~ ~d ~¢ ~¢s~'[¢. 1~ ~t hines s~p~ ~ not
~ you for yo~ ~¢~t¢
,, ,:,
4849 ~b~d Amu~
~m ~ CA 91737
(~) 481-7161 Home
(~9) ~g~203 W~ ..
To: Brad Buller
City Planner
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730
Dear Mr. Buller,
I am Sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel-
opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the
east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts
13316, 15914). This area of Rancho Cucamonga, known as "Alta
Loma" is a quiet, friendly and peaceful area. I am,concerned
that this development threatens the quality of lif~ we now enjoy
due to increase traffic, noise levels and crime. I am concerned
about proper drainage down Archibald and the fact that current
studies on these matters are not being used to access impacts. I
am also concerned about the wildlife that is established in the
area.
On the City of R~ncho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the
goals of the Planning Commission include; protecting the natural
environment and the co~.L~unity identity. The development of this
area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review
conTnittees value public participation and encourages it by
"neighborhood meetings" to receive input from the residents and
posting public hearing notices. We have not had any type of
"neighborhood meeting" for the applicant to explain their pro-
ject. I understand that since this area was approved for devel-
opment in the early 1980's, the city is not required to mail
notices or even post the date of a public hearing. Mowever, this
area has changed drastically since the early Z980's when this
plan was approved-
In order to preserve the quality ~f our neighborhood, I am
requesting the city leave this area aM "Open space." This would
allow it to continue to serve as a buffer for noise, traffic and
drainage between neighborhoods, and a habitat for wildlife. We
also urge up co date studies on traffic, noise, crime and drain-
age (especially in high rain years, such as last year's E1 Nino).
I request to be notified of .a public hearing, and thac the
other surrounding residents be notified as well.
Sincerely, '/.~~.~ '~
'RECEIVED "
cc: The planruing Com=d, ssion NOV Z 4 Lq98
9ill Alexander, Hayor
Diane Willlares, City Council -. :_ .-' City of Rancho Cu~monga
, , James . Curatalo, City Council ' ~:,:-: - - ' Planning
Bob Ducton,:City Council .:~
Paul Biane, City Counci~,_~
RECEIVED
November 23, 1998
Mr. Brad Bullet NOV P. 5 Lqg~
City Planner
10500 Civic Center Drive City of Rancho Cucamonga
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Planning Division
Dear Mr. Buller:
I own property north of the proposed development of tracts #13316 and 15914. When I
purchased the property three years ~o, I was told there is a city ordinance which prohim
building in such a way to obstruct the view, which is a major part of life in Alta Loma. I
am not against developmenk but 123 homes on the east side of the end of Archibald
Avenue is not conducive to this community's identity. It is greed. It affects the quail, bob
cats, deer, rattlesnakes, coyotes, owl, mice, posseums, raccoons and an entire myriad of
insects that make this area home. Also, the notice of proposed development was not
posted. Quite conveniently, the sign still lies in the field, out of sight, while the notice of
"estate sites" stands with banners waving.
I have ridden my horse through the middle of the field for three years and I have friends
that have ridden there well over seven years. Hang gliders land in the field, children scout
prize treasures, and it provides a landscape of a peaceful habitat for all residents.
There is so much more that would be beneficial instead of 123 houses (unbelievable).
Signs posted for horse riders' safety, slower speeds on Archibald Avenue, and horse trails
or walking paths to name a few.
I am requesting notification of dates and times of public hearings as well as a copy of the
studies and planning for the development of this area to include 123 new homes. I would
also like proof that the ~,iew will not be obstructed as a result of the development, and the
facts upon ~vhich the decision to build 123 structures would be conducive to this
communi~' and the lifestyle. 123 tract homes simply are not.
Thank you for your immediate attention.
Sincer ~,
4849 Archibald Avenue
Alta Loma~ CA 91737
(909) 481-7161 Home
(909) 468-4203 Work
RECEIVEO
To: Brent Le Count
Associate Planner APR 201999
10500 Civic Center Drive
Dear Mr. Le Count, ~n~M]DNi~n
I am sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel-
opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the
east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts
13316, 15914}. I have talked to you several times on the phone,
and I thank you for you courtesy and time to research questions
myself and my neighbors have had. The last time I spoke to you,
I found out that in the plan Hidden Farm Road is to be extended
across Archibald into the new housing development. I must ex-
press my dLe~ over this part of the plan. My understand-
ing is the original plan was made in the early 1980's. At this
time it made sense to connect the two tracts of homes, since our
home was only built a couple of years before that. However, it
is now 19 years later! I cannot believe this has not been reas-
sessed for its feasibility. The situation is very different now.
Allow me to point out just a few concerns I have. First,
since these homes are being built 19 years apart, these are two
very_ different tracts of homes. Second, it is likely to result
in a ~nger to the children who live in these two areas. Kids
love to ride their bikes, roller skate, etc. Having Hidden Farm
continue across Archibald makes it more likely children will be
trying to cross this busy street which currently has a 50 mph
speed limit. Third, having three exits onto Archibald from the
new tract will definitely effect the traffic on this busy road.
I don't understand why new traffic studies are not required 19
years later. Quite a bit can change in 19 years. Aren't there
new tracts built since then that are not included in the traffic
study from the 1980's? Fourth, the quality of life for those
used to this area of Rancho Cucamonga, known as "Alta Loma" is
quiet, friendly and peaceful. As a resident, I am concerned that
this development threatens this quality of life we have all come
to appreciate. I am concerned for more traffic coming down our
street (Hidden Farm). This a street that is a culdesac, it
doesn't go anywhere! It is obviously not necessary for emergency
evacuation. What is the reasoning behind joining these streets
together?
In order to try to compromise, I have a few suggestions.
Why couldn't the new Hidden Farm Road be offset from the old
Hidden Farm Road, as the other new streets are from the existing
ones. Or could the new Hidden Farm Road be made into a cul de
sac also? Either one of these would make it much less likely for
people to continue across. I also request GUrrent studies on
traffic be done to access impacts and that the new homes be
single story. Lastly, I request that Barratt be asked to educate
the new home buyers on the wildlife in the area. As a Biology
and Environmental Science Professor at Mount San Antonio College,
I have a great appreciation for the wildlife in this area, as do
many of my non-science oriented neighbors. We know to keep our
trash covered and not to leave dog and cat food out at night, so
as not to attract the wildlife into the neighborhood. There are
many tips that could help avoid future conflicts between the new
residents and the wonderful Rancho Cucamonga wildlife.
In summary, I feel that in order to establish the safest
environment for children, maintain the quality of life and pursue
the most logical living situation, Hidden Farm Road should not
continue across Archibald from the new tract into our old one.
On the City of Rancho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the
goals of the Planning Commission and I assume the planning divi-
sion include; protecting the natural environment and the communi-
ty identity. It also says the review committees value public
participation and encourages it. Therefore, I hope you will
consider some of these points. I also again, thank you for your
help in the past and look forward to talking to you in the fu-
ture.
Thank you for your time.
Cynthia J. '/a~non
9574 Hidden Farm Road
Alta Loma, Ca. 91737
cc: Brad Buller, City Planner
The Planning Commission
Bill Alexander, Mayor
Diane Williams, Mayor Pro-Tem
Jim Curatato, City Council
Bob Dutton, City Council
Paul Biane, City Council
Jack Lam, City Manager
, .
1
City Planner W~/~' ~
10500 Civic Center Drive .
C~ of Ran g ~u g
~Dcho C~camo~ga, Ca. 9~7~0 ~°ve~e~Ran~'.ca~°n a
Z am se~d~ Ch~s ~e~e~ ove~ concern ~o~ ~he D:oDosed deve~-
oDme~ ~o~ ~he a~ea a; ~he no~h e~d o~ A~ch~ba~d avenue on ~he
eas~ s~de o~ ~he s~:ee~ (~e ~o. D~-98-~0, ~enca~ve ~ac~s
~3~e, ~59~). Th~s a~ea o~ ~Dcho Cuc~moG~a, kGo~ as "A~Ca
~oma" ~s a ~ec, ~e~d~y and De~ce~u~ a~ea. As a ~es~den~,
am conce~ed ~ha~ ~h~s deve~oDmenc ~h~eaCe~s the ~a~Cy of ~fe
~e no~ e~joy due ~o ~nc:e~se ~a~c, ~o~se ~eve~s a~d c~me.
am concerned sbo~ D~ope~ d~a~na~e do~ A~ch~ba~d and ~he ~ac~
~haC cu~e~ studies o~ ~hese m~CCe:s a~e noC be~n~ ~sed ~o
access ~mDac~s.
~s ~ B~o~o~ and ~v~oDme~a~ Science ~o~esso~ aC ~o~n~ Sa~
~o~o Co~Ze~e, Z am a~so Co~ce~Ded about ~he ~d~e ~haC
established ~n ~he a~ea. Z have ~nessed numerous native
fo~a sDec~es u~z~ ~h~s a~ea ~n a va~e~y o~ ~ays. The
~a:~e~ D~eda~o~s, such ~s coyotes (~h~ch a~e so ~mDo;~a~ fo~
ba~a~c~ a~ ecosystem) Gse Ch~s a~ea as ~ co~do~ and a ~es~-
dence. ~ h~ve seen s~ch sDec~es as ~ed-~a~ed ha~ks, Coope~'s
ha~ks, ~ed-shou~de~ed ha~ks, American kes~:e~s a~d ~ea~ horned
o~ hu~C~ ~d nes~n~ ~ ~h~s hab~C~C. These a~e ~us~ a
f~acC~on of ~he ~d~Ee using Ch~s ~:ea. So much o~ ou~ Sou~h-
e~D Ca~fo~a ~d~e ~s a~esdy ~o~e, s~ce ~h~s a~ea ~as
abandoned ~o~ development ~ ~he early ~980~s, ~C has deveZoDed
d~ve~se a~d ba~a~ce~ ecosystem ~o~h sav~ng.
On ~he C~y of ~ancho ~camonga ~eb S~e, ~ says the
env~o~me~ and ~he co~u~y ~den~C~. ~ my oD~n~on, ~he
deve~oDmen~ o~ ~h~s a~ea ~ d~ecc~y opDose ~hese ~oa~s.
a~so says the ~ev~e~ com~ees va~ue ~ubZ~c Da~c~c~paC~on a~d
e~cou~ages ~ by ,,ne~g~o~hood meetings" co ~ece~ve ~n~uc E~om
~he ~es~den~s and ~os~ng public hea~g ~o~ces. ~e have
had any ~e o~ ,,ne~g~o~hood meeting" ~o~ ~he aD~Z~ca~C ~o
ex~a~ ~he~ D~ojecC- ~ have bee~ ~n~omed by the
de~a~Cme~C ~haC s~ce Ch~s a~ea ~as a~=ove~ fo~ ~eve~o~me~
~he early ~980's, the c~Cy ~s noC =e~ed Co ma~ ~oC~ces o~
even ~osC ~he ~a~e of a ~ubZ~c hea~ng. ~o~eve~, Ch~s a~ea has
cha~ed d~asC~ca~y s~nce ~he ea:~y ~980's ~hen Ch~s p~an ~as
aDD~oved.
Zn o~de~ Co p~ese~e ~he ~aZ~Cy o~ ou~ ne~e~o~hood, Z am
~e~es~n~ ~he c~y ~eave ~h~s a~ea as "o~e~ space." Th~s ~ou~d
a~o~ ~ ~o continue ~o sere as a buE~e= Eo~ ~o~se, C~af~c a~d
a~so u~ee uD co da~e studies on c~af~c, ~o~se, c~me and d~a~n-
a~e (espec~aZ~y ~ h~gh ~a~n yea~s, such as ~asC yea~'s S~ ~no).
I request to be notified of a public hearing, and that the
other surrounding residents be notified as well.
ynt ia J Xannon
9574 Hidden Farm Road
Alta Loma, Ca. 91737
cc: The Planning Commission
Bill Alexander, Mayor
Diane Williams, City Council
Jim Curatalo, City Council
Bob Dutton, City Council
Paul Biane, City Council
To:Brad Buller
City Planner
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730
Dear Mr. Buller,
I am sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel-
opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the
east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts
13316, 15914). This area of Rancho Cucamonga, known as "Alta
Loma" is a quiet, friendly and peaceful area. I am concerned
that this development threatens the quality of life we now enjoy
due to increase traffic, noise levels and crime. I am concerned
about proper drainage down Archibald and the fact that current
studies on these matters are not being used to access impacts. I
am also concerned about the wildlife that is established in the
area.
On the City of R~ncho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the
goals of the Planning Corm~ission include; protecting the natural
environment and the co~u~unity identity. The development of this
area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review
committees value public participation and encourages it by
"neighborhood meetings" to receive input from the residents and
posting public hearing notices. We have not had any type of
"neighborhood meeting" for the applicant to explain their pro-
ject. I understand that since this area was approved for devel-
opment in the early 1980's, the city is not required to mail
notices or even post the date of a public hearing. However, this
area has changed drastically since the early 1980's when this
plan was approved.
In order to preserve the quality of our neighborhood, I am
requesting the city leave this area as "open space." This would
allow it to continue to serve as a buffer for noise, traffic and
drainage between neighborhoods, and a habitat for wildlife. We
also urge up to date studies on traffic, noise, crime and drain-
age (especially in high rain years, such as last year's E1 Nino).
I request to be notified of a public hearing, and that the
other surrounding residents be notified as well.
Sincerely, ._~.~].~,/~,/;i~. ~.(
" .... ......... RECEIVED
Cc: The 91arming Commission NOV Z
9ill Alexander, Hayor
Diane Williams, City Council CityofRancho Cucamonga
James Curatalo, City Council Planning Divisi0~
Bob Dutton, City Council
9au~ Biane, City Council
To: Brad Buller KathyHunter
9575 Hidden Fa~Rd
City Planner AltaL0maCA91737-1619
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730
Dear Mr. Buller,
I am sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel-
opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the
east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts
13316, 15914). This area of Rancho Cucamonga, known as "Alia
Loma. is a quiet, friendly and peaceful area. I am concerned
that this development threatens the quality of life we now enjoy
due to increase traffic, noise levels and crime. I am concerned
about proper drainage down Archibald and the fact that current
studies on these matters are not being used to access impacts. I
am also concerned about the wildlife that is established in the
area.
On the City of Rancho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the
goals Of the Planning Commission include; protecting the natural
environment and the community identity. The development of this
area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the reyiew
committees value public participation and encourages it by
"neighborhood meetings" to receive input from the residents and
posting public hearing notices. We have not had any type of
"neighborhood meeting" for the applicant to explain their pro-
ject. I understand that since this area was approved for devel-
opment in the early 1980's, the city is not required to mail
notices or even post the date of a public hearing. Mowever, this
area has changed drastically since the early 1980's when this
plan was approved.
In order to preserve the quality of our neighborhood, I am
requesting the city leave this area as "open space." This would
allow it to continue to serve as a buffer for noise, traffic and
drainage between neighborhoods, and a habitat for wildlife. We
also urge up to date studies on traffic, noise, crime and drain-
age (especially in high rain years, such as last year's E1 Nino).
I request to be notified of a public hearing, and that the
other surrounding residents be notified as well.
Sincerely,
cc: The Planning Commission
Bill Alexander, Mayor H E C E J V E D
Diane Williams, City Council
James Curatalo, City Council
Bob DuCton, City Council NOV Z 4 1998
Paul Biane, City Council
City of RancR0 Cucam0nga
Planning Division
TO: Brad Buller R E C E I V E D
city planner
10500 civic center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 NOV S
Dear Mr. Buller,
GityolR~nCh0 Cucsmonga
I am sending this letter over concern for the prop~Ji~q~
opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the
east side of the street (~ile ~o. D~-98-~0, tentative tracts
~33~6, ~59~). ~his a~ea o~ ~ancho C"ucamong'a, known as "Alta
~oma" is a c~et, ~riendly and peace~u~ area. Z am concerned
that this development threatens the c. pza.].ity of li~e ~e ~ow en~oy
dGe Co increase traffic, noise levels and crime. ~ am concerned
a.bout prope~ drainage dow~ ArchibaZd a~d the ~acC ChaC
studies o~ these matters ~e ~oC be~9 ~sed Co access ~acCs.
am a~so coDceased ~OGC the w~d~e cha~ ~s esC~shed ~ the
a~ea.
0~ ~he C~y o~ Ra~cho ~camo~ga Web S~Ce, ~ says
a:ea w~Z d~ecC~y oppose ~hese 9oaZs. ~C aZso says the tev~e~
"~e~9~o:hood mee~Dgs" Co receive ~uC ~om ~he tes~de~Cs
Pos~9 p~c hea~G9 ~o~ces. We h~ve ~oC had a~y C~e
"~e~g~o~hood mee~Dg" ~o~ ~he ap~Z~ca~C Co ~a~ Che~
~ecc. Z ~de:sCa~d chaC s~ace Ch~s a~e~ ~as ap~toved ~ot deve~-
opmeDC ~ the early Z980's, the c~Cy ~s aoC ~e~:ed Co m~
~o~ces ot eve~ ~osC ~he da~e o~ a p~c hea~9. ~oweve~, ch~s
a:ea has cha~ged drastically s~ce the early ~980's whe~ ~h~s
~a~ was app~oved.
~ o~de~ ~o 9~ese~e ~he ~a~y o~ ou~ ~e~9~othood, ~ am
:e~esc~g the c~Cy ~eave Ch~s a~ea as "oDes space." ~h~s
d:a~ge beC~ee~ ~e~9~o~hoods, ~d ~ h~aC ~o~ ~d~e. We
a~so ~ge ~ Co date s~ud~es o~ C~a~c, ~o~se, c~me ~d d~a~a-
a~e (especially ~ h~gh tang yeats, such as ~asC yeat's S~ ~o).
~ ~e~esC Co be aoC~ed o~ a ~c heat~9, ~d ~haC the
oChe: s~:~o~d~G9 ~es~de~Cs be GoC~ed as weZ~.
cc: The Planning Co~nuni~Sion
Bill Alexander, Mayor
Diane Williams, City Council
James Curatalo, City Council
Bob Dutton, City Council
Paul Biane, City Council
X -77
TO: Brad Buller R E 0 M ~ V ~ D
City Planner
10500 Civic Center Drive NOV ~ ~ ~
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730
Dear Mr. Buller, CityotRancho Cucamonga
planning Division
I am sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel-
opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the
east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts
13316, 15914). This area Of Rancho Cucamonga, known as "Alta
Loma" is a quiet, friendly and peaceful area. I am concerned
that this development threatens the quality of life we now enjoy
due to increase traffic, noise levels and crime. I am concerned
about proper drainage down Archibald and the fact that current
studies on these matters are not being used to access impacts. I
am also concerned about the wildlife that is established in the
area.
On the City of Rancho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the
goals of the Planning Commission include; protecting the natural
environment and the community identity. The development of this
area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review
committees value public participation and encourages it by
,'neighborhood meetings" to receive input from the residents and
posting public hearing notices. We have not had any type of
"neighborhood meeting" for the applicant to explain their pro-
ject. I understand that since this area was approved for devel-
opment in the early 1980's, the city is not required to mail
notices or even post the date of a public hearing. However, this
area has changed drastically since the early 1980's when this
plan was approved.
In order to preserve the quality of our neighborhood, I am
requesting the city leave this area as "open space." This would
allow it to continue to serve as a buffer for noise, traffic and
drainage between neighborhoods, and a habitat for wildlife. we
also urge up to date studies on traffic, noise, crime and drain-
age (especially in high rain years, such as last year's El Nino).
I request to be notified of a public hearing, and that the
other surrounding residents be notified as well.
Sincerely,
Bill Alexander, Mayor
Diane Williams, City Council
James ~ratalo, City Council
Bob Dutton, City Council
Paul Biane, City Council
RECEIVED
Brad Butler NOV I] 4 1998
City Planner
10500 Civic Center Drive City of Rancho Cucamonga
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Planning Division
Dear Mr. Butler,
I am sending this letter in regards to the proposed development for the area at the north
end of Archibald Avenue, (File No. DR-98-10, Tentative Tracts 13316, 15914). This
development will result in the removal of a si~ificant amount of sage scrub habitat, a threatened
natural community. As a resident o'f San Bemardino County it concerns me that little attention is
being given to the San Bemardino County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. If the
biological integrity of threatened habitats is to be maintained in San Bemardino County Politicians
and planners are going to have do more to provide for open space, wildlife corridors, and wildlife
habitat. Residential developments necessitate the removal of large areas of natural vegetation and
are incompatible with the goals of the San Bernarclino County Multi -Species Habitat
Conservation Plan. The proponents of this development project need to come up with a creative
way to initiate of study of sage scrub habitat. The components of this study should include:
A. The ecological stares of sage scrub habitat in San Bernardino County 1. Its current ecological health.
2. What management practices can be done to improve its ecological health.
3. The cumulative impacts of existing development.
4. All proposed development and its cumulative impacts.
B Studies should include the effects of development on the:
1. Riparian Systems
2. Water Quality
3. Raptor Nesting Sites
4. Botanical Community. Habitat maps need to be developed using G.I.S.
methodology.
If the City of Rancho Cucamonga continues to publish on its web site that the goals of the
planning commi.~sion include protecting the natural environment and the community identity, the
city needs to show the public that they stand behind their statements.
~chmid~
Instructor, Biological Sciences
Mount San Antonio College
MR. & MRS.STEPHEN M. ALEXANDER
4939 ARCHIBALD AVE
ALTA LOMA, CA 91737
909/466-0086 FAX:909/484-0447 RECEIVED
April6, 1999 APR 0 !8
M_r, Brad Buller City of Rancho Cucamc.sga
City Planner P#anning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Re: File No. DR-98-10 tentative Wacts 13316,15914
Dear Mr. BuUer:
Our property is immediately adjacent to the above tract and we have many coBcerns about this
development. We have never been included in any diseussion~ though we have lived hen: since 1994. At
· e time of purchase, wc were told single story home~ wero avv. uved and would not interfere with our line
of ght.
We only learned of the intentions to build allur seeing a sign posted, at the site. We looked at drawings,
but details that have an impact on our home were missing. Bront Le Count, of your office referred us to
Mr. Robert Laing, the architect for the project.
Mr. Laing was courteous, but unable to give us further details.
The major problems are:
1 ) losing our view and lowering the value of our property
2) eliminating our privacy with second story windows looking into our pool
3) proximity ofnnise
4) horse trails ending at our lawn, inviting respassing
5) $40,0t10 worth of new fencing that wi~ now bc inadequate (installed dunng the last 15
months)
We would app,~ciate some ~le modifications:
1) flip flop lots 60 & 61 making a lot line adjnslmant to allow a single story
2) require the design behind us to move upstam windows to the East instead of West side
3) have the builder raise our fence a minimum of 24" and include landscaping to absorb noise.
4) Exlend exisljn~ wall 20' to the curb to rediroct horse trail
5) Remove rod iron and increase south wall height.
Many of our neighbors are against ~e entire development We, too, are concerned ~e increased population
will affect ~e quality of life. However, it is not our intention to oppose progress. We live and work in this
city and believed this was a city that valued public opinion. If this is tree, please take ours into
consideration.
Sincerely,
City of Rancho Cucamonga
F R
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST O M
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: Development Review 98-10
2. Related Files: Tentative Tract 13316, Development Review for Tract 13316 (expired)
3. Description of Project:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 - BARRATT
AMERICAN - The design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for a
previously recorded Tract Map (Tract 13316) consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in
the Very-Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east
side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrari Court -APN: 1074-061-15 through 27.1074-041-
08 through 21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074-461-04 through 21, 1074-601-01 through 14,
1074-611-01 through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074-051-09 through 16.
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Barratt American
David Jacinto
2035 Corte Del Nogal, Suite 160
Cadsbad, CA 92009
(760) 431-0800
5. General Plan Designation: Very-Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre)
6. Zoning: Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre)
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Vacant land and single family homes
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, AICP
Associate Planner
(909) 477-2750
10. Other agencies whose approval is required: United States Army Corps of Engineers
(Streambed Alteration) an~o~ ~/~partment of Fish and Game (also Streambed
Alteration)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-10 Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages,
~)) Land Use and Planning (~/) Transportation/Circulation (V) Public Services
Population and Housing (Y) Biological Resources (~) Utilities and Service Systems
! (v') Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (~') Aesthetics
(~/) Water (t/) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources
( ) Air Quality (s/) Noise ( ) Recreation
( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
( ) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
(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
Signed:miti~s t~,.~e ~ the proposed project.
Brent Le Count, AICP
Associate Planner
May 18, 1999
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-10 Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation
is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to
mitigate the significant effects identified.
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.'
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/)
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')
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposak
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( ) ( ) (~/)
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Wouldtheproposalresultinor
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( ) (V') ( ) )
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) (~/) ( ) )
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-10 Page 4
Potentially
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) (~) ( ) ( )
d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
~ Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, 0r fill? ( ) ( ) (~) ( )
g). Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) (f) ( )
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( )
Comments:
a,b,c) The no~hern potion of the site falls within the Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone of
the Cucamonga Fault. A geologic investigation was conducted during the
processing of Tentative Tra~ 13316 to determine if geologic hazards were present
that may affect development of the site. The investigation revealed that no evidence
of previous fault or subsudace rupture within the pmpe~y was present. However,
as an added pmcautiona~ measure, the mpo~ recommended a 100-foot building
setback from the noah prope~y line. The geologic study was reviewed by the City's
geologist and was determined to be complete and adequate. A condition of
approval was placed on Ten~tive Tract 13316 requiring the 100- foot building
setback and same shall be included forthe subject Development Review. The
project design is in conformance with this requirement. W~th mitigation the impact
is not considered significant.
The project will cause changes in topography because the site is currently vacant.
A soils repo~ will be required pdor to issuance of a grading permit and grading will
be supe~ised by a licensed su~eyor or civil engineer. The impact is not considered
significant.
h) A potion of the site is indicated to have ~Tujunga-Delhi" soil type per the General
Plan which states that this soil type "may have soil beadng capacities that could limit
some development." A soils repo~ will be required prior to issuance of a grading
permit to ensure soil bearing capacities am ad~uate to accommodate the project.
The impact is not considered significant.
4. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-10 Page 5
Potentially Unless ]hen
b) Exposure of people or pmpe~y to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( ) (f) ( ) ( )
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration
of su~ace water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
e) Changes in currents, or the coume or direrion
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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
g) Altered ~imction or rate of flow of gmundwmer? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater othe~ise available for public water
supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
Comments:
a) The absorption rote will be altered because of the paving and hard scape proposed.
All runoffwill be conveyed to appmved drainage facilities which have been designed
to handle the flows. The impa~ is not considered significant.
b) Them are ~o special flood hazard areas (Zone "A" on the Flood Insurance Rate
Map) within the project area. One is located along the east tract bounda~ and the
other bisects the tract, about 500 feet east d Archibald Avenue. Per the
conditions of approval for Tract 13316, the westerly stream will be dive~ed
into a basin which outle~ to a sto~ drain in Hun~wood Place and discharges
to i~ original stream bed south of Carrari CouP. These improvemen~ will
require Federal Emergency Management Agency approval prior to grading
permit issuance, thereby mitigating potentially significant impacts to a less than
significant level. Homes along the east tra~ bounda~ am more than 50 feet from
the stream bed and therefore outside the flood hazard area.
e) Both the stream which bisects Tract 13316 and the one along the east tract
bounda~ are also USGS Blue Line Streams. Per the conditions of approval for
Tract 13316, the westerly stream will be dive~ed into a basin which outlets to
a storm drain in Hun~wood Place and discharges to i~ original stream bed
south of Carrari Couff. United States Army Corps of Engineers and California
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-10 Page 6
Department of Fish and Game permits are required to alter a blue line stream,
thereby mitigating potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal.'
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) (t/)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( )
Comments:
a) 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 123 single family homes consistent
with the existing land use designation for the property, Very-Low Residential (less
than 2 dwelling units per acre.) Also, according to Table 6-2 of the CEQA Air Quality
Handbook, dated November 1993, the threshold of single 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.
Issues an(~ Supporting Information SourcesT S Sil~m~l~nt moNoac~
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) (V') ( )
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? (V) ( ) ( )
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)? ( ) ( ) (v')
g) Rail or air traffic imp,,~S:~:.~_/-~ ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-10 Page 7
Comments:
a) The project will not increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion in excess of
projections for the adopted land use, for which the street widths were evaluated at
a build out condition. The project will be required to install frontage street
improvements in their ultimate configuration, per City Ordinance, and to pay
Transportation Development Fees. The impact is not considered significant.
c) The project will be required to install one through street connection from
Archibald Avenue to Almond Street with the first phase of development to
assure adequate emergency access. The impact is not considered significant.
Potent~lly
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
resu~ in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) (f) ( ) ( )
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, dparian, and
vernal pool)? ( ) (~) ( ) ( )
e) Wildlife dispemal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
Comments:
a and d)
The prope~y is located in an area recently identified by the U.S. Depa~ment of Fish
and Wildlife Seaice as potential habitat for endangered orthmatened species. Also,
staff received a le~er from Gerald Braden, a biologist with the San Bernardino
County Museum, indicating habitat value of the subject site. Habitat assessment
and biological su~eys were required to determine potential habitat value and any
potential impacts, pa~icularly to the federally-listed threatened California
Gnatcatcher and the endangered San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat. Habitat
assessment and protocol su~eys were conducted by Pacific Southwest Biological
Se~ices, Inc., consulting biologists permi~ed by the U .S. Fish and ~ldlife Se~ice.
The results of the su~eys indicate that the site does not contain suitable habitat for
the Gnatcatcher and no Gnatcatchers were detected on site. The su~eys also
indicate that the site is not suitable habitat for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and
no signs of the rat were present. Based on this information, the proposed
development of the 84 acre site will not likely result in adverse effects to rare,
sensitive, or endangered animal species.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-10 Page 8
The site contains Blue Line Streams which are devoid of wetland vegetation. The
site also contains Sage Scrub vegetation along the stream banks. A mitigation
agreement has been established with the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the California
Department of Fish and Game pursuant to 1603, 401, and 404 permits. Mitigation
is accomplished via design of the project which includes establishing 2.5
acres of native shrub land and wetland habitat on the detention basin slopes
and acquisition of land in an Alluvial Fan Scrub Mitigation Bank in the Cajon
Wash. With mitigation, the impact is not considered significant.
b and c)
The project will cause the removal of several Eucalyptus trees. A condition of
approval for Tentative Tract 13316 required the developer to obtain a Tree Removal
Permit prior to removal of the trees. The current applicant has filed a Tree Removal
Permit for consideration by the Planning Commission. The Tree Preservation
Ordinance requires replacement of on site Eucalyptus trees on a 1:1 ratio.
There is also an Oak tree on the site (lot 44) and a condition of approval
required the tree to be preserved in place. The same requirement shall be
placed on the subject Development Review. The impact is not considered
significant.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal.'
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? ( ) (~/)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( ) (v')
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')
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emerg~/,c,Z~.~tion plan? ( ) (v') ( ) ( )
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-10 Page 9
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with ~ammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( ) (~) ( ) ( )
Comments:
b) The project will be required to ins~ll a through street connection from
Archibald Avenue to Almond Street with the flint development phase to assure
adequate emergency access. ~th mitigation, the impact is not considered
significant.
e) The site blls within the "Wildland/Urban Interface" zone and is therebre
subject to fire hazard mitigation requiremen~ such as vege~tion
management, specialized home construction methods, and other
requirement. A condition of approval requires compliance with Fire District
requirements. ~th such mitigation, the impact is not considered significant
~ 0. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ) ( ) (~) ( )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ) ( ) ( ) (~)
Comments:
a) The proje~ will increase existing noise levels since the site is currently vacant. The
project is not expected to increase noise levels beyond anticipated limits. The
impact is not considered significant.
'1'1. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( ) (v') ( ) ( )
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-10 Page 10
b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( )
c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
e) Other governmental se~ices? ( ) ( ) ( )
Comments:
a) The site falls within the "Wildland/Urban Interface" zone and is therefore
subject to fire hazard mitigation requiremen~ such as vege~tion
management, specialized home construction methods, and other
requirement. A condition of approval requires compliance with Fire District
requirements. ~th mitigation, the impact is not considered significant.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ( ) (v')
b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ( ) (v')
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( ) ( ( ) (t/)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( )
e) Storm water drainage? ( ) (v') ( ) ( )
f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Comments:
e) There are two special flood hazard areas. (Zone "A" on the Flood Insurance Rate
Map) within the project area. One is located along the east tract boundary and the
other bisects the tract, about 500 feet east of Archibald Avenue. Per the
conditions of approval for Tract 13316, the westerly stream will be diverted
into a basin which outlets to a storm drain in Huntswood Place and discharges
to its original stream bed south of Carrari Court. These improvements will
require Federal Emergency Management Agency approval prior to grading
permit issuance, thereby mitigating potentially significant impacts to a less than
significant level.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-10 Page 11
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal.'
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) (v')
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare? ( ) (v')
Comments:
b) The project includes a large retention basin along the northern tract boundary. The
basin will have a spillway leading down to the northern end of the Huntswood Place
cul-de-sac and will be quite visible. Provision of landscaping and river rock
cobble shall be used to visually enhance the spillway. With mitigation, the
impact is not considered significant.
'14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.'
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) (~/)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? ( ) ( )
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V')
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-10 Page 12
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have
the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or rest~ct the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal,
or eliminate impo~ant examples of the major
periods of California histo~ or prehistoW? ( ) ( ) (~)
b) Sho~ tern: Does the project have the potential
to achieve sho~-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A sho~-te~
impact on the environment is one which occum
in a relatively brief, definitive pe~od of time.
Long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.) ( ) ( )
c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but cumuJatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in conne~ion
with the effects of past projects, the effe~s of
other current projects, and the effe~s of
probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) (~)
d) Substantial adverse: Does the proje~ have
environmental effe~s which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either dire~ly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) (~)
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES
Geological Problems:
1. No structures shall be permitted within 100 feet of the north property line of lots 44,
57, 58, and 59.
2. The developer/applicant, or his agent, shall provide each prospective home buyer
of lots 44, 57, 58, and 59, written notice of the Cucamonga Fault Zone in a standard
format as determined by the City Planner. A copy of the written notice shall be
submitted and filed with the City.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-10 Page 13
3. 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.
Water:
1. Storm drain improvements related to flood hazard areas shall be subject to review
and approval by the Federal Emergency Management Agency prior to issuance of
grading permits.
2. Streambed alteration of USGS identified Blue Line Streams shall be subject to
review and approval by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the California
Department of Fish and Game.
Transportation:
1. The developer shall install frontage street improvements to their ultimate
configuration per City ordinance and pay applicable Transportation Development
Fees.
2. A through street connection shall be installed from Archibald Avenue to Almond
Street with the first phase of development to assure adequate emergency access.
Biological Resources:
1, All non-fruit bearing trees in excess of 15 feet in height and 15 inches in trunk
circumference that are removed to accommodate the project shall be replaced at a
minimum ratio of 1:1 with the same species as those removed as required by
Municipal Code Section 19.08.100.
2. The existing Oak tree on lot 44 shall be preserved and protected as required by
Municipal Code Section 19.08.110. The tree shall be enclosed by an appropriate
construction barrier, such as chain link fencing, pdor to the issuance of any grading
or building permits and prior to commencement of work.
3. The developer shall ensure the establishment of 2.5 acres of native shrub land and
wetland habitat on the detention basin slopes as required by 1603 Streambed
Alteration Agreement and Nationwide 26 Permit of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act.
4. The developer shall mitigate removal of on-site sage scrub through acquisition of
equivalent habitat in the Alluvial Fan Scrub Mitigation Bank in Cajon Wash.
Hazards:
1. A through street connection shall be installed from Archibald Avenue to Almond
Street with the first phase of development to assure adequate emergency access.
tnffia[ Study for :lty of Rancho Cucemonga
Oevelo~,~ent R=;"..f-- 98-10 Page 14
Aft provisions of the 8an E3emardJno COunW Fire Sit-.t:, Overlay Di~lric~ shaft apply.
A Fue~ Modific~on/Minmgement Pliq artall t~e sul~rritt®d fc~ Fire Chief and City
Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of ,c~reellng permits.
Aesth,,dcs:
1. Provision of ~andscaDing and river r~k cobDie shatl be u~ed to visually armante the
spillway at the northern end of Hun'mwcxxf Place to th~ Mtllflctton of the City
Planner.
EARLIER ANALYiE8
Era'tier analyses may be used where, pursuantto me tiedfig, program EtR, or ~qer CEQA process,
c-he or more eftads hive been aclsquate4y analyzed in an e,,riler EIR or NegitWe Dec~armio~ per
Section 1EO63(o)(3)CD). The efT~ffia iaenfifl~cl above for thi~ pro~ect m w~hin the scope of and
edecl ustely anelyged in Iha folk)wi n9 era'fir clo~,jment(s) purluartt to a ~=~lle'~ble legal standards. and
such effects were addressed by mltigafi~q menms baud O~q the e,lrller eralyres, The following
sadjar analyses were u~lize~l in QQmpletlng tie Initial Study an~ are avllli,~le for review In the City
of Ranclqo Cuc~monga, Rannjng Division of~, 10500 Clvlo Center Drive (cheCt( all that
General Plan EIR
(Cergtte~Apnt6, 1981)
(V')Memer Envlr~nmentDi A~Msttmlnt for the 1989 Gem~'~l Plan Update
(SCH W~88020115. Mrllfled Jarmary4. 1989)
Negative Dealaaron for Tentative Tract 13316, Adopted by the Pinning
Commiuion on Merc~ 25. 1987
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I cefdfy that I em the eprdlcant for the proJe~ described in this Initja; Study. I acknowredge that I
have reed this initial Study and the ml;~ted m~dgmiQn measure. Further, I have revised the
project ptani or taropom~e an~'gr hereby agree to the proposed miffi/affon rneaeurei to avo/d
effec~s or mitigate the i to a point where cieeuty no stgnfficint envimnment=l effects woula
occur.
pdm Name and Tree: IG> /7 2r/U -/,
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-10 Page 14
2. All provisions of the San Bernardino County Fire Safety Overlay District shall apply.
A Fuel Modification/Management Plan shall be submitted for Fire Chief and City
Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits.
Aesthetics:
1. Provision of landscaping and river rock cobble shall be used to visually enhance the
spillway at the northern end of Huntswood Place to the satisfaction of the City
Planner.
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program El R, or other CEQA process,
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the eadier analysis. The following
earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply):
General Plan EIR
(Certified April 6, 1981)
(~')Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
(t/) Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract 13316, Adopted by the Planning
Commission on March 25, 1987
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I
have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the
project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where cleady no significant environmental effects would
occur.
Signature: Date:
Print Name and Title:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The fofiowing Negative Declaration is being circulated for pubtic review in accordance with the
California Environmental Qua~ty Act Section 2109 f and 21092 of the Pubtic Resources Code.
Project File No.: Development Review 98-10 Public Review Period Closes: June 9, 1999
Project Name: Project Applicant: Ban'att Amedcan
Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrad
Court o APN: 1074-061-15 through 27, 1074-041-08 through 21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074461-04
through 21, 1074-601-01 through 14, 1074-611-01 through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074-051-09
through 16.
Project Description: The design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for previously
recorded Tract 13316, consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very Low Residential Distdct (less
than 2 dwelling units per acre),
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an
Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is
proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
[] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment.
[] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this
proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or
mitigate the effects to a point where cleady no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required.
Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all
related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at
10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847.
NOTICE
The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period.
June 9. 1999
Date of Determination Adopted By
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW 98-10 FOR TRACT 13316 CONSISTING OF 123 LOTS ON 84
ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY-LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS
THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE
OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE, NORTH OF CARRARI COURT, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 1074-061-15 THROUGH 27,
1074-041-08 THROUGH 21, 1074-591-01 THROUGH 16, 1074-461-04
THROUGH 21, 1074-601-01 THROUGH 14, 1074-611-01 THROUGH 16,
1074-021-02 THROUGH 26, AND 1074-051-09 THROUGH 16.
A. Recitals.
1. Barratt Homes has filed an application for the Development Review 98-10 for Tract
No. 13316, 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 9th day of June 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 durin9 the above-
referenced meeting on June 9, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission
hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located on the east side of Archibald Avenue,
north of Carrari Street with a street frontage of 1800 feet on Archibald Avenue and 700 feet on
Carrari Street and is presently vacant. The site sits at the base of the foothills and slopes from
northwest to the southeast at a 10 to 15 percent grade. The elevation difference across the site
is approximately 269 feet. There are two natural streams that cross the site from north to south.
The stream channel has steep slopes varying from 25 to 30 percent. The two streams carry
drainage from the north through the site to the south. This drainage is proposed to be controlled
by constructing a retention basin at the northern end of the site with a storm drain which outlets
south of the site. Vegetation on the site is in its natural state with a heavy cover of scrub brush
and grasses. There is a cluster of three mature eucalyptus trees and one mature oak tree (on Lot
44); and
b. The properb/to the north of the subject site is vacant or developed with single
family homes, the property to the south consists of single family homes, the property to the east
is vacant and developed with single family homes, and the property to the west is developed with
single family homes; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-10 BARRATT
June 9, 1999
Page 2
c. The application involves design review of detailed site plan, building elevations,
grading, and landscaping for a recorded Tract; and
d. The project will not increase traffic in the vicinity beyond that anticipated by the
General Plan and the streets have been designed to accommodate the traffic demand; and
e. The project is designed to minimize view obstruction to the degree possible.
f. The project site is potential habitat for threatened or endangered species (i.e.,
California Gnatcatcher and San Bernardino Merdam Kangaroo Rat, respectively) and biological
surveys were conducted by a permitted biologist in accordance with the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service protocols. The protocol surveys concluded that the project site was not suitable
habitat and the species were not found.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above-
referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above,
this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the 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 distdct 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
do 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 Mitigated 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 Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference,
based upon the findings as follows:
a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with
the Califomia Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines
promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared
therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this
Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative
Declaration with regard to the application.
b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant
environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been
reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the projectwhich are listed
below as conditions of approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-10 BARRATT
June 9,1999
Page 3
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the Califomia Code
of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole,
the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the
proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat
upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the
Planning Commission dudng the public headng, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the
presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth
below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Planninq Division:
1 ) Plot one-story home on Lot 60 to preserve views for existing home to
the north.
2) All final home plotting shall be per the conceptually approved plans.
3) All drainage channels on individual lots shall be "v" gutter type rather
than trapezoidal channels unless expected flows necessitate
otherwise.
4) Provide bddge over equestrian trail drainage swales at trail
intersections such as between Lots 69 and 70.
5) Gates between homes fronting the street shall be wrought iron
instead of wood.
6) Locate fence walls at top of slope rather than at toe of slope except
along Archibald Avenue.
7) Provide wrought iron fencing for side and rear yard fences at top of
slopes instead of solid masonry walls.
8) All between home connecting walls, and retaining walls shall be split
face block with pilasters. Wood fencing is only acceptable in intedor
yard areas not visible from surrounding streets.
9) Provide terraced retaining walls in corner side yard slope areas to
maximize useable yard area.
10) Provide intensified landscaping, including cascading vines, within
terraces between retaining walls to create a more natural appearance
and reduce visual impact of walls and slopes.
11 ) Use low maintenance and native plant materials for slope landscaping
to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-10 BARRATT
June 9, 1999
Page 4
12) All splash walls shall be split faced block and incorporated with walls
as much as possible.
13) Equestrian trail splash wall footings and reinforcing steel shall be
designed to accommodate 6-foot high walls.
14) Install the perimeter slump stone block walls for the tract with the
installation of public improvements.
15) Provide architectural details, such as corbels, shutters, and belly
bands on side and rear elevations to match that shown on front
elevations.
16) Provide substantial variation in front yard setbacks. This may require
re-plotting of home plans to accommodate useable rear yard areas
given slopes.
17) Where wood siding is used on the front elevation, it must be
continued around side and rear elevations as well.
18) The existing Oak tree on Lot 44 shall be preserved and protected in
place according to the requirements of Municipal Code Section
19.08.110,
19) Provide at least a 5-foot landscape stdp between the back of sidewalk
and any wall.
20) Provide 15-foot deep useable rear yard areas either through grading
or decks and patios.
21) Provide a minimum 3-foot clearance for flow line between
building/chimneys and property line walls.
22) The spillway at the south end of the tract shall be designed to have
a more natural appearance.
23) The retaining walls along the sides of the basin spillway at Lot A and
screen walls for the drainage channel between Lots 9 and 10 shall be
split faced block subject to City Planner and City Engineer review and
approval.
24) Provide hver rock treatment for the concrete basin spillway at Lot A
for native aesthetics and to prevent the spillway from being used as
a skateboard ramp, subject to City Planner and City Engineer review
and approval.
25) Provide low maintenance landscaping, such as but not limited to
drought/heat tolerant trees, shrubs, ground cover, and dp-rap on the
inside and outside slopes of the debds basin subject to review and
approval by the City Planner and City Engineer. Debds basin fencing
shall be decorative rather than chain link.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-10 BARRATT
June 9,1999
Page 5
26) Provide a standard handicapped ramp at curb at end of local trail at
the northeast comer of Lot 31 and a stepthrough rather than a vehicle
gate.
27) Stepped footpaths shall be provided for all slopes in excess of 3:1.
28) The front, visible edge of terrace drains shall be naturalized cobble.
29) Incorporate boulders found on-site during grading into design.
30) Notify the property owners for Lots 13 and 14 of Tract 9590 pdor to
commencement of any work for the drainage channel and spillway.
Submit a copy of the notice to the City Planner prior to
commencement of work.
31) Tree Removal Permit 98-26 is approved subject to replacement of
trees at a one to one ratio.
En.qineednq Division:
1 ) The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical) on
the project side of Archibald Avenue shall be undergrounded from the
first pole on the south side of Cartad Street to the first pole south of
the north tract boundary, pdor to public improvement acceptance or
occupancy, whichever occurs first. All services crossing Archibald
shall be undergrounded at the same time. Reimbursement of one-
half the adopted cost of undergrounding from future development as
it occurs on the opposite side of the street is not feasible because the
property is currently developed.
2) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the
existing overhead utilities (teleccmmunications and electrical) on the
opposite side of Almond Street shall be paid to the City pdor to the
issuance of building permits. The fee shall be one-half the City
adopted unit amount times the length of the project frontage.
3) All lot line adjustments shall be recorded pdor to the issuance of
building permits. At a minimum process a lot line adjustment between
Lots 37 and 40, so the property line will follow the perimeter wall.
4) All public improvement plans for streets, trails and the storm drainage
system shall be completed and signed by the City Engineer prior to
the issuance of grading permits.
a) A complete plan check resubmittal shall be made, including plan
check fees.
b) Street grades greater than 12 percent are subject to approval of
the City Engineer.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-10 BARRATT
June 9,1999
Page 6
c) Provide curb adjacent sidewalk along Almond Street,
transitioning to property line adjacent across the drive approach
for Lot 40. All access ramps shall be per Standard Drawing 102
(no modifications).
d) Public maintenance of Lot A (debds basin) shall not extend into
Lots 57, 58 and 59. Landscape Maintenance District plans
previously submitted shall be revised.
e) Show the property line between Lot C (City owned) and the
landscape easement (City maintenance across multiple pdvate
lots) on the north side of Cartad Street on the Landscape
Maintenance Distdct plans.
5) Improvement Phasing:
a) The debris basin and all related storm drainage improvements,
including Huntswood Place street improvements, shall be
installed pdor to the issuance of building permits for Phase I
development.
b) One through street connection from Archibald Avenue to
Almond Street shall be installed full width, including street lights
and related storm drains, with Phase I development.
c) Erosion protection measures for rough graded phases shall be
reviewed by the City Engineer for proper channelization to the
storm drain system.
6) Community Trail Design:
a) Install drive approaches and provide vehicle gates with side
access, per Standard Drawing 1006-A, for Lot C at Carrad
Street and Birdsong Place and for Lot B at Almond Street and
Birdsong Place. At the Carrad Street trail entrance the drive
approach shall be located far enough south that a 12-foot DG
path can be maintained.
b) The equestrian bddge within Lot C, which crosses the channel
south of Huntswood Place between Lots 9 and 10, shall be
designed to accommodate City maintenance vehicles, including
a concrete slab.
c) Provide gated access to the Community Trail on Lot C from Lot
14 of Tract 9590 to the south, on both sides of the channel
which crosses that parcel. City maintenance vehicle access to
the channel facility shall be secured.
d) Gates from lots onto Community Trails shall accommodate
horses and pedestrians, but not vehicular traffic. Gates shall be
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-10 BARRATT
June 9, 1999
Page 7
shown on the Community Trail improvement plans, including
Lots 60 through 64 which back onto Archibald Avenue (Std Dwg
1008) and Lots 9 through 30 which back onto Lots B and C (Std
Dwg 1009-B). Provide step through barriers (Std Dwg 1007) at
intersections with local feeder trails.
e) Trail fencing for the Archibald Community Trail shall not block
the lines-of-sight for the four Archibald Avenue intersections.
f) Where trail gradients exceed 4 percent, drainage diversion
devices shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
and City Planner,
g) Concentrated drainage shall cross the trail in underground
facilities.
h) Manhole covers shall be designed to accommodate equestrian
traffic, Manholes located in Community Trails shall have
Polymer covers (only 30" diameter available).
i) Eliminate the PVC rail fencing on the north side of the
Community Trail on the north side of Carrari Street and replace
with concrete curb/mow stdp.
7) Dedicate additional easement rights-of-way to accommodate
vehicular access where the Community Trail crosses Lot 14.
8) Ddve approaches on Lots 1, 65 and 88 shall be located as far from
the intersection BCR for Archibald Avenue as possible.
9) The grade break between a standard residential ddve approach ramp
and the on site driveway shall not exceed 14 percent on any lot.
10) Aesthetic treatment of storm drain spillways shall be to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Planner.
11) Alloffsiteeasementsnecessaryfortheinstallationofstormdreinage
facilities and slopes adjacent to street or public trail improvements
shall be recorded prior to the issuance of grading permits:
a) A drainage acceptance agreement shall be obtained from the
property owner downstream of the Birdsong Place terminus and
interim measures installed to accommodate concentrated runoff
which may bypass the catch basins, so as to not damage
pdvate property orthe Community Trail, to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
b) The project proposes to discharge rear lot and Community Trail
drainage at the south comer of Lot 18 across up to three
adjacent properties before it reaches the San Bemardino
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-10 BARRATT
June 9,1999
Page 8
County Flood Control Distdct basin. This will require drainage
acceptance from the affected property owners or a storm drain
easement and SBCFCD permit. Drainage acceptance and
measures to accommodate runoff downstream shall be installed
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Building Official. The
preferred option is installation of a local storm drain from the
south comer of Lot 18 to Alta Loma Basin No. 3.
12) The expanded Community Trail easement off site south of Lot 15
shall be recorded pdor to grading permit issuance.
13) If the improvement agreement and bonds for Tract 13316 do not
reflect the current owner/developer, bond substitutions shall be
completed pdor to the issuance of building permits.
14) Developer shall obtain a 404 Permit from the Army Corps of
Engineers pdor to altedng the blue line stream(s) for storm drainage
improvements.
15) All improvements within public rights-of-way, including public trails and
the basin, shall be constructed per the public improvement plans. A
note to this effect shall be placed on related pdvate plans for
walls/fences, grading, etc.
16) To accommodate city maintenance, the basin access road shall
extend to the proposed slope bench on the north side of the basin.
Road surface to the satisfaction of the City Planner and City Engineer
Environmental Mitifiation Measures:
1) No structures shall be permitted within 100 feet of the north property
line of Lots 44, 57, 58, and 59.
2) The developer/applicant, or his agent, shall provide each prospective
home buyer of Lots 44, 57, 58, and 59, wdtten notice of the
Cucemonga Fault Zone in a standard format as determined by the
City Planner. A copy of the wdtten notice shall be submitted and filed
with the City.
3) 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.
4) Storm drain improvements related to flood hazard areas shall be
subject to review and approval by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency pdor to issuance of grading permits.
j
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-10 BARRATT
June 9,1999
Page 9
5) Streambed alteration of USGS identified Blue Line Streams shall be
subject to review and approval by the US Army Corps of Engineers
and the California Department of Fish and Game.
6) The developer shall install frontage street improvements to their
ultimate configuration per City ordinance and pay applicable
Transportation Development Fees.
7) A through street connection shall be installed from Archibald Avenue
to Almond Street with the first phase of development to assure
adequate emergency access,
8) All non-fruit bearing trees in excess of fifteen feet in height and 15
inches in trunk circumference that are removed to accommodate the
project shall be replaced at a minimum ratio of 1:1 with the same
species as those removed as required by Municipal Code Section
19.08.100.
9) The existing Oak tree on Lot 44 shall be preserved and protected as
required by Municipal Code Section 19.08,110. The tree shall be
enclosed by an appropriate construction barrier, such as chain link
fencing, pdor to the issuance of any grading or building permits and
prior to commencement of work.
10) The developer shall ensure the establishment of 2.5 acres of native
shrub land and wetland habitat on the detention basin slopes as
required by 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement and Nationwide 26
Permit of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
11) The developer shall mitigate removal of on-site sage scrub through
acquisition of equivalent habitat in the Alluvial Fan Scrub Mitigation
Bank in Cajon Wash.
12) All provisions of the San Bemardino County Fire Safety Overlay
Distdct shall apply. A Fuel Modification/Management Plan shall be
submitted for Fire Chief and City Planner review and approval pdorto
the issuance of grading permits.
13) Provision of landscaping and dver rock cobble shall be used to
visually enhance the spillway at the northern end of Huntswood Place
to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JUNE 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-10 BARRATI'
June 9,1999
Page 10
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 9th day of June 1999 by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM
Project File No.: Development Review 98-10
This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation
measures identified in the (Mitigated Negative Declaration) for the above-listed project. This
program has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation
measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code).
Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements:
1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and
the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval
are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project.
2. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This
procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom
and when compliance will be reported.
3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring
progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon
recommendations by those responsible for the program.
Program Management ~ The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project
planner, assigned by the City Planner, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project
planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly
and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of
the conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department.
Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
1. A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in
performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant.
2. An MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its
corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached
hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when,
and to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting
documentation will be kept in the project file with the department having the original authority
for processing the project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following
address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga - Lead Agency
Planning and Engineering Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staffs is needed,
as determined by the project planner or responsible City department, to monitor specific
mitigation activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the project planner.
4. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the
completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each
measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of
development.
5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off
as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MM P
Reporting Form.
6. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation
measures. The project planner is responsible for appreving any such refinements or additions.
An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City
department and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operetional
personnel.
7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of
construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after
written notification has been issued, The project planner or responsible City department also
has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure
attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the
authority to hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented.
8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the
responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department. The
Department shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of
guarantee) with the City. These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or
pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the required period
of time.
9. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City
with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring
results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know
whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting
plan shall conform to the City's MMP and shall be appreved by the Community Development
Director prior to the issuance of building permits.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: Development Review 98-10
SUBJECT: New Single Family Homes
APPLICANT: Barratt American
LOCATION: E/S Archibald Avenue, N/O Carrari Street
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLAN NING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
General Requirements Completion Date
1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its
agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative,
to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or
employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or
employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may. at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation
shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
2. 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
1. DevelopmentJDesign 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
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include
site plans, architectural elevations, extedor materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and
grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and the Development
Code regulations.
2. 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.
p~oiec~ No.
Completion Date
3. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc. ) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or appreved
use has commenced, whichever comes first.
4. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code,
all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
5. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers. AC condensers, etc., shall be
located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete
or masonry walls, berming. and/or landscaping tothe satisfaction ofthe City Planner. For single
family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults.
6. 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.
7. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property
owner, homeowners' association, orother means acceptable to the City. Proofofthis landscape
maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior
to the issuance of building permits.
8. 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.
9. 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 notif,/, by mail. all contiguous property
owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's
perimeter.
'10. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each
support post for all wood fences, with a minimum oft~vo %-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.
'1 '1.Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant.
'12. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk.
'13. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry.
Where rock cobble is used. it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured
products.
D. Building Design
All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment,
detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to C;ib/Planner review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
Project No.
CompletJon Date
2. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowner's Association shall be submitted for City
Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
E. Landscaping
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping
in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior
final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barder 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.
3. A minimum of 30% of trees in front yards shall be - 24- inch box or larger.
4. 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.
5. 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 verticat 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.
6. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously
maintained in a heatthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold
and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy forthose units, an inspection shall be
conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition.
7. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development
Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting.
8. 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.
9. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering
sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required within and around
the basin slopes and spillway.
10. All wails shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
Project No.
CompleUon Date
11. 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.
12. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
F. Environmental
1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Cib/Adopted Special
Studies Zone for the Red H ill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior
to accepting a cash deposit on any properb/,
2. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of
implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to
post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the
amount of $719.00, prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory
performance and completion of all mitigation measures, These funds may be used by the City
to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation
measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents
shall be considered grounds for forfeit.
In those instances requiring long term monitodn9 (i.e.) beyond final certificate of occupancy), the
applicant shall provide a written monitodn9 and reportin9 program to the City Planner pdor to
issuance of building permits. Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified
to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented.
G. Other Agencies
1. The applicant shall contactthe U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location
of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for
mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the
overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of
building permits,
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
H. Site Development
1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved pdor to construction. All plans shall be
marked with the project file number (i.e., DR 98-10). The applicant shall comply with the latest
adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National
Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances,
and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building
and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to
existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may
include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation
Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees.
Project NO.
Compietion Date
3.Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, aftertract/parcel map recordation and
prior to issuance of building permits.
4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday
threugh Saturday, with no construction on Sunday.
I. New Structures
1. Roofing material shall be installed as for wind-resistant roof covering at wind velocity not less
than 90 mph.
J, Grading
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved grading plan.
2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to
perform such work.
3. A final geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at
the time of application for grading plan Check.
4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved pdor to issuance of building permits.
5. In hillside areas, residential developments shall be graded and constructed consistent with the
standards contained in the Hillside Development Regulations Section 17.24.070.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
K. Dedication and Vehicular Access
1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets,
community trails, pu blic paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment
and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map.
Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be
reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map.
2. Corner proper'b/line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards.
L. Street Improvements
1. All public improvements (interiorstreets, 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. A minimum of 26-foot wide pavement, within a 40-foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be
constructed for Almond Street and Almond Court.
3. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
Project NO.
Completion Date
Curb & A.C. Side- Ddve Street Street Comm Median Bike Other
Street Name Gutter Pvrnt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail
Archibald Ave. / / / ,/ ,/
Carrari Court
Almond Street
Almond Court
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and overlays will be determined dudng plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk
shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be
provided for this item. (e) Maintenance vehicle access to Community Trail.
4. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including streettrees, street lights, and intersection safety lights
on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Secudty shall be
posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City
Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/Or private street improvements, prior
to the issuance of grading permits.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineers Office in addition to any
other permits required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction
project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and
interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside
of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer.
Notes:
( 1 ) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200
feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel
with pull rope or as specified.
e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with
adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded
upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Project No,
Completion Date
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be
installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots.
h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check.
5.Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in
accordance with the City's street tree program.
6. Intereection 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.
M. Public Maintenance Areas
1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall
be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval 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: Basin, Archibald Avenue, Carrari Street, Almond Street except Lot 30 and the interior
Community Trail.
2. Public landscape areas are required to incorporate substantial areas (40%) of mortared cobble
or other acceptable non-irrigated surfaces.
3.All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the
developer until accepted by the City.
4. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective
Beautification Master Plan: Archibald Avenue.
N. Drainage and Flood Control
1. The project (or portions thereo0 is located within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood protection
measures shall be provided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City
Engineer.
2. It shall be the developets responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone A designation removed
from the project area. The developer's engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans, and
hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be
obtained from FEMA prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs
first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or
improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first.
3, A permit from the San Bemardino County Flood Control Distdct is required for work within its
rig ht-of-way,
O. Utilities
1, Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas,
electric power, telephone, and cable 'IV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.
Project NO.
Completion Date
3, Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD). Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bemardino. A letter of compliance from
the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first.
Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval
in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential
projects.
P. General Requirements and Approvals
1. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all
new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to
building permit issuance if no map is involved.
2. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed
beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the
approved tentative map.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTIONINEVV CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
Q. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. The developer
shaft commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or
consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities Distdct (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire
Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of afire 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.
2. 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 builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel after
construction and prior to occupancy.
3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed,
and operable pdor to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing
materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel.
4. Existingflrehydrantlocationsshallbeprovidedpriortowaterplanapproval. 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.
5. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be
submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is
available, pending completion of the required fire protection system.
Project No.
Completion Date
6. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed pdor to final
inspection.
7. Roadways within project shaft comply with the Fire Distdct's fire lane standards, as noted:
a. All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct Ordinance 22.
8. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shaft be kept tdmmed to a minimum of 14 feet,
6 inches from the ground up, so as not to impede fire apparatus.
9.$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.
10. Project is located in a high fire hazard area and is subject to special wildland/urban interface
hazard mitigation requirements. Such requirements may include requirements related to
vegetation management plans, special construction enhancements, emergency access, water
supply, automatic fire extinguishing systems, and other special requirements. A SEPARATE
SET OF PLANS IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITrED DIRECTLYTO THE FIRE PREVENTION
NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT AT TIME OF PLAN SUBMIa"I'AL TO BUILDING AND SAFETY.
Contact the Fire Prevention New Construction Unit located in the Building and Safety Division.
R. ' Security Hardware
1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doore.
2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doore. ifwindows 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 shaft have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices.
S, Windows
1. A~~s~idingglasswind~wsshallhaveseC~ndary~~ckingdeviCesandsh~u~dn~tbeab~et~be~ifted
from frame or track in any manner.
T. Building Numbering
1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime
visibility.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 9, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Tom Grahn, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-03 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES - A design review of
the detailed site plan and building elevations for Phases 3 and 4 of Tract 14380,
consisting of 38 single family lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units
per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located west of Etiwanda Avenue and
north of Wilson Avenue - APN: 225-461-05 to 42.
SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site is located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of
Wilson Avenue. Tract 14139 is located directly to the north and Tract 12659 is located directly to
the south. The project site is currently vacant and was rough graded several years ago. The
current phase is located directly adjacent to Phase 2 of the tract which is currently under
construction. Phase 1 was approved through Development Review 96-27 which was approved by
the Planning Commission on January 22, 1997, and has been completed. Phase 2 was approved
through Development Review 98-11 which was approved by the Planning Commission on August
31, 1998. and is currently under construction.
ANALYSIS:
A. Backqround: On September 28, 1988, the Planning Commission approved Tract 13527 for
the subdivision of 88 acres into 252 single family lots. Prior to tract recordalign and design
review, Tract 13527 was broken down into smaller tracts (e.g., Tracts 13527, 14379, 14380,
14381, and 14382). Tracts 14379 and 14380 have been recorded. Tract 14380 contains
a total of 80 lots, Phase 1 includes 20 lots, Phase 2 includes 22 lots, and Phases 3 and 4
will develop the remaining 38 lots.
B. General: This project will utilize three floor plans developed in Phase 1 and a fourth floor
plan approved with Phase 2. The floor plans include both single- and two-story units and
range in size from 2,820 to 4,143 square feet. The four floor plans have three elevations
each that were designed to reflect the architectural styles of the Etiwanda North Specific
Plan. Proposed architectural styles include: Ranch, Bungalow, San Juan, Santa Barbara,
and Country.
C. Desiqn Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on
May 18, 1999. The elevations utilized for Committee review on this project, Development
Review 99-03, are identical to the elevations utilized for Committee review on the previous
application, Development Review 98-11. As the elevations were not revised to reflect
comments from the previous application's Design Review Committee meeting and Planning
ITEH "C"
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 99-03 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES
June 9, 1999
Page 2
Commission approval, the Committee addressed the same design comments on the current
project's design. The Committee (Mannerino, Stewart, Fong) reviewed the project and
recommended approval subject to the following:
1. Provide a hip roof element above the bathroom window projection on the second
floor of the Plan 4 elevation.
2. Provide shutters on the front elevation of Plan 4B.
3. Revise the openings on the turret element of the Plan 4A elevation.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development
Review 99-03 through adoption of the attached Resolution.
Respectfully submitted,
City Planner
BB:TG:Is
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map
Exhibit "B" - Detailed Site Plan/Grading Plan
Exhibit "C" - Elevations
Exhibit "D" - Design Review Committee Comments dated May 18, 1999
Resolution of Approval
Tract 14380
DR 96-27 - Phase 1 - Construction Completed
ITITI DR 98-11 - Phase 2 - Currently Under Construction
[] DR 99-03 - Phases 3 & 4 - Proposed
O Project: 12F- I~ ' 0¢2
,
CITY OF BANe AMONGA Title: "K'1
PLAN N Exhibit: Date:
.'7:,:_--..~'=:.:; ............ PRECISE GRADING PLAN
'-"::"='-'-':;='-':".;:'~':;:-'-'.= .... TRACT 142580 . .,~ ,.;,,. _ ..:..'
='."-'--"~'.:'~.="-'~-,';'-,' ~-:'2~:'.~; LOTS ~1 - ,5~ ~ ~ ~ !
- -.~-..: ......................., ..........................~.~.2~.=7~,~..~ ........
i:~:.:;.-;..=.,. ................°' .......'~'" ' '
2
,RIQHT ELEYATION
~~ Z
O
..~
'7
· - LEFT ELEYATION
'. -', '1i m -"
I ' ' ~'; ' ' ' ' '
,/.,'il~ / ,
I '~L~y'Z, "~: ........ : '- : ' - -
F~OHT ELEVATION
RANCH
LEFT ELEVATION
· ='~,"-' ?~'T
i,":.:,:'--
Q FRONT ELEVATION
., ' ...... C' Z
~ COUNTRY ~ -
\ z:
.FRC)NT ELEVATI(;)N
SANTA BARBARA REVIVAL
F~ F~
:_..--'-:_-4] Cl , ........ :' '~ 'L--~.
ROOF PLAN REAR ELEVATION
,..
SANTA BARBARA R~qVAL
"~F" . . :~ -':'--'~,-
ROOF PLAN ....
..... REAR ELEVATION
FRONT ELEVATION ....
RANCH
J'~,~ ,R,I,GHT ELEVATION
~ LEFT ELEVATION
/~'~.-:"- , '.
. [. -
ROOF PLAN ..... ~: ' TM ;"' ;' ' ' :....~._...~.~__.__,--~-c_
::';':'; ....... REAR ELEVATION
-_..=:..?.:._~ -.__.-.;.... ,
· '=":'= ='= ""'~ ;"'== ~ L __jl_~~ [~___,~__
· :j_,::;-,2.-'.;:-.:;~-- ._ -"'-:' ~-: ...~--;"-~. ,
FRONT ELEVATI(;)~' ~"'~'~ ~"""""""~"" ·
COUNTRY
,. ~L.=~. ,.' ,.~
'~,
~ ~,~, ~.~ ~ .~,~
~= ,.
~I~ST ~LOO~ PLAN ~ ~
........ ~ :: :' ~ ~ 1 ~
""
"
::::
OPTIONAL BEDROOM 5
~ND FLOOR PLAN
I FRONT ELEVATION
:-,_--:-., : .....
= __. 'B'
""="'~" RANCH t.u
I · · · I ";"':"' C)~
......... -~.._,
FR.~O~NT ELE~'ATION ,~- .... Z
COUNTRY n. uJ
SANTA BARBARA REVIVAL 20
RIGHT ELEVATION ;" ::~z: ~__
:! ,.~_: \.:.._..,:., :'
. , ~ ii:':L --~;,-
ii i! ,,.,,
LEFT ELEYATION
- .....
~.~
'-~ ROOF PLAN REAR ELEVATION *""~'~J ~ Z,: I-
F~HT ELEVATION
RANCH
..
.-~...= --f..
,
II ~ JL_~:jl,'o
e LEFT ELEVATI(~.N
~ ..... - .....
t',,._
ROOF PLAN REAR ELEVATION :~j ~~ ~ ~
LEF' ELEVATION
.....
...,..L .....,.,,,,~ :_'_.'.~ . :T-.~-:.:: '-'-.L
REAR ELEVATION
~ ......
FRONT ELEVATION
SANTA BARBARA REVIVAL
.
RIGHT ELEVATION
-
LEFT ELEVATION
/
'~> 'i'.~ .... ..-- ..
'~ SECOND FLOOR PLAN
REAR ELEVATION
.?;~::~:~,:~;:.~:~.~:,:.'~:~:" ~.-.---.~ -F---~----
FRONT ELEVATION
COUNTRY
!,.~ ...... ~ _
REAR ELEVATION
I ~"
:':!:':':':.'.':- .'.,:.:.~,:.:.:.: '.: :,',: ~ ~:: ~! :E(' i i~ .....
~: :~--~-~'~:~" '1."~1' ~ ..............
..... :::..::...:...:.~..,~.-.::~:,~.:.
FRONT ELEVATION
.~ ~ '.,~ ~
...... . , : ~ E
....... RIGHT ELEVATION
LEFT ELEVATION
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
6:00 p.m. Tom Grahn May 18, 1999
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-03 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES - A review of the detailed site plan and
building elevations for Phases 3 and 4 of Tract 14380, consisting of 38 single family lots in the Low
Residential district (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. located west of
Etiwanda Avenue and north of Wilson Avenue - APN: 225-461-05 through 42.
Design Parameters: The project site was initially approved as Tract 13527 which provided for the
subdivision of 88 acres into 252 single family lots. Prior to tract recordation and design review, Tract
13527 was broken down into smaller tracts (e.g., Tracts 13527, 14379, 14380, 14381, and 14382).
Tracts 14379 and 14380 have been recorded. Tract 14380 contains 80 single family lots. Phase 1
contains 20 lots and was approved through Development Review 96-27 and Phase 2 contains 22 lots
and was approved through Development Review 98-11. Phase 2 is currently under construction.
The architectural designs of the proposed project were previously reviewed by the Design Review
Committee and subsequently approved by the Planning Commission. Development Review 96-27
was reviewed by the Committee on December 17, 1996, and subsequentlyapproved by the Planning
Commission on January 27, 1997. Development Review 98-11 was reviewed by the Committee on
August 4, 1998, and subsequently approved by the Planning Commission on August 31, 1998.
The current project, Development Review 99-03 (Phases 3 and 4 of Tract 14380), will utilize the four
floor plans and various elevations previously approved for the project. The design includes both
single- and two-story units which range in size from 2,820 to 4,143 square feet. The four floor plans
have three elevations each that were designed to reflect the architectural styles of the Etiwanda North
Specific Plan (see attached exhibits). Architectural styles include: Ranch, Bungalow. San Juan, Santa
Barbara. and Country.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
1, Because the project will utilize architectural elevations appreved with related applications, the
distribution of material provides only the proposed Grading Plan for the project site.
Major Issues: There are no design issues associated with the current development application.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Development Review 99-03.
Attachment
Desiqn Review Committee Action:
Members Present: John Mannedno, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Tom Grahn
The Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to the following:
The elevations utilized for Development Review 99-03 are the same elevations used on the previous
application, Development Review 98-11. These elevations have not been revised to reflect the
comments from the previous application's Design Review Committee meeting, so the same comments
were incorporated into this projects design.
/J
DRC COMMENTS
DR 99-03 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES
May 18, 1999
Page 2
1. Provide a hip roof element above the bathroom window projection on the second floor of the
Plan 4 elevation.
2. Provide shutters on the front elevation of Plan 4B.
3. Revise the openings on the turret element of the Plan 4A elevation.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW 99-03 FOR PHASES 3 AND 4 OF TRACT 14380, A DESIGN
REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS
FOR 38 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, LOCATED WEST OF ETIWANDA
AVENUE AND NORTH OF WILSON AVENUE IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA
NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 225-461-05 TO 42.
A. Recitals.
1. Mastercraft Homes has filed an application for Development Review 99-03 for Tract
No. 14380, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject
Development Review request is referred to as "the application."
2. On June 9, 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 fodh in the Redtals.
Part "A," of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above-
referenced meeting on June 9, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission
hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan;
b. That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development
Code, the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, and the purposes of the distdct in which the site is
located;
c. That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions
of the Development Code and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan; and
d. That the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not
be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above. this
Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below
and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 99-03 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES
June 9, 1999
Page 2
Planninq Division:
1) All applicable conditions as contained in Planning Commission
Resolutions 88-200, 88-200A, 90-119, and 90-120 shall apply.
2) Provide a hip roof element above the bathroom window projection on
the second floor of the Plan 4 elevation.
3) Provide shutters on the front elevation of Plan 4B.
4) Revise the openings on the turret element of the Plan 4A elevation.
5) The paseo currently proposed between Lots 22 and 23 shall be
relocated to between Lots 20 and 21.
6) Rear yard drainage swales shall not exceed a maximum slope of 6
percent.
7) Provide a minimum of 15 feet of flat, usable rear yard area adjacent
to the rear of each structure. The usable rear yard area shall not
exceed 5 percent slope.
8) Provide, where possible, a minimum 18-foot area in front of each
garage that does not exceed 5 percent slope. Maximum ddveway
slope shall not exceed 15 percent.
9) Driveways for side-on garage units shall not exceed a width of 12 feet
from the front property line to the turnaround area in front of the
garage.
10) Ddveway widths shall not exceed 16 feet at the curb.
11) The project perimeter wall adjacent to Wdson Avenue shall be
designed consistent with the existing wall along Etiwanda Avenue.
12) Masonry return walls shall be provided between each unit. The walls
shall be provided a decorative finish to match the building elevations.
13) Comer side yard walls shall be provided. The walls shall be provided
a decorative finish to match the building elevations. The walls shall
be set back a minimum of 5 feet behind the sidewalk. Landscaping
shall be provided between the wall and the sidewalk and maintained
by the homeowner.
14) The design treatment of the neighborhood entry wall located at the
northwest comer of Etiwanda and Wilson Avenues shall be consistent
with the Entry Monument Plan of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan.
pages 111-74 to 111-79. The final design of the wall design shall be
subject to City Planner review and approval, pdor to the issuance of
building permits.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 99-03 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES
June 9, 1999
Page 3
15) The following revisions to the Conceptual Grading Plan shall be
approved by the Grading Committee pdor to grading permit issuance:
a) Revise proposed grading improvements at the corner of
Etiwanda and Wilson Avenues to address the relocation of the
paseo and the shifting of the pad on Lots 21 and 22 to the
south.
b) Revise section F-F to reflect all of the conditions shown in the
plan view. Expand the section, or provide an additional section,
for different situations. For example, on Lot 35 the pad is below
the street. however the plan does not show how the perimeter
screen wall relates to the retaining wall and structure.
c) Revise Section M-M to reflect a 3:1 slope.
Enqineednq Division:
1 )Pdvate drainage easements shall be recorded for all lots intended to
accept cross lot drainage within Development Review 99-03, Phase
3 of Tract 14380, pdor to the issuance of building permits: Lots 39,
41, 55, and 57. Also, provide copies of all the previously recorded
_ drainage easements for Phase 2, including the ones affecting this
phase on Lots 56 (before a lot line adjustment), 57, and 64.
2) Install 12-inch pipe in each pdvate drainage easement, with the
grading permit, and a transition structure to each low capacity
curbside drain outlet (Standard 107-A, per public improvement plans).
a) Provide a single pipe system serving Lots 43 and 44, located on
Lot 41 rather than Lots 42 and 43. Install a V-gutter above the
pipe system to catch overflows in the event of blockage of either
inlet.
b) Install a V-gutter above the pipe on LOt 39 to catch overflows in
lhe event of blockage of the inlet on Lot 47.
3) Lot line adjustments within Development Review 99-03, Phase 3 of
Tract 14380, shall record prior to the issuance of building permits.
Provide an exhibit showing the location of all proposed lot line
adjustments in this phase with your plan check submittal.
4) Install a block wall along the north property line of Lot 48, or
equivalent facilities to protect this lot from off-site runoff, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
5) All missing public improvements fronting and within the Phase 3
boundaries shall be installed per the approved improvement plans,
Drawing 1435. It will be necessary to recheck the plans for
conformance to current City Standards, since more than a year has
elapsed since their approval. This will include Landscape
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 99-03 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES
June 9, 1999
Page 4
Maintenance Distdct plans for the Wilson Avenue parkway and
median and for Lot A. Anticipated revisions on site include, but shall
not be limited to: ddve approach and curbside ,drain outlet
relocations, and street tree revisions.
6) The north half of Wilson Avenue shall be paved and the Wilson
Avenue/Etiwanda Avenue intersection restdped to make Wilson
Avenue the through street pdor to the issuance of any permits,
grading or building, for Phase 3. Construction traffic shall use the
Cervantes entry.
7) Since this is the final phase of Tract 14380. all improvements bonded
for with the tract map shall be completed and accepted by the City
pdor to final occupancies.
8) The following items missing from the Conceptual Grading Plan shall
be added pdor to grading permit issuance:
a) Show locations where Detail 'A' will be used in the plan view and
include construction note 10 on all applicable sheets.
b) Provide deepened footings wherever I percent flow lines 3 feet
off the structure in 5-foot side yards exceed the 20percent
maximum for side slopes.
c) Provide an inlet facility wherever concentrated flows for the
entire lot are shown discharging to 4-inch PVC under the
sidewalk (construction note 11 ).
d) All retaining walls should end as a zero retained point.
4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.'
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JUNE 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of
the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of June 1999 by the following vote-to-wit:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 99-03 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES
June 9, 1999
Page 5
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: Development Review 99-03
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT: Mastercraft Homes
LOCATION: West side of Etiwanda Avenue. north of W~lson 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 oate
1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City. its
agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative.
to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City. its agents, officers, or
employees. for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City. its agents, officers. or
employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may. at its sole
discretion. participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation
shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
2. 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. Tiroe Limits
1. 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 approvafi No extensions are allowed.
C. Site Development
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include /
site plans. architecturar elevations. exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program. and
grading on file in the Planning Division. the conditions contained herein. Development Code
regulations. and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan.
Project NO
Completion Oate
2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions
of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and
State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy. plans shall be
submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division
to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy.
4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved
use has commenced, whichever comes first.
6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code,
all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
7. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be
located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete
or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single
family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults.
8. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner,
including proper illumination.
9. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all
lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to. public notice
requirements. special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction
activity, dust control measures, and secunty fencing.
10. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall
condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining
property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property
owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's
perimeter.
11. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each
support post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two '/~-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 ieet, 6 inches above grade.
12. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant.
13. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron or black plastic coated chain link to
maintain an open feeling and enhance views.
14. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk.
15. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry.
Proiecl NO DR qg-O:~
Completion Oate
16. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured
products.
D. Building Design
1. All dweltings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment,
detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
2. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or
proiections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated
with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be
included in building plans.
E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans)
1. Multiple car garage driveways shall be tapered down to a standard two-car width at street.
F. Landscaping
I. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping
in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior
final map.approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2. A~pr~vatesI~pes~f5feel~rm~r~inverticalheightand~f5:1~rgroaters~pe~but~essthan2:1
slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion
control. Slope planting required by this section Shall include a permanent irrigation system to be
installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
3. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger size
shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks
in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or
larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area, Trees and shrubs shall be planted in
staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall
include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
4. All slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving
condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to
releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division
to determine that they are in satisfactory condition.
5. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development
Code and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. This requirement shall be in addition to the required
street trees and slope planting.
6. The final design of the perimeter parkways. walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included
in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and
coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the
Engineering Division.
7. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the
perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.
8.All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
9. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
G. Environmental
1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock
Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner. prior to accepting a cash
deposit on any property.
2. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special
Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior
to accepting a cash deposit on any property.
H. Other Agencies
1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location
of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for
mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the
overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of
building permits.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
I. Site Development
1. 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.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to
existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may
include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation
Development Fee. Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees.
3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official. after tract/parcel map recordation and
prior to issuance of building permits.
4. For projects using septic tank facilities. written certification of acceptability. including
supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bernardino County Department of
Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic Tank
Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits.
5: Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday
through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday.
J. New Structures
1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering
use. area, and fire-resistiveness.
2. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for required occupancy separation(s).
3. Roofing material shall be installed as for wind-resistant roof covering at wind velocity not less
than 90 mph.
K. Grading
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved grading plan.
2.A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to
perform such work.
3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTiON/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
L. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Fire flow requirement shall be 1000 gallons per minute.
a.A fire flow shall be conducted by the buildeddeveloper 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.
2, 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.
3, Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval, Required hydrants,
if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-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.
4. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted
to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available,
pending completion of the required fire protection system.
5. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final
inspection.
6, Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted:
a. All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22.
b. Access must be opened at Wilson to provide complete access and secondary point of
access.
7. 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.
8.$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.
9. Plans shah be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC.
UPC. UMC. NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
M. Security Hardware
1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors.
2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within
40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used.
3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices.
N, 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.
O. Building Numbering
1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime
visibility.
CITY OF I>,ANCHO CUCAMONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 9, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Salvador M. Salazar, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: 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 the 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 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-08 -
CURRY BRANDAW ARCHITECTS - A request to construct and to operate a
two-story residential care facility for the elderly totaling approximately 53, 192 square
feet in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-6 dwelling units per acre) on
approximately 5.1 acres of land, located on the southeast corner of Hermosa
Avenue and 19th Street - APN: 1076-111-09. Related files: Pre-Application Review
98-08, General Plan Amendment 99-02, and Development District Amendment
99-02, and Landmark Designation 99-02.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Proiect Density: Proposed General Plan and Development District regulations will allow the
development of 4-8 dwelling units per acre of land. Presently 24 dwelling units per acre are
authorized. Additionally, the developer is proposing to construct a new two-story building
totaling 51,095 square feet, to be used in conjunction with the 2,097 square foot existing single
family home to operate a residential care facility for the elderly.
B. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning:
North - Single family residential; Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units/acre)
South - Park and school; Open Space District
East Single family home; Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units/acre)
West Single family homes; Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units/acre)
ITEN "D-F"
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 99-02, DDA 99-02, & CUP 99-08 - CURRY BRANDAW ARCHITECTS
June 9, 1999
Page 2
C. General Plan Desiqnations:
Project Site - Low Residential (2.4 dwelling units/acre)
North Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units/acre)
South - Open Space (Park and School)
East Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units/acre)
West Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units/acre)
D. Parkinq Calculations:
Number of Number of
Type Number Parking Spaces Spaces
of Use of Beds Ratio Required Provided
Residential Care Facility 114 1/4 beds 29 67
E. Site Characteristics: The site is located on the southeast corner of 19th Street and Hermosa
Avenue. Hamilton Street is located on the south side of the property. The site is presently
improved with a single family dwelling unit which has a Potential Local Landmark designation
and citrus groves. The site consists of a single parcel approximately 5.1 acres in size and
gently slopes from north to south.
ANALYSIS:
A. Backqround: The project was reviewed at a Pre-Application Review workshop on November
10, 1998. The Commission offered favorable comments regarding the architecture for the
building and site planning. A copy of the minutes is attached (Exhibit "J").
B. General: The developer is proposing to change the land use and zoning designation of the
property, from Low Residential to Low-Medium, in order to allow the use and construction of
a residential care facility on the subject site. The residential care facility is a conditionally
permitted use in the Low-Medium Residential District.
The project, as proposed, will have a total of 114 suites for the elderly. The suites are similar
to an apartment unit without a kitchen. The retirement facility will have centralized services
to provide three meals daily, housekeeping, laundering, private bus transportation, and
various activities. The facility will be operated 24 hours a day with staff available at all times.
The new developer is proposing to construct a two-story building in order to to continue the
residential atmosphere of the neighborhood. The developer is also proposing to incorporate
the existing single family home into the proposed residential care facility by converting it into
the Club House. The exterior of the house would remain as is. Furthermore, the developer
recognizes the historical significance of the house and in conjunction with this request, is
seeking approval of an Historical Landmark Designation. Currently, the single family home
has a Potential Local Landmark designation.
C. The developer is proposing to remove seven palm trees, one fruit tree, and one Eucalyptus
tree in order to accommodate the construction of the proposed residential care facility
(Exhibit "K"). As required under the tree preservation ordinance, the developer is required to
relocate those trees that can be relocated and replace those trees with a tree of similar size
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 99-02, DDA 99-02, & CUP 99-08 - CURRY BRANDAW ARCHITECTS
June 9, 1999
Page 3
for those that can not be relocated. Staff has included a condition in the Planning Comm ission
resolution requiring the developer to submit an arborist report to determine the replacement
value of the trees to be removed or relocated.
D. Appropriateness of the proposed Low Medium Residential Desiqnation: The subject site is
located in the middle of a residential neighborhood. The surrounding properties located on
the north side of 19th Street have Low-Medium and Medium residential densities. The
surrounding properties located on the south side of 19th Street have a Low Residential land
use and zoning designation. The subject 5.1 acre parcel is of sufficient size and configuration
to accommodate a high-quality residential project. evidenced by the application submitted for
the residential care facility. The use of the single family home is contingent upon the approval
of General Plan Amendment 99-02. Development District Amendment 99-02, and Landmark
Designation 99-02 by the City Council.
Additionally, the Land Use Element of the General Plan indicates that a Low-Medium land use
designation would be appropriate within a low density area in order to encourage greater
housing diversity without changing the single family character of the surrounding residential
area. Therefore. adoption of the proposed Low-Medium land use and zoning designation in
conjunction with the retirement care facility would meet one of the goals of the General Plan
and would be compatible with the surrounding properties. The proposed residential cam
facility will provide housing for the elderly.
E. Appropriateness of the existinq Low Residential Desiqnation: The subject property could be
developed under the current land use and zoning district. The property. however. with the
proposed development and land use change. will provide a greater amount of open space.
The maximum lot coverage under the existing land use designation is 40 percent. The
proposed site coverage for the project is 23 percent. Additionally. should the project be
developed under the current land use designation. the removal the existing single family home
would be required. The existing home is located in the middle of the property. The developer
is proposing to incorporate the existing single family home into the development. The home
will be converted to the club house. Staff, therefore, is in support of the proposed land use
and zone change.
F. Housinq: Theonlyhousingissuefortheapplicationistheincreaseinthenumberofavailable
residential units for the elderly once the project is completed. The more intense land use
density would result in an increase in the number of future units; however, the increase is not
considered an adverse impact to the surrounding properties. Therefore. the proposed land
use and zone change would provide greater housing diversity without changing the single
family character of the residential neighborhood.
G Desiqn Review Committee: On June 1,1999, the Design Review Committee (Henderson,
Stewart, Tolstoy) considered and recommended approval. subject to minor revisions, of the
Site Plan and Building Elevations (Exhibit 'T').
H. Environmental Assessment: The applicant completed Part I of the Initial Study and staff has
completed Part II. Staff has found that there may be a significant noise impact caused by
traffic on 19th Street. The General Plan estimates future noise levels in excess of City
standards which requires a detailed study of noise reduction mitigation measures to be
included in the construction design, such as sound barriers or special window glazing.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 99-02, DDA 99-02, & CUP 99-08 - CURRY BRANDAW ARCHITECTS
June 9, 1999
Page 4
Therefore, a condition of approval is recommended to require an acoustical report prior to the
issuance of building permits. If the Planning Commission concurs with these findings, then
issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be appropriate
FACTS FOR FINDING: Based upon the facts and conclusions listed above, staff believes the
Planning Commission can make the following facts for findings regarding these applications:
A The property is suitable for the uses allowed in the proposed land use and development
district designation in terms of access and size with similarly designated parcels.
B. The proposed amendments would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the
surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions of the Initial
Environmental Study that indicate that no significant impacts would be expected because of
this land use change.
C. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and the Development
Code because of the site's capacity to promote the goals and objectives for a residential
development.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted. and notices were mailed to all property owners within
a 300-foot radius of the project site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City
Council issue a Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment 99-02, Development
District Amendment 99-02 and Conditional Use Permit 99-08 through adoption of the attached
Resolutions.
Respectful ubmitted
City Planner
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - General Plan Map
Exhibit "B" - Development District Map
Exhibit "C" - Environmental Initial Study. Part II
Exhibit "D" - Site Plan
Exhibit "E" - Grading Plan
Exhibit "F" Landscape Plan
Exhibit "G" Floor Plan
Exhibit "H" Elevations
Exhibit 'T' Design Review Committee Action Comments dated June 1. 1999
Exhibit "J" Pre Application Review Comments dated November 10. 1998
Exhibit "K" Proposed trees to be removed
Resolution Recommending Approval of General Plan Amendment 99-02
Resolution Recommending Approval of Development District Amendment 99-02
Resolution Recommending Approval of Conditional Use Permit 99-08
D-l: .-V
-;.
SUBJECT SITE
FROM LOW R-F-~IDENTIAL
:::: ' ""' TO LOW-MEDII.~ RF-~IDENTIAL
LAND USE PLAN
RESIDENTIAL
~i!i!:!i::ii:l VERY LOW <2 DU°s/AC
~:::::::::':'::::l LOW 2-4 DU's/AC
~i!i!in!u!d LOW- MEDIUM 4-8 DU's/AC
~ MEDIUM 8-~4 DU's/AC
~ MEDIUM-HIGH 14-24 DU's/AC
F/J~ HIGH 24-30 DU's/AC
mm~ TO LOW-MEDII/M RESIDEIqTIAL
I LM ~.~ l; ~.
a !.. ·
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP
RESIDENTIAL
["TC'} VERY LOW~'2 DU/AC
I"'1,"l LOW 2-4 DU/AC
I'Lr"Z~r'l' LOW-MEDIUM 4-8 DU/AC
["r"l .MEDIUM 8-14 DU/AC
~ MEDIUM-HIGH 14-24 DU/AC
{"T;r'/ HIGH 24-30 DU/AC
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project Files: General Plan Amendment 99-02; Development District Amendment 99-02, and
Conditional Use Permit No. 99-08.
2. Related Files: Historic Landmark DesignatEon 99-02, Pre-Application Review 98-08
3. Description of Project: A request to change the land use (GPA 99-02) and zoning (DDA 99-
02) 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 and to construct and to
operate (CUP 99-08) a two-story residential care facility for the elderly totaling approximately
53,192 square feet in size.
4. Project Sponsors Name and Address: Curry Brandaw Architects
2260 McGilchrist Street, SE, Suite 200
Salem. OR 97302
5. General Plan Designation: Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
6. Zoning: Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site consists of a single parcel improved with a single
family home End an orange grove. The properly to the north is improved with a multi-family project
and has a land use designation of Low-Medium Residential. The properties to the east and west of
the site are improved with single family homes and have a land use designation of Low Residential.
The property to the south is improved with a park and school and has a land use designation of Open
Space.
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:
Salvador M, Salazar, AICP, Associate Planner
(909) 477-2750
10, Other agencies whose approval is required: None
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
GPA 99-02; DDA 99-02, CUP 99-08 Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. involving at least one
impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated,"
or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages,
(x) Land Use and Planning ( ) Transportation/Circulation Public Services
( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources Utilities and Service
( ) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources Systems
( ) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Aesthetics
( ) Air Quality (x) Noise (X) Cultural Resources
( ) Mandatory Findings of ( ) Recreation
Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
( ) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
(X) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. or agreed to, by the applicant, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared,
() I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one
effect 1 ) has 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 proje~:t could have a significant effect on the environment, there W~LL
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.
Signe~"//S/"~alazar. AICP AsSOciate Planner
May 18. 1999
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
GPA 99-02; DDA 99-02, CUP 99-08 Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation
is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to
mitigate the significant effects identified.
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposak
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
( ) ( ) (X) ( )
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a-d) The developer is proposing to change the land use and zoning designation of the
properly from Low Residential to Low-Medium Residential in order to accommodate the
use and construction of a new residential care facility. The proposed Low-Medium land
use and zoning designation would meet the goals of the General Plan and would be
compatible with the surrounding prope~ies. The Land Use Element of the General Plan
indicates that a Low-Medium zoning designation would be appropriate within low density
areas in order to encourage greater housing diversity without changing the single family
character of the surrounding residential area. Therefore, the proposed request will
fu~her the goals of the General Plan.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposak
a) Cumulatively exceed o~cial regional or local
population projections? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Induce substantial gro~h in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped
area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
GPA 99-02; DDA 99-02, CUP 99-08 Page 4
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( (X)
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( (X)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( (X)
d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( (X)
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( (X)
0 Erosion. changes in topography, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( (X)
g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) (X)
h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) (X)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) .(X)
4. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns. or the
rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Exposure of people or properly to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Discharge .into surface water or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved
oxygen. or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? ( ) ( ) (X)
~ Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals. or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations. or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
GPA 99-02; DDA 99-02, CUP 99-08 Page 5
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) There is no change in absorption rates, drainage patterns or in the rate or amount of
surface run-offs covering of the land. Additionally, the developer will be required to
submit plans to the Engineering Division in order to ensure adequate drainage for the
project.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposak
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ) (x)
c) Alter air movement, moisture. or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ( ) ) (X)
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ) (X)
Comments:
a) The Project will not cause any impacts to the air quality. No significant air quality
impacts would be expected from the development, as the development of the residential
care facility will generate fewer vehicle trips than a similar sized single family or multi-
family residential development. Additionally, the South Coast Air Quality Management
District's Air Quality Management Plan accounts for the existing land use designations
in its programs. The proposed project changes the General Plan and Development
District from Low to Low-Medium Residential. The proposed project will be required to
adhere to South Coast Air Quality Management District Regulations. The project is a
residential care facility consisting on 120 suites. Furthermore, under the proposed land
use designation, should the residential care facility not be built, a maximum of 40 units
could be built on this properly. According to Table 6-2 of the CEQA Air Quality
Handbook, dated November 1993, the threshold of single 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.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
GPA 99-02; DDA 99-02, CUP 99-08 Page 6
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal
result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X}
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( } (X)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
0 Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
Comments:
a) The project complies with all City Regulations including the minimum number of parking
spaces and adequate access points.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in
impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats (including. but not limited to: plants. fish.
insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) (X)
b) Locally designated species (e.g.. heritage trees.
eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) (X)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
eucalyptus grove. sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) (X)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh. riparian. and yernal
pool)? ( ) (X)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
GPA 99-02; DDA 99-02, CUP 99-08 Page 7
Comments:
a-e) The General Plan and Development Code currently designate the site for residential use
and the proposed amendment will continue the residential land use and zoning
designation. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of the development of the
site.
8.ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ) ( ) (X)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ) ( ) (X)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State? ) ( ) (X)
9. HA~RDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil,
pesticides. chemicals. or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fiammable brush,
grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
b
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
GPA 99-02; DDA 99-02, CUP 99-08 Page 8
a-b) The applicant is proposing to change the land use designation of the property from Low
to Low-Medium Residential. No increase in noise levels is anticipated as a result of the
proposed land use change; however, the residential care facility proposes to locate an
outdoor activity area adjacent to 19thStreet. When future expected noise levels exceed
6rLdn, the General Plan requires a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements
that should be incorporated into the project design. Staff is recommending that a
noise study be prepared to address traffic noise levels in this area and
recommend mitigation measures, if any. A condition of approval will be placed
in the Planning Commission Resolution which requires the submittal of a Noise
Study report for review and approval of by the City Planner prior to issuance of
building permits.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the fo~owing areas:
a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ) (X)
b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ) (X)
c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ) (x)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ) (X)
e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a-e) The proposed project is not expected to have any adverse effects on public services.
12. UTILITIESANDSERVICESYSTEMS, Would the proposal
result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
GPA 99-02; DDA 99-02, CUP 99-08 Page 9
O Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a-g) The proposed project is not expected to have any adverse effects on utilities and se~ice
systems.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposah
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a-c) The proposed project is not expected to have any adverse effects on Aesthetics. The
project is not located adjacent to any scenic vistas or highways. Additionally, the project
is required to comply with adhere to all Municipal Code requirements pe~aining to
minimum lighting levels.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ( ) (X)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ( ) (X)
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( (X) ( )
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ( ) (X)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ( ) ( ( ) (X)
Comments:
c) The site is currently improved with a single family home that has a Potential Local
Landmark (PLL) designation. The developer is proposing to incorporate the existing
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
GPA 99-02; DDA 99-02, CUP 99-08 Page 10
single family home into the project. Therefore, the impact to historical resources is
considered to be positive.
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Affect existing recreational oppo~unities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) The proposed project may increase the demand on parks in the area. The project
developer will be responsible for payment of park fees at the time of building permit
issuance to offset any impact on parks. The impact is not considered significant.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the
potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal, or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-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.) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
prob~ible future projects.) ( ) ( ) (X)
05/|~J/99' llqE 1l:,15 F'AI 503,399 0565 C['RRy BRAN1)A~ ~00,1
SENT qY: R CUC^MONGA C0U DEV; 5-18-99 8:53,; 900477'2847 => 503 399 0565; ~'~/3
Initial Study for C~ty of Rancho Cucamonga
GPA 99.02; DDA 99-02. CUP 99-08 Page ~ 1
d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have
env ranmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where. pursuant to the tiering, program EIR. or other CEQA prnce.~s.
one or more effects have 0con adequately analyzed in an eartier EIR or Negative. Declaration per
Sacdon 150~3(C)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope at and
adequately analyzed in the following earlier documenffs) pursuanl to applicable legal standards, anc
such effects were addressed by mitigation measure~ based on the earlier analysis. The following
eadier aria;yeas were utilized In ~-"~mpleting this Initial Study and are avadab~e for review in the City
of Rancho Cucamonga. Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check ~11 tha~ apply):
(x) General Plan Environmental Impact Raped
(CediAed April 6, 1981)
(x)Master Environmental Assessment for the 1969 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115. certified January 4, 1989)
(x) Environmental Assessment Pad II Initial Study for General Plan Amendment 99-02 anc
Development District Amendment 99-02 (February 22. 1099)
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I caddy that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study I acknowledge that I
have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Furlher. I have revised the
project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed m~hgation measures to avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where dearly no significant environmental effects would
OCCUr,
Signature; ,,,_///'~~ ._~3j:e G/t ~ I ~c~
Print Name and Ti[le
F-F- 17
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.: General Plan Amendment 99-02, Development District Amendment 99-02. and
Conditional Use Permit 99-08
Public Review Period Closes: June 9, 1999
Project Name: Project Applicant: Curry Brandaw Architects
Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the southeast comer of Hermosa Avenue and
19th Street - APN: 1076-111-09.
Project Description: A request to change the land use and 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 and to construct and to operate a two-story residential care facility for the eldedy
totaling approximately 53,192 square feet in size. Related files: Historic Landmark Designation 99-02
and Pre-Application Review 98-08.
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted
an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is
proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
[] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment.
[] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this
proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or
mitigate the effects to a point where cleady no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be
required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project
file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847.
NOTICE
The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period.
June 9, 1999
Date of Determination Adopted By
FI_RST FLOOR PLAN
/
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
~ ('~,,~PL~H TYPICAL ELEVATION DETAI{
~.~ Rancho Cucamon~a Retirement Residence
= ~=-
TYPICAL SITE SECTION A-A
44'-~" I 44'-~" i I 44'-~" ~ 44'-~" J
STRE~ SECTION B-B HERMOSA AVE SECTION
IIAMII.TON ~T. ~ECT~N D-D COVERED PARKING ELEVA~ONS
Rancho Cucamonga Retirement Residence
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:20 p.m. Salvador M. Salazar June 1, 1999
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-08 - CURRY
BRANDAW ARCHITECTS - A request to construct and operate a two-story residential care facility
for the elderly, totaling approximately 53,192 square feet in size, in the Low-Medium Residential
district (4-8 dwelling units per acre) on approximately 5.1 acres of land, located on the southeast
corner of Hermosa Avenue and 19th Street - APN: 1076-111-09. Related files: Pre-Application
Review 98-08, General Plan Amendment 99-02, and Development District Amendment 99-02.
Backqround: The project was reviewed at a Pre-Application Workshop on November 10, 1998.
The Commission offered favorable comments regarding the architecture and site planning.
Furthermore, the Commission added that a use of this nature was needed in Rancho Cucamonga
and the surrounding communities.
Desiqn Parameters: The property to the north is improved with a multi-famiIy project. The
properties to the east and west of the site are improved with single family homes. The property to
the south is improved with a park and school.
The project involves development of approximately 5.1 acres of land with a residential care facility.
The site has a gentle slope from north to south. The proposed new facility will be two-stories high
and approximately 29.5 feet high. Additionally, because of the location of the project, and in an
effort to retain the residential atmosphere of the neighborhood, the developer is proposing to retain
the existing two-story home on the site. The existing home is a Potential Local Landmark.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Maior Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of Cornrnittee discussion regarding this
project.
1. Use of River Rock. The developer is proposing to use river rock only on the main entrance
of the building. However, staff is recommending that in order to comply with the 360-degree
architecture policy, the river rock treatment should be used in all elevations. Additionally, all
of the architectural features, including river rock and recommended arches, should be used
on all elevations of the covered parking spaces located on the southeast section of the
property.
2. Arches. Staff is recommending that, in order' to further historical significance, traditional
architectural materials and styles be used. The design should incorporate the use of arches
to connect the columns along the front elevation. Additionally, all of the windows on the first
floor should be redesigned and have a window surround using river rock similar to the existing
dwelling unit.
3. Air Conditioninq Units. The developer is proposing to use wall mounted air conditioning units
for each suite. However, staff is recommending that these units not be visible from the street.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues.
1. Landscapinq alonq the street frontaqe of the property. Staff is recommending that
additional landscape treatment along the street be provided to ensure the parking areas are
adequately screened from adjacent street views. Berming in these parking areas shall be a
minimum of 3 feet high and have a natural appearance in form.
"r'
DRC COMMENTS
CUP 99-08 - CURRY BRANPAW ARCHITECTS
June 1, 1999
Page 2
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion.
1. All river rock used in the project shall be native.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to all
recommended modifications. All changes to the development plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Ranner prior to Planning Commission review.
Desiqn Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Pam Stewart, Peter Tolstoy, Larry Henderson
Staff Planner: Salvador M. Salazar
Of the items fisted as major issues the applicant agreed to further enhance the building elevations
by using dver rock at strategic locations as directed by the Design Review Committee. Additionally.
with regards to the covered parking spaces, the DRC agreed with the developer to replace them
with carports. The design and style of the carports is required to be similar to the main building,
incruding the use of tile, and river rock for the columns. The carports, in order to screen the parking
spaces, shall have a river rock wall on the south side.
With regards to the use of arches, the developer agreed to incorporate them into the building
elevations as recommended by staff. Additionally, the arches will be used in all areas where river
rock columns are utilized.
Regarding item No. 3. The developer agreed to place the air conditioning units inside the private
patios. The air conditioning units, for those units with no private patio, will be placed inside of the
wall and will have a maximum visible projection of approximately 6 inches and will be screened by
using a metal shield painted to match the color of the wall (stucco or river rock.
With regards to the secondary issues, the applicant agreed to comply with staffs. recommendation.
B. pRE-AppLtCATION REVIEW 98-08 - CURRY - The proposed development of a 114 suite
retirement residence facility for the eldedy on 5.1 acres of land in the Low Residential District
(2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast comer of 19th Street and Hermosa
Avenue - APN: 1076-111-09.
Brad Bullet City Planner, explained the purpose and goals of the Pre-Application Review process.
Michael Fuller, architect for Curry BrandawArchitects, i~troduced the project and indicated that the
proposed retirement residence is a 114-suite facjlity for the eldedy. He explained the facjlity is
designed for the eldedy that are still ambulatory but in need of some support and the residents
typically will be single people in their late 70s or 80s. Mr. Fuller further stated that his company had
researched the area and determined this is the best place to construct the retirement facility. With
regards to building design compatibility, he observed the wing ends and building center steps down
from two- to one-story. He asserted that this arrangement minimizes impact to the surrounding
properties. Additionally, Mr. Fuller indicated that the existing house will remain and will be made
part of the proposed development.
Salvador Salazar, Associate Planner, commented on the issue of neighborhood compatibility,
spedfically building design and site layout as it relates to the surrounding properties. He noted that
from a design aspect, the building, parking, and open space layout work well with the existing site
features including the potential histodc house and existing landscaping.
Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other communities In the
area need this type of facility. He especially liked the open space and the preservation of the
existing house and landscaping. He felt the two-story building would be compatible with the
neighborhood; however, he added that an emeroencv exit could be needed alone 19th Street.
Commissioner Macias agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy; however, he was concerned about
neighborhood compatibility and the number of vehicle trips generated by the use.
Commissioner Stewart also felt an emergency exit along 19th Street would be needed.
Commissioner Mannedno felt the use is absolutely compatible with the neighborhood.
Chairman McNiel felt that the use and the two-story building are acceptable; however, the building
architecture needs major improvements. He, too, felt the City should have more of these fatalities
but reminded the applicant of the land use change process and indicated the Commission will be
looking to the neighborhood for thoughts about such a project at this location.
Mr. Buller summadzed the Commissioners' comments: The use is a welcome use to the City and
the proposed project°s design appears to fit well into the site, the open space allows for the
preservation of the existing house and trees, and the building should be no higher than two-stories
and have significant architectural movement. He also indicated that the property currently is not
zoned to allow this use and an amendment would need to be filed by the applicant.
I ~ / ,..~' ;.~,_,~..~.:_....~_.=._./ ,./" /
I" ' ,t, ~,',,----~,~:";~ ~-"'i--'-'-::-: :'::: ......
", i,y ~*~'-',i-~; ....___:;~p ' ..,-~,-, ,,--'.,.--" ,;,;:- ..::_::_
~.~ ~' ~ .~ -,.----'~';,'.;-',:,i~,i;:~:../' .....~'~-: ::::::
~ ~ ..! y ,.-' .,.. ,.. . ,,:~, ~:.----~,~,,,- .y .,~=~'-~-:~., :.':.:'.:::
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-02, A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE
TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP 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, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 1076-111-09
A. Recitals.
1. The applicant Curt-/Brandaw Architects has filed an application for General Plan
Amendment No. 99-02 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this
Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application."
2. On May 12, 1999, and June 9, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application.
3. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the
Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the
above-referenced public hearing on May 12, 1999, and June 9, 1999, including wdtten and oral
staff repods, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as
follows:
a. The application applies to a single parcel of land totaling approximately
5.1 acres, with a rectangular shape, located on the southeast comer of Hermosa Avenue and
19th Street and is presently improved with a single family house and citrus groves. Said
proper~y is currently designated as Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre); and
b. The properties to the north of the subject site are designated Low-Medium
Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and are improved with a single family residential
project. The property to the west is designated Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
and is developed with a single family residential project. The property to the east is designated
Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and is improved with a single family home, The
property to the south is designated as Open Space and is developed with a park and school;
and
c. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General
Plan and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General
Plan and with related development; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
GPA 99-02 - CURRY BRANDAW ARCHITECTS
June 9, 1999
Page 2
d. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element;
and
e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the
adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the
surrounding properties.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public headng and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs
1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed distdct
in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land uses in the surrounding area, as
evidence of that is the proposed residential care facility proposed in conjunction with this
request; and
b. The proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the
environment nor the surrounding properties; and
c. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative
Declaration, together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental
assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial
evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and recommends
the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows:
a. 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 reflects 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. Based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into
the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a
whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, them 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 recommends approval of General Plan Amendment No. 99-02
to change the General Plan Land Use Map for the subject property to Low-Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre), as shown on the attached Exhibit "A."
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
GPA 99-02- CURRY BRANDAWARCHITECTS
June 9,1999
Page 3
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JUNE 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 9th day of June 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
LAND USE PLAN
RESIDENTIAL
~!/iiiiiiiiiil VERY LOW <2 DU's/AC
~ LOW 2-4 DU's/AC
~iii!!!iiiiiiii!!t LOW- MEDIUM 4-8 DU's/AC
~ MEDIUM 8-~4 DU's/AC
[.-'iiiiiiiiiiiii~ MEDIUM-HIGH 14-24 DU's/AC
~ HIGH 24-30 DU's/AC
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMQNGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 99-02, A PROPOSAL TO
CHANGE THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 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,
AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 1076-111-09
A. Recitals.
1. The applicant Curry Brandaw Architects has filed an application for Development
District Amendment 99-02 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this
Resolution. the subject Development District Amendment is referred to as "'the application."
.2. On May 12. 1999, and June 9, 1999. the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga recommended approval of the associated General Plan Amendment No.
99-02 to change the Land Use Map from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per Acre) to Low-
Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the property located at the southeast
comer of Hermosa Avenue and 19th Street.
3. On May 12, 1999, and June 9, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the
Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on May 12, 1999, and June 9, 1999, including written and oral
staff reports. together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as
follows:
a. The application applies to a single parcel of land totaling approximately
5.1 acres, with a rectangular shape, located on the southeast comer of Hermosa Avenue and
19th Street and is presently improved with a single family house and citrus groves. Said
property is currently designated as Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre); and
b. The properties to the north of the subject site are designated Low-Medium
Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and are improved with a single family residential
project. The property to the west is designated Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
and is developed with a single family residential project. The property to the east is designated
Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and is improved with a single family home. The
property to the south is designated as Open Space and is developed with a park and school;
and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DDA 99-02- CURRY BRANDAWARCHITECTS
June 9,1999
Page 2
c. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General
Plan and will provide for development within the distdct in a manner consistent with the General
Plan and with related development upon the approval of General Plan Amendment; and
d. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Development Code;
and
e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the
adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the
surrounding properties.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public headng and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs
I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed distdct
in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land uses in the surrounding area; and
b. The proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the
environment nor the surrounding properties; and
c. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan by the
adoption of General Plan Amendment 99-02.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated 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 recommends
the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached
hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows:
a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines
promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared
therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this
Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative
Declaration with regard to the application.
b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant
environmental effects that wilt result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been
reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the project which are
listed below as conditions of approval.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the Califomia Code
of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a
whole, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence
that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or
the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence
contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. the staff reports and exhibits, and the
information provided to the Planning Commission dudng the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-
d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DDA 99-02-CURRY BRANDAWARCHITECTS
June 9,1999
Page 2
c. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General
Plan and will provide for development within the distdct in a manner consistent with the General
Plan and with related development upon the approval of General Plan Amendment; and
d. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Development Code;
and
e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the
adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the
surrounding properties.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public headng and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs
I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed distdct
in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land uses in the surrounding area; and
b. The proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the
environment nor the surrounding properties; and
c. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan by the
adoption of General Plan Amendment 99-02.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated 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 recommends
the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached
hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows:
a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines
promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared
therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this
Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative
Declaration with regard to the application.
b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant
environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been
reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the project which are
listed below as conditions of approval.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a
whole, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence
that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or
the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence
contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the
information provided to the Planning Commission dudng the public headng. the Planning
Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-
d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DDA 99-02 - CURRY BRANDAW ARCHITECTS
June 9, 1999
Page 3
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4
above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of Development District Amendment No.
99-02 to change the zoning designation for the subject property to Low-Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre), as shown on the attached Exhibit "A."
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JUNE 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATFEST:
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 9th day of June 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
-F.27
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP
RESIDENTIAL
VERY LOW~'2 DU/AC
~ LOW 2-4 DU/AC
LOW-MEDIUM 4-8 DU/AC
~ .MEDIUM 8-14 DU/AC
~ MEDIUM-HIGH 14-24 DU/AC
~ HIGH 24-30 DU/AC
tt., h
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-08 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
AND OPERATION OF A TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY
FOR THE ELDERLY IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ON
APPROXIMATELY 5.1 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HERMOSA AVENUE AND 19TH STREET
AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 1076-111-09
A. Recitals.
1. Curry Brandew Architects has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use
Permit No. 99-08, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the
subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 9th day of June 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said
hearing on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals.
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above-
referenced public hearing on June 9, 1999. including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at the southeast comer of Hermosa
Avenue and 19th Street which is presently improved with a single family home; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with single family
homes, the property to the south is improved with a school and a park, the property to the east
is developed with a single family home, and the property to the west is developed with a single
family residential development; and
c. The proposed Residential Care Facility is allowed in the Low-Medium Residential
District subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and
d. The project will comply with all applicable provisions of the Development Code.
and the General Plan upon approval of General Plan Amendment 99°02 and Development Distdct
Amendment 99-02; and
e. The proposed residential care facility use will provide a needed service to eldedy
residents of the community; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 99-08 - CURRY BRANDAW ARCHITECTS
June 9, 1999
Page 2
f. The project is designed to be compatible with surrounding development and
provide a high degree of aesthetic appeal; and
g. The proposed use is in accordance with the goal of the General Plan to provide
a full range of housing opportunities.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above-
referenced public headng and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above. this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the
Development Code. and the purposes of the distdct in which the site is located.
b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health. safety. or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment
for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect upon the environment and recommends adoption of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto. and incorporated herein
by this reference, based upon the findings as follows:
a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with
the Califomia Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines
promulgated thereunder, that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared
therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this
Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative
Declaration with regard to the application.
b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant
environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been
reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the projectwhich are listed
below as conditions of approval.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole,
the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. there is no evidence that the
proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat
upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the
Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the
presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 99-08- CURRY BRANDAWARCHITECTS
June 9,1999
Page 3
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above.
this Commission hereby recommends approval of the application subject to each and every
condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference.
Planninq Division
1 ) Incorporate densely planted shrub hedges along the north, south, and
west sides of the site to screen parking areas.
2) The refuse storage enclosure shall be designed and constructed
using architectural materials similar to the main building.
3) Locate all roof drains/down spouts inside the building to the degree
possible. Any extedor drain fixtures shall be designed and located to
complement the building architecture.
4) All air conditioning units shall not be visible from the outside of the
building.
5) All other design modifications recommended by the Design Review
Committee shall be incorporated into the project.
6) This Conditional Use Permit shall not become effective until the
related General Plan Amendment, Development District Amendment
and Histodc Landmark Designations have been approved by the City
Council.
7) The tree removal permit shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Planner before any tree is removed or relocated.
En.qineednq Division
1) Conceptual Grading Plan shall include existing features within and
100 feet beyond all site boundaries (label to remain or be removed)
- natural ground, trees, structures, drainage courses. streets. trails,
slopes, etc. The Plan shall include cross sections for all site
boundaries to scale, extending from streets to the top or toe of slopes
adjacent to the parkway.
2) An in-lieu fee as reimbursement for the previously undergrounded
overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical) on the opposite
side of 19th Street shall be paid to the City pdor to issuance of
building permits. The fee shall be in conformance with the approved
Underground Reimbursement Agreement UR-006. The amount for
APN 1076-111-09 is $44,306.74 plus 10 percent interest per year
from the approval of the Agreement in March of 1990.
3) Ddve approaches shall be the commercial type, 35 feet wide minimum
and shall be in accordance with Standard Drawing 101 Type C.
Ddveway locations shall be a minimum of 100 feet from an
intersection and 200 feet from a signalized intersection. Existing ddve
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 99-08- CURRY BRANDAWARCHITECTS
June 9,1999
Page 4
approaches shall be removed and replaced with commercial
approaches or curb and gutter and walls if the driveways will no
longer be used.
4) The new driveway on Hermosa Avenue shall be designed to provide
a water barrier. The dyer rock flood wall return shall be a sufficient
distance from the main ddveway to prevent street flows from entedng
the site.
5) Driveways on Hamilton Street shall align with, or be offset 150 feet
from, Hermosa Park driveways. Sidewalk on Hamilton Street shall be
property-line-adjacent (transition from existing curb-adjacent at first
driveway) and it shall cross the ddve approach at the zero curb face.
6) Ddveway accent paving shall be located outside the public right-of-
way.
7) Modify 19th Street and Hermosa Avenue traffic signal as required to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
8) Install bus bay at the southeast comer of 19th Street and Hermosa
Avenue.
9) Comer properly line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards on
the southeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and 19th Street and on the
northeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and Hamilton Street. The
access ramps on these comers must be reconstructed to current City
Standards including the walls.
10) The existing overhead utilities on the project side of 19th Street shall
be undergrounded pdor to public improvement acceptance or
occupancy whichever occurs first.
11) Revise existing street improvement plans, prepared by a registered
Civil Engineer, to reflect the required public improvements, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
12) Secudty shall be posted and an agreement executed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney guaranteeing
completion of the public improvements, pdor to the issuance of a
building permit.
13) Prior to any work being performed in the public right-of-way, fees shall
be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City
Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required.
14) For on-site sump conditions the pdvate drainage facilities shall be
designed to handle Q 100 and a secondary overflow shall be provided
to handle Q100 if the sump inlet is clogged.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO,
CUP 99-08 - CURRY BRANDAW ARCHITECTS
June 9,1999
Page 5
Environmental Mitiqation Measures
1 ) A final acoustical report addressing traffic noise shall be submitted for
City Planner review and approval pdor to the issuance of building
permits. The final report shall discuss methods to reduce the level of
intedor noise to below 45 CNEL and the building materials and
construction techniques provided. The acoustical engineer shall
submit written verification of the adequacy of the mitigation measures
included in the construction building plans.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JUNE 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 9th day of June 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM
Project File No,: Conditional Use Permit 99-08
This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation
measures identified in the (Mitigated Negative Declaration) for the above-listed project. This
program has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation
measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code).
Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements:
1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and
the procedure necessary to ensure com pliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval
are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project.
2. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This
procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom
and when compliance will be reported.
3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring
progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon
recommendations by those responsible for the program.
Program Management - The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project
planner, assigned by the City Planner. shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project
planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly
and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of
the conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department.
Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
1. A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in
performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant.
2. An MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its
corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached
hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when,
and to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting
documentation will be kept in the project file with the department having the original authority
for processing the project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following
address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga - Lead Agency
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staffs is needed,
as determined by the project planner or responsible City department, to monitor specific
mitigation activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the project planner.
4. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the
completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each
measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of
development.
5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off
as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP
Reporting Form.
6. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation
measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions.
An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City
department and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction. or operational
personnel.
7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of
construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after
written notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also
has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure
attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the
authority to hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented.
8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the
responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department. The
Department shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of
guarantee) with the City. These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or
pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the required period
of time.
9. In .those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City
with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring
results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know
whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting
plan shall conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development
Director prior to the issuance of building permits.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: Conditional Use Permit 99-08
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT: Curry Brandaw Architects
LOCATION: SEC Hermosa Avenue and 19th Street
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
A. General Requirements completion Dale
1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City. its
agents, officers, or employees. because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative,
to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or
employees. for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City. its agents. officers. or
employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation
shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
2. 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
1. 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
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include
site plans, architectural elevations. exterior materials and colors. landscaping, sign program, and
grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code
regulations.
2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions
of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and __ __/__
State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be
submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division
to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy.
4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be /
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
5. All site, grading. landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for /
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved
use has commenced, whichever comes first.
6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code,
all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
7. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits.
Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to
adversely affect adjacent properties.
8. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design. locations, and
the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits.
9. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as 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.
10, All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner,
including proper illumination.
11, 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.
12. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. Any further modifications to the site
including, but not limited to, exterior alterations and/or interior alterations which affect the exterior
of the buildings or structures. removal of landmark trees, demolition, relocation. reconstruction
of buildings or structures, or changes to the site, shall require a modification to the Historic
Landmark Alteration Permit subject to Historic Preservation Commission review and approval.
13 As indicated on the submited Site Plan 'A', 6-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed
along the project perimeter. If a double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a
good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer
shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any
existing walls/fences along the project's perimeter.
14. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured
products.
D. Building Design
1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated
with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shaII be
included in building plans.
E. 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.
4. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances,
and exits shall be striped per City standards.
5. 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.
6. Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more
parking stalls. Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the
rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feet.
7. 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.
8. Carpool and vanpool designated off-street parking close to the building shall be provided for
commercial, office, and industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking area. If
covered, the vertical clearance shall be no less than 9 feet.
F. Landscaping
1, A detailed landscape and irrigation plan. including slope planting and model home landscaping
in the case of residential development. shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior
final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
Project No. CUP ~q-OS
Completion Date
2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in
accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110. and so noted on the grading plans. The
location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be
shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's
recommendations regarding preservation. transplanting, and trimming methods.
3. 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.
4. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking
stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15<jailon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger size
shrub per each 1 O0 sq. if.. 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.
8. The final design of the perimeter parkways. wails, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included
in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and
coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the
Engineering Division.
9. 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.
10. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
11. Tree maintenance criteda 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.
12. 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.
G. Signs
1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval.
Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require
separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs.
H. Environmental
1. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation
to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if
appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked
for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report.
2. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of
implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to
post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the
amount of $ 719.00 prior to the issuance of building permits. guaranteeing satisfactory
performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City
to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation
measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents
shall be considered grounds for forfeit.
In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final certificate of occupancy), the
applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior to
issuance of building permits. Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified
to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented.
I. Other Agencies
1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location
of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for
mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the
overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of
building permits.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
J, Site Development
1. 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.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition
to an existing development. the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate.
Such fees may include. but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee,
School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees.
3, Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and
prior to issuance of building permits.
4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 am. Monday
through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday.
Prolee1 NO CUP
Completion Date
K. New Structures
1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering
use, area, and fire-resistiveness.
2.Roofing material shall be installed as for wind-resistant roof covering at wind velocity not less
than 90 mph.
3. Plans for food preparation areas shall be approved by County of San Bernardino Environmental
Health Services prior to issuance of building permits.
L. Grading
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City
Grading Standards. and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved grading plan.
2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to
perform such work.
3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACTTHE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
!M, Public Maintenance Areas
1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
N. Utilities
1. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucamonga County Water Distdct (CCVVO), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from
the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first.
Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval
in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential
projects.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
O. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. The developer
shall commence, participate in. and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or
consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire
Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the
sc- ,,,,9,s~ l,~"~,_//_~' .y~'/ 6
Proiect No CUP 90.08
Completion Date
development. The CFD shall be formed by the Dist'rict and the developer by the time recordation
of the final map occurs.
2. Fire flow requirement shall be 2,500 gallons per minute.
a.A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department
personnel prior to water plan approval.
b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall
be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel after
construction and prior to occupancy.
3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed,
and operahie prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing
materials. etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel.
4. Existing fire hydrant locations Shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants,
if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standarcls require a 6-inch riser with
a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgracled to meet this standard.
Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers.
5. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be
submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporan/water supply for fire protection is
available, pending completion of the required fire protection system.
6. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final
inspection.
7. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below:
X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15.
X Other: 1994 UBC.
Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking.
plastics manufacturing, spray painting, ~ammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact
the Fire Safety Division to determine if the sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations.
8. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of
sprinkler system.
9. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below:
Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. __/__
~ California Code Regulations Title 24. __/__ __
10, 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. ~/~ __
Other: Contact Fire Department for access requirements. ~/__ __
11. Fire department access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apparatus.
12. 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,
13. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of I4 feet,
6 inches from the ground up, so as not to impede fire apparatus.
14. A building directory shall be required, as noted below:
__ Standard Directory in main lobby.
15. 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.
16. Cared/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire
Safety Division for specific details and ordering information.
17.$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.
18. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC. UFC,
UPC. UMC, NEC. and RCFD Standards 22 and 15.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
P. Security Lighting
1. All parking. common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power.
These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell.
2. 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.
Q, Security Hardware
A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding gl~ass doors.
2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors, If windows are within
40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used.
3. All roof, openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal gates.
or alarmed.
Projed No Cb?
Completion Date
R. Security Fencing
1, When utilizing security gates, a Knox box sub-master system security device shall be used since __ __/__
fire and law enforcement can access these devices.
S. Windows
1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted __ __/
from frame or track in any manner.
T. Building Numbering
1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime /
visibility.
2. At the entrances of complex, an illuminated map or directory of project shall be erected with /
vandal-resistant cover. The directory shall not contain names of tenants, but only address
numbers, street names, and their locations in the complex. North shall be at the top and so
indicated. Sign shall be in compliance with Sign Ordinance, including an application for a Sign
Permit and approval by the Planning Division.
3. All developments shall submit a 8 %" x 11" sheet with the numbering pattern of all multi-tenant __ __/__
developments to the Police Department.
U, 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.
--- CI'I'Y OF RANCFIO CUCAMONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 9, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner
BY: Warren Morelion, Planning Aide
SUBJECT: VARIANCE 99-05 - HERNANDEZ - A request to reduce the corner side yard
setback from lhe required 15 feet (as measured from properly line) to 5 feet Io
construct an accessory structure to be used as a pool house in the Very Low
Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Highlands
Specific Plan, located at 13910 San Segundo Drive -APN: 226-631-37.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested: Approval to reduce the corner side yard setback to construct a
192 square foot accessory structure to be used as a pool house.
B. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq:
North - Single family residence; Etiwanda Highlands Specific Plan, Very Low Residential
(under 2 dwelling units per acre)
South- Single family residence; Etiwanda Highlands Specific Plan, Very Low
Residential (under 2 dwelling units per acre)
East Single family residence; Etiwanda Highlands Specific Plan, Very Low
Residential (under 2 dwelling units per acre)
West - Vacant; Etiwanda Highlands Specific Plan, Very Low Residential (under 2
dwelling units per acre)
C. Site Characteristics: The site gently slopes to the southeast and currently has a two-story
single family residence.
ANALYSIS:
A. General: The proposed accessory structure does not comply with the following
development standards:
ITEM "G"
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
VAR 99-05- HERNANDEZ
June 9,1999
Page 2
1. The proposed structure intrudes 10 feet into the 27-foot required corner side yard
setback (Development Code Section 17.08.060A. 1. e).
B. Site Constraints: The lot is approximately 15,800 square feet, rectangular shaped, and
exceeds the minimum lot area requirement of the district. The applicant has stated that
the proposed 10-foot 4-inch structure would be entirely screened by a combination of a
proposed 3-foot 6-inch retaining wall and an existing 7-foot 6-inch perimeter block wall.
The applicant has also stated that he wants to locate the s/ruclure, as proposed, in order
to allow a clear line-of-sight from/he house to the pool for safety reasons.
In reviewing lhe request, staff has found lhat the combination of retaining wall and existing
block wall would screen the proposed structure from adjacent lots and Wardman Bullock
Road. The wall/structure configuration would no/cause a negative impact to the area,
making this request a unique circumstance.
C. Surroundinq Neiqhborhood Characteristics' The developed lots to the north, south, and
east are single family residences similar to the house on the subject site. Some are two-
story corner houses that are in conformance with/he district's required setbacks. The
land 1o the west is vacant and no project has been submitted and none is anticipated in
/he near future.
D. Environmental: The site is exempt from environmental review as a Class 3 Categorical
Exemption pursuant to California Environmenial Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15303.
FACTS FOR FINDING: Staff believes that lhe unique circumstances caused by the site's
topography would warrant an approval of the proposed accessory structure. The following facts
support the variance findings:
A. The accessory structure would be enlirely screened from adjacent property owners and
Wardman Bullock Road. The proposed site of the accessory structure is 3 feet 6 inches
lower in finish grade than Wardman Bullock Road. The combination of grade change and
the existing wall (11 feet) will exceed the height of the proposed structure (1 O-foot 4-inch)
by 8 inches. The grade change between Wardman Bullock Road and the properly
provides a unique circumstance not common with other single family residences in the
area.
B. The purpose of setbacks is to maintain a quality living environment for residents by
providing adequate light, air, and open space. The reduced corner side yard setback will
no/affect any adjoining resident because there is none to the west.
C. The proposed structure will not be visible to the adjoining property owner Io the nodh
because the cabaria pad elevation is approximately 10 feet below the neighbor.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
VAR 99-05 - HERNANDEZ
June 9. 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 olr the project site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Variance 99-
05 by adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:WM:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's Justification
Exhibit "B" - Location Map
Exhibit "G" - Plot Plan
Exhibit "D" - Site Plan
Exhibit "E" - Section
Exhibit "F" - Elevation
Exhibit "G" - Photos
Resolution of Approval
(" i"
To: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division
From: Grcgo~' D. Hemandez
13910 San Segundo Dr~vc
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
909 899-7677 (after 5pro)
310 643-849i x627 (days)
APN: 0226-631-37-0000
Subject: Side yard Setback variance to build Cabann
Reason: We have been informed by the City planning division Iha~ the side yard set back al my home is 27fi.
We live on a comer lot in Rancho Cucamonga and wish Io build a 12 x 16~ Cabann near our
swimming pool (currently under construction).
The plans show the Cabann will b¢ Iocaled 6fi from Ihe perimeter wall of our prope~y. Th~ total
back is 17 1~¢~ from ~h¢ curb.
Our undersmndin~ is that lh¢ oily is concerned with thc acslhclics of the structure, the noise
pol¢ntial, and compatibility with Ih¢ suffounding area.
The acslhelics and compafibilily of lh¢ slmctur¢ will not be a problem because it is being buill to
match our home w h s mar s d ng roofing, and color schemes.
Additionally, the slmcture is only vlsiblc l~om willfin my yard. The west s de and ~om of our home
is surrounded by a perimeter wall which is nearly 8 I~ct hiSh when measured I~om lh¢ sldcwalk. (scc
pho~o~raphs)
From inside my yard. Ih~ Cabann is bcing built at tile bouom of a new 3-% fool hiSh rdahfins wall.
From Ih~ Sround in my back yard ~o the top oflhc wall is over I I feet. The Cabann will bc [0 fcct 4
inches high. (see side ~¢w diagram).
lethe Cabann w~rc to be moved fu~hcr away ~om the wall, it would block the line of sight from
w ndows and patio area of the yard ~o the swimming pool, and possibly pose a ~fcly risk to a
swimmer who may n~cd assistance.
The following pa~cs ar~ a side vlcw dla~ram of the proposed stmclur~ in rdation to Ih¢
configuration, and photographs taken from the front yard, back yard, and the sid~ view of my
hom~. The pictures graphically dcmonstral¢ th~ way the perimeter wall will complcldy hldc
Cabann from both p~dcslrian and vdficular Ira~c.
[ \ '~ .?act No. 1~564-1 M.
~/~ ' C~ly . RonchO Cucomongo
""F ,, To~ Role Areo
~, 15100
,
/
" e x '... .-,;
~ e :."
Proposed Cabana
c,-ego,-y n. mr.:,.d~;~ L;~ Side View
13910San Segundo Drive
IL C., CA 91~29
909 899-7677 II ft from
7 1/2 ~ ground to
Existing top of
Block perimeter
%Vail wall
- 6~. From wall To cab~a
~ % 11 fl I?om curb to wall
~ 10ft 4 in.
: · A ·
Wardman- 3 1/2 ~
New
Bullock Rd. Landscape Landscape Block Cabaria '.rill be
Curb Sidewalk Wall 17 ~ from curb "~
and nearly Itt
below top of
outer wall
- 17 feet
RECEIVED
MAY 10
· t,,..Xt~;--.:~'At5 O~r'-~''~(-q ~5 ll'3'~O-~::::)
C~ b, C.~r-J5~~-- '~0~. ~. oF- "~4~' Cilyol RanchoCucarnon~3.
'pe,,~S=,_ct . P=anning DMsion
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE
NO. 99-05 TO REDUCE THE CORNER SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 5
FEET, LOCATED AT 13910 SAN SEGUNDO DRIVE WITHIN THE VERY
LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (UN PER 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE)
OF THE ETIWANDA HIGHLANDS SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 226-631-37.
A. Recitals.
1. Gregory D. Hemandez has filed an application for the issuance of Vadance No. 99-05
as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Vadance
request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 9th day of June 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said
headng on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found. determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above-
referenced public headng on June 9, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at 13910 San Segundo Ddve with a
street frontage of 96 feet and lot depth of 186 feet and is presently improved with a single family
residence; and
b. The property is a comer lot with an estimated 3*foot 6-inch grade change between
the property's finished grade and Wardman Bullock Road; the grade change between Wardman
Bullock Road and the property provides a unique circumstance not common in the area; and
c. The properties to the nodh, south, and east of the subject site are designated for
single family homes: the property to the west is vacant and designaled for single family residential
use: and
d. The application is proposing the construction of a single story accessory structure
to be used as a pool house with a total height of 10 feet 4 inches; the proposed structure will
occupy 192 square feet and match the existing single family residence with similar siding, roofing,
and color schemes; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VAR 99-05 - HERNANDEZ
June 9, 1999
Page 2
e. The application is proposing to locate the structure 17 feet from comer side yard
curb face, contrary to the Development Code requirement of 27 feet, to ensure clear visibility of
a pool from the pdmary residence; and
f. The proposed cabana pad elevation is approximately 10 feet below the neighbor
to the south; hence, will not be visible; and
g. The proposed cabaria height is below the top of the existing perimeter block wall
at the right-of-way line forWardman Bullock Road; hence will not be visible from public view and
will not affect light, air, and open space for residents.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudrig the above-
referenced public headrig 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 strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives
of the Development Code, as evidenced by the property owners inability to provide an accessory
structure in an area where it provides an adequate line of site to the pool.
b. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other
properties in the same district, as evidenced by the sito's unique topography. which combined with
an existing perimeter wall, will completely screen Ihe proposed accessory structure.
c. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would depdve the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same
district, as evidenced by the allowance of accessory structures to property owners in the same
district.
d. That the granting of the Vadance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, as evidenced
by a request for similar accessory structures being allowed in the district.
e. That the granting of the Vadance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, orwelfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, as evidenced
by the allowance of accessory structures in the district, provided they comply with building codes
and development standards.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth
below:
Planninq Division
1 ) Corner side yard setback can be no less than 17 feet from curb face
along comer side yard {Wardman Bullock Road).
2) Height of the proposed accessory structure may not exceed 10 feet
4 inches to ensure that the structure will be fully screened by the 11-
foot combination of retaining wall and perimeter wall.
-/,Y
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VAR 99-05 - HERNANDEZ
June 9, 1999
Page 3
3) Accessory structure must match existing single family residence:
similar siding, roofing, and color schemes.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JUNE 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATI'EST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary oi' 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 Ihe Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of
the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of June 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
r CI'I'Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 9, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTANDCONDITIONALUSEPERMIT99-26-SAV-ON
AND LEWIS OPERATING CORP. - The development of a 14,841 square- foot drug
store with drive-thru facility on approximately 1.7 acres of land within the Terra Vista
Town Center, in the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan,
located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Town Center Drive -
APN: 1077-421-87.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Surrounding Land Use and Zonin,q:
North - Vacant; Office Professional
South - Developed, part of Terra Vista Town Center; Community Commercial
East Developed, part of Terra Vista Town Center; Community Commercial
West Developed, Virginia Dare Business Park & Deer Creek Center; General Commercial
C. General Plan Desiqnations:
Project Site - Community Commercial, Terra Vista Community Plan
North - Office Professional, Terra Vista Community Plan
South - Community Commercial, Terra Vista Community Plan
East Community Commercial, Terra Vista Community Plan
West General Commercial
D. Site Characteristics: The site is part of Terra Vista Town Center and is approximately 9.8 acres.
The site is rough graded and has been used for temporary community special events such as a
circus.
E. Parkinq Calculations:
Number of Number of
Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces
of Use Foota,qe Ratio Required Provided
Sav-On 14,841 5/1000 74
2 Future Buildings 9,000 5/1000 4__5
TOTAL 119 119
ANALYSIS:
A. Proposed Proiect: The applicant, Lewis Operating Corp., proposes to develop a portion of the
site with a drive-thru Sav-On drug store. Because the applicant does not have any tenants or
plans to develop the remainder of the site, they have provided a master plan concept for the
remaining area as a concept only. They have requested that any design concerns with the master
ITEM "H"
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 99-26 SAV-ON/LEWIS OPERATING CORP.
June 9, 1999
Page 2
plan be reviewed in conjunction with the upcoming Target Store expansion so that the Sav-On
proposal would not be delayed. The proposed Say-On and the area south of it are designed to
be consistent with the existing Terra Vista Town Center in building design, color, and materials.
The site for Sav-On will have sufficient parking spaces to accommodate the use.
B. Drive-Thru Policies: The project conforms to the policies established by Planning Commission
Resolution No. 88-96 (Exhibit "G"). The project design includes a generous setback from the
street frontages, separating drive-thru traffic flow from on-site circulation, providing an entry plaza
with architecture matching the Terra Vista Town Center theme. The drive-thru lane is located on
the side elevation facing Town Center Drive.
C. Desicln Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (McNiel, Macias and Henderson)
reviewed the proposed project on May 18, 1999, and agreed that the master plan concept could
be reviewed in conjunction with the future Target Store expansion. The Committee also
recommended approval of the Sav-on proposal with the conditions outlined in the attached Design
Review Action Agenda (Exhibit "B").
D. Technical Review Committee: The Technical and Grading Review Committees reviewed the
project and recommended approval subject to the conditions outlined in the attached Resolution
of Approval.
E. Environmental Assessment: The applicant completed Part I of the Initial Study and staff
completed Part II. Staff determines that there is no physical environmental impact as a result of
the proposed project. If the Commission concurs, issuance of a Negative Declaration is in order.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in theInland 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
99-28 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and issuance of a
Negative Declaration.
City Planner
BB:NF:Is
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map/Master Plan Concept
Exhibit "B" - May 16, 1999, Design Review Committee Action Agenda
Exhibit "C" - Detailed Site Plan
Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Grading Plan
Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Landscape Plan
Exhibit "F" - Elevations
Exhibit "G" - Drive-Thru Policy Resolution No. 88-96
Exhibit "H" - Initial Study Part II and Negative Declaration
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
ED~'ARD5
CINE~IAS
D
Z
'~I SERVICE
Z "'= ~ "' :CHANDISE
~ , ' | ~ FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
'TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
9:00 p.m. Nancy Fong May 18, 1999
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-26 - SAV-ON AND LEWIS
OPERATING CO. - The development of a 14,900 square foot drug store with drive-thru facility on
approximately 1.7 acres of land within the Terra Vista Town Center, in the Community Commercial
District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Town
Center Drive - APN: 1077-421-87.
DesiqnParameters: ThesiteispartoftheTerraVistaTownCenterandwaspreviouslyapprovedfor
a design center/office complex as shown in Exhibit "A." It is approximately 9.8 acres. The developer
proposes to develop a portion of the site with a drive-through Sav~On drug store. He has provided a
master plan concept for the remainder of the area, including the proposed Target expansion that is
coming soon. The site is rough graded and has been used for temporary community special events,
such as a circus.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding
this project.
1. In reviewing the original master plan for Terra Vista Town Center, the developer promised the
Planning Commission that the design would not include drive-thru fast food restaurants. The
proposed master plan for the remainder of the center now shows a building pad for a drive-thru.
Is the building pad with a drive-thru acceptable?
2. The master plan concept lacks the sophistication of Terra Vista Town Center, This is because
the orientation of the buildings, parking area, alignment of drive aisles, and access points do not
provide a hierarchy of design relationship, a focal point, or strong pedestrian promenade linkages
which are the signature of the center..
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues.
1. Say-On Site Plan
a. Provide strong northward pedestrian connection from existing Building A to project site with
pedestrian amenities consistent with existing design.
b. Provide pedestrian walkways at project entry from public sidewalk off Haven Avenue to
project site.
c. Provide pedestrian connection from Say-On to public sidewalk at the corner of Haven
Avenue and Town Center Drive,
2. Sav-On Elevations. The building design shows elements of the architectural theme established
in Terra Vista Town Center. The following recommendations would enhance the design.
a. Change the window mullion pattern for the building entry to be consistent with the ones in
the center.
b. Eliminate the fur-out band at the west elevation.
DRC COMMENTS
CUP 99-26 - LEWIS & SAVoON
May 18, 1999
Page 2
c. Add light fixtures (up and down lights) on all elevations at key architectural elements such
as towers and columns.
d. Repeat the architectural treatment at the south side of the west elevation to the east side
of south elevation, and at the north and south sides of east elevation.
e. Change the proposed white color plaster to a darker shade consistent with some of the
colors that exist in the center. The mix of lighter and darker shades is acceptable,
f. Use the same shape and material of columns as existing ones for the tower entry.
3. Landscaping
a. Expand size of landscape planter areas at the project entry off Haven Avenue, the planter
areas from the north side of Building A (two-story building) and across the drive aisle, and
at the northwest and southwest sides of the Sav-On building. Add enhanced hardscape
and landscape.
b. Increase the width of the planter areas next to the south elevation and the row of parking
spaces south of the Sav-On building.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion.
1. All colors and materials such as, but not limited to: random stacking of tiles, wainscot, plaster
pattern, cornice, corbels, street furniture, and hardscape design are to match existing center,
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval with the condition that the master plan be
revised to address the design issues and submitted for further Committee review before the submittal
of plan check for Say-On. Staff recommends approval of proposed Say-On project with the above-
identified issues placed as condition of approval.
Attachments
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Rich Macias, Larry Henderson
Staff Planner: Nancy FOng
The Committee did not recommend approval of the master plan concept; however, they did agree to
review the master plan concept in conjunction with the expansion of the Target Store which is coming
soon. The Committee also directed the applicant to work with staff in reducing the curve of the main
entry off of Town Center Drive, prior to Planning Commission review. The Committee recommended
approval of the Sav-On portion of the proposed project with the condition that the applicant address
the identified secondary issues. The applicant agreed.
/ ~.~ SITE PLAN SUMMARY TABLE
= IIIIII~[IIIIIIIIIIII~IIU ~
m ;~ ~'7~ ~ ~ ~ :; :: ~ ~'~ .........
WEST ELEVATION
~q f~-~ ....~::' ' ' .-. e ' - ill __
: Ira,; L,m .....
NORTH ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION , T' '1~[
! --- ~,
......... ~ ...... ~ ..
EAST ELEVATION
KEY MAP FOR SECTIONS
SITF.,,..LINE STUDIES-SECTIONS .,.... ,..,..
RESOLUTION NO. 88-96
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTABLISHING INTERIM DESIGN GOALS AND
POLICIES FOR BUSINESSES WITH DRIVE-THRU FACILITIES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has expressed numerous concerns with
businesses that have drive-thru facilities including, but not limited to, fast
food restaurants. The concerns are compatibility of use, circulation, and
visual and aesthetic appearance. Previous projects have not adequately
addressed these concerns, especially in the screening of the drive-thru lane;
and
WHEREAS, there is a need to establish a design goal for businesses
with drive-thru facilities to guide future development; and
WHEREAS, development standards and design guidelines are necessary to
implement the design goal for businesses with drive-thru facilities; and
WHEREAS, such development standards and design guidelines are needed
to provide clear direction and guidance to developers and staff alike.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission does hereby establish interim policies for businesses with drive-
thru facilities as follows:
Section 1: Goal Statement
The intent of the guidelines is to assist the designer in
understanding and complying with the City standards for
building and site design. The goal is to provide high
quality design, compatibility of use, and mitigate
environmental and aesthetic concerns that are created by
this type of land use. The following design standards and
guidelines shall apply to uses with drive-thru facilities
typically including, but not limited to, fast food
restaurants, banks, mini-markets, dairy, photo kiosks, or
auto service.
Section 2: Development Standards
A. Location Uses with drive-thru facilities shall be
300 feet away from any intersection and from another
drive-thru facility on the sate side of the street,
except within a shopping center or Master Plan.
Restaurants with drive-thru facilities shall be a
minimum of 200 feet away from any residential use or
district boundary.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DRIVE-THRU INTERIM DESIGN GOALS/POLICIES
May 11, 1988
Page 2
B. Site Area - Uses with drive-thru facilities shall have
a minimum I acre net land area. This minimum land
area may be modified when the drive-thru facility is
within a Master Plan or an integrated shopping center
through the Design Review process.
C. The minimum floor area for drive-thru facilities shall
be 2,500 square feet. The minimum floor area for a
drive-thru facility other than a fast food restaurant
may be modified through the Design Review process.
D. The maximum site coverage shall be 40 percent of the
net lot area. The minimum on-site landscaping, which
includes articulated plazas, courtyards, and patios,
shall be 15 percent of the net lot area exclusive of
public right-of-way.
E. Parking and the drive-thru lane shall be setback 45
feet from the ultimate curb face. Greater setbacks
may be required as mentioned in the Specific Plan and
as deemed necessary during the Design Review process.
Section 3: DesiVn Guidelines
A. Site Planning/Building Orientation - Future drive-thru
facilities in a Master Plan or shopping center shall
be identified early i.Q the review process to avoid
retrofitting the uses at a later date. The site
design shall minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts and
avoid locating driveways and service areas which
interfere with the flow of the on-site circulation.
Building placement shall be done in a manner to create
new pedestrian spaces and plaza area. Buildings shall
orient the public entrances toward the street.
Building layout should be oriented to screen the
drive-thru lane. Drive-thru lanes shall be screened
through building orientation, the use of a combination
of low screen walls, heavy landscaping, and trellis
work. Separate pay windows and pick-up windows should
be provided.
B. Stacking Distance/Parking - The drive-thru lane shall
be a sufficient length to accommodate the necessary
stacking of cars. The stacking distance shall be
determined through a parking study as stated in
Section 17.12.040C, Special Requirements of the
Parking Ordinance. Each drive-thru lane shall be
separate from the circulation route necessary for
ingress and egress from the property or access to any
parking spaces within the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DRIVE-THRU INTERIM DESIGN GOALS/POLICIES
May 11, 1988
Page 3
C. Parking - The parking requirements for drive-thru
facilities shall be according to Section 17.12 of the
Parking Ordinance. The gross floor area for outdoor
seating shall be subject to the same parking
re qu i remen t.
D. Pedestrian Orientation - The Site Plan shall create
opportunities for courtyards and plazas and other
landscape open space to promote safe and convenient
pedestrian movement with continuous landscape pathway
between buildings. The design should discourage a
need for pedestrians to have to cross a drive-thru
wherever possible.
E. Architecture - Standardized "corporate" architectural
styles associated wit a chain is prohibited. Drive-
thru facilities within an integrated shopping center
or Master Plan must have architectural style
consistent with the theme established in the center.
Architecture must provide compatibility to surroundin9
uses in form, materials, colors, scale, etc. Building
planes shall have variation in depth and angle to
create variety and interest in its basic form and
s~lhouette of the building. Articulation of building
surface shal 1 be encouraged through the use of
openings and recesses which create texture and shadow
patterns. Building, entrances shall be well
articulated and project a formal entrance through
variation of architectural plane, pavement surface,
treatment, and landscape plaza.
F. Signing - All signs shall conform with the provisions
of the Sign Ordinance. Drive-thru facilities within
an integrated shopping center or Master Plan must
comply with the Uniform Sign Program as established in
the center.
Section 4: Performance Standards
A. Special performance standards for restaurants with
drive-thru facilities: The use shall be operated in a
manner which does not interfere with the normal use of
adjoining properties. If, in the opinion of the City
Planner, the provisions of this paragraph are being
violated, the violations shall be grounds for
reopening Conditional Use Permit hearings and adding
conditions to control the violation. Performance
standards include, but are not limited to the
following considerations, which, where appropriate,
shall be incorporated as conditions of approval in all
use permits as determined by the Planning Commission
or City Council:
IY'-iS
PLA/~NING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DRIVE-THRU INTERIM DESIGN GOALS/POLICIES
May 11, 1988
Page 4
(1) Noise levels measured at the property line shall
not exceed the 1 evel of background noise normally
found in the area.
12) The premises shall be kept clean, and the
operator shall make all reasonable efforts to see
that no trash or litter originating from the use
is deposited on adjacent properties. For drive-
thru restaurants or other uses which typically
generate trash or litter, adequate trash
containers, as determined by the City Planner,
shall be required and employees shall be required
daily to pick up trash or litter originating from
the site upon the site and within 300 feet of the
perimeter of the property.
(3) All graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours.
(4) No undesirable odors shall be generated on the
site.
{5) The on-site manager of the use shall take
whatever steps are deemed necessary to assure the
orderly conduct of employees, patrons, and
visitors on the premises.
(6) A copy of these performance standards and all
Conditional Use Permit conditions of approval
shall be posted along side the necessary business
licenses and be visible at all times to
employees.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MAY, 1988.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
iarry ~. KcN~e airman'
ATTEST:. ~
B: etary
I, tad let, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 11th day of May, 19~, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
., INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: Conditional Use Permit 99-26
2. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit 88-12 and Development Review 87-39
3. Description of Project: The development of a 14,841 square foot Sav-On drug store with
drive-thru facility on approximately 1.7 acres of land within the Terra Vista Town Center, in
the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the
southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Town Center Drive - APN: 1077-421-87.
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Lewis Operating Corporation
1156 North Mountain Avenue
Upland, CA 91785
5. General Plan Designation: Community Commercial, Terra Vista Community Plan
6. Zoning: Community Commercial District, Terra Vista Community Plan
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
North - Vacant; zoned Office Professional
South - Developed, part of Terra Vista Town Center zoned Community Commercial
East Developed, part Of Terra Vista Town Center; zoned Community Commercial
West Developed, Virginia Dare Business Park; zoned General Commercial
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:
Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner
(909) 477-2750
10. Other agencies whose approval is required:
Cucamonga County Water District
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
CUP 99-26 Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages·
( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services
( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems
( ) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics
( ) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources
( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation
( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
(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
" '7,~1 that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signed.m~t~gat~ /p~
· /N ~ ong, C
anc F
Senior Plan~ '-
May 17, 199
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
CUP 99-26 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.
Potentially
S~nglcant
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.'
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
k Potentially
Sign~icant
[mpac~ Less
Potentially Unless Than
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposah
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population proje~ions? (X)
b) Induce substantial gro~h in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (X)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (X)
Potentially
SignScant
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Impact Less
Potentially Unless 'Pnan
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in
or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
CUP 99-26 Page 4
Significant
b) Seismic ground shaking? ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ) ( ) (X)
d) Seiche hazards? ) ( ) (X)
e) Landslides or mudflows? ) ( ) (X)
f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) (X)
h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) (X)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) (X)
4. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ) ( ) (X)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ) ( ) (X)
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ) ( ) (X)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ) ( ) (X)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ( ) ) ( ) (X)
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations, or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
CUP 99-26 Page 5
PotentLally
SignScant
Impact Less
Potentially Unless Than
d ct
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal.'
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
Potenlially Unless Than
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) (X) ( )
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ( ) (X)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (X)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (X)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (X)
g) Rail or air traffic impacts? (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
CUP 99-26 Page 6
Comments:
a) The development ofthe project will increase the number of vehicular trips. However,
the site fronts on Haven Avenue, a major thorough fare and Town Center Drive, a
collector street, which will handle the increased traffic.
b) The main driveway entry off Town Center Drive is designed with a sharp curve that
creates a safety concern. This concern can be mitigated by redesigning the curve
to be more gradual. The applicant has agreed to do it.
Potentially
Signscant
Impact Less
PotentiallyUnkessThan
, .......d s.p=,ng ,.,o,m.t,o. so....: sl;:;:.t
d ct
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) (X)
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees,
eucalyptus windrew, etc.)? ( ) (X)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) (X)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and
vernal pool)? ( ) (X)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) (X)
Comments:
The site was roughed graded in 1989. It is void of vegetation and sprayed with soil binding
chemicals for dust control. It is part of the approved larger 70-acre commercial center
known as Terra Vista Town Center. It has been used for temporary special events such
as circuses or fairs.
Potentially
Impad Less
Potentially Unless Than
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal.'
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
CUP 99-26 Page 7
Potentially J
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Potentiatly
Significant
Impact Less
Potentially Unless Than
9. HA~RDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) increased tim hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Potentially
SignScent
Impact Less
Potentially Unless Than
d ct
10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in.'
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
CUP 99-26 Page 8
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
Potential{'/Uniess Than
11. PUBLIC SERVICES, Would the proposal have an
effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
government se~ices in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Other governmental se~ices? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Issues and Suppod~n. Info~atLon Sources: Si2;~nt I ' Si2;~nt f~;
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal msuff in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
~ Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
J Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
Potentially Unless Than
d
13. AESTHETICS. Wouldffieproposah
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
CUP 99-26 Page 9
Potentially
Signfficant
Impact Less
Petenlially Unless Than
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Potentially
Impact Less
Potentiatly Unless Than
15. RECREATION~ Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Affect existing recreational oppo~unities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
Potentially Unless Than
t6. 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 ram or endangered plant or animal,
or eliminate impelant examples of the major
periods of California histo~ or prehisto~? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
CUP 99-26 Page 10
Potentially
Signfficant
Impact Less
Potentially Unless Than
d I ct
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.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have
environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the 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):
(X) General Plan EIR
(Certified April 6, 1981)
(×) 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: Mitiqated Neqative Declaration was issued on December 9, 1987 for the
approval of Terra Vista Town Center. The project site is pad of this center.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for pubtic review in accordance with the
California Environmental Qualib/ Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: Conditional Use Permit 99-26 Public Review Period Closes: June 9, 1999
Project Name: Project Applicant: Lewis Operating Corporation
Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and
Town Center Drive - APN: 1077-421-87.
Project Description: The development of a 14,900 square foot drug store with ddve-thru facility on
approximately 1.7 acres of land within the Terra Vista Town Center. in the Community Commercial
District 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 to by the applicant before this
proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or
mitigate the effects to a point where cleady no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be
required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project
file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847.
NOTICE
The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period.
June 9, 1999
Date of Determination Adopted By
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALl FORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 99-26, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 14,841 SQUARE-
FOOT DRUG STORE WITH DRIVE-THRU FACILITY ON
APPROXIMATELY 1.7 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE TERRA VISTA
TOWN CENTER, IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OF THE
TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND TOWN CENTER DRIVE, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF ~ APN: 1077-421-87.
A. Recitals.
1. Say-on Drugs/Lewis Operating Corp. has filed an application for the issuance of
Conditional Use Permit No. 99-26, 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 26th day of May 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said
headng on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above-
referenced public headng on May 26, 1999, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at the southeast comer of Haven
Avenue and Town Center Ddve with a street frontage of 1,100 feet and lot depth of 1,000 feet,
and is presently undeveloped.
b. The property to the north is vacant and zoned Office Professional. The properties
to the south and east are developed with a commercial center, known as Terra Vista Town Center,
and zoned Community Commercial. The property to the west is developed with commercial and
office centers and zoned General Commercial.
c. The proposed project is designed as an extension of the Terra Vista Town Center.
d. The proposed project is consistentwith the architectural program established for
Terra Vista Town Center and designed with sufficient parking spaces to accommodate the use.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 99-26 SAV-ON/LEWIS OPERATING CORP.
June 9,1999
Page 2
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the
Development Code, Terra Vista Community Plan, and the purposes of the distdct in which the site
is located.
b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code and Terra Vista Community Plan.
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 attached
hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows:
a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines
promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore
reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has
reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the
application.
b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into
the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the 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 o~the habitat upon which
wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Negative
Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning
Commission during the public headng, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption
of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations.
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.
Plannin~ Division
1) The approval is for a 14,841 square foot Sav-On drug store with
drive-thru facility. The future building pad south of the proposed drug
store is approved in concept and IS subject to future Development
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 99-26 SAV-ON/LEWIS OPERATING CORP.
June 9,1999
Page 3
Review and/or Conditional Use Permit approval depending on the use
of the buildings.
2) The master plan concept east of the drug store and the main
driveway is not approved and is subject to a separate Conditional Use
Permit review process.
3) Provide strong northward pedestrian connection from existing Building
"A" to Sav-On project site area with pedestrian amenities consistent
with existing design.
4) Provide pedestrian walkways at project entry from public sidewalk off
Haven Avenue to project site.
5) Provide pedestrian connection from Sav-On to public sidewalk at the
comer of Haven Avenue and Town Center Drive.
6) Change the window mullion pattern for the building entry to be
consistent with the ones in the center.
7) Add light fixtures (up and down lights) on all elevations at key
architectural elements such as towers and columns.
8) Change the proposed white color plaster to a darker shade consistent
with some of the colors that exist in the center. The mix of lighter
and darker shades are acceptable.
9) Use the same shape and matedal of columns as existing ones for the
tower entry.
10) Add enhanced hardscape and landscape to the landscape planter
areas at the project entry off Haven Avenue, the planter areas from
the north side of Building A (two-story building) and across the ddve
aisle, and at the northwest and southwest sides of Sav-On building.
11) All building colors and materials such as, but not limited to, random
stacking of tiles, wainscot, plaster pattern, cornice, corbels, light
fixtures, etc., to match existing center. All street furniture, trash
enclosure design, hardscape and landscape design to match existing
in center.
12) Signs to comply with Uniform Sign Program 134 for Terra Vista Town
Center. Lewis shall submit appropriate amendments to Uniform Sign
Program to reflect the addition of the expanded shopping center.
13) Submit a Parcel Map prior to submittal of plan check. Parcel Map
shall be approved and recorded pdor to issuance of building permits.
14) Post "No Truck Traffic" signs at the ddveway entry off Haven Avenue,
to the satisfaction of City Planner, pdor to release of occupancy.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 99-26 SAV-ON/LEWIS OPERATING CORP.
June 9,1999
Page 4
15) Post ddve-thru lane directional signs at appropriate locations,
including, but not limited to, "DO NOT ENTER" at west side. Sign
area shall be limited to 2 square feet.
16) Submit on-site phasing improvement plan for City Planner review and
approval pdor to issuance of building permits.
En.qineedn.q Division
1) Provide a 2-inch conduit on Haven Avenue from Town Center Ddve
to Foothill Boulevard for traffic signal interconnect.
2)Missing or diseased street trees shall be replaced to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
3) The non-vehicular access dghts for both the Haven Avenue and Town
Center Drive driveways shall be vacated and the proposed access
points established to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JUNE 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 9th day of June 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENTtl
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: Conditional Use Permit 99-26
SUBJECT: 14, 841 Square -Foot Drug Store With Drive-thru
APPLICANT: Sav-On Drugs/Lewis Operating Corp.
LOCATION: South eastcorner of Haven Avenue and Town Center Drive
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
A. General Requirements
1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its
agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative,
to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents. officers, or
employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or
employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation
shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
2. 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
1. 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
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include __ __ /
site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and
grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code
regulations, and the Terra Vista Community Plan.
Project NO CUP 99-26
Completion Date
2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions
of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and
State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be
submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fi re Protection District and the Build ing and Safety Division
to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy.
4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.) or prior to final .map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved
use has commenced, whichever comes first.
6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code,
all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
7. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits.
Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to
adversely affect adjacent properties.
8. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and
the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits.
9. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be
located out of public view and adequately screened th rough the use of a combination of concrete
or masonry wails, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single
family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults.
10.All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner,
including proper illumination.
11. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property
owner.
D. Shopping Centers
1. Provide for the following design features in each trash enclosure, to the satisfaction of the City
Planner:
a. Architecturally integrated into the design of (the shopping center/the project).
b. Separate pedestrian access that does not require the opening of the main doors and to
include self-closing pedestrian doors.
c. Large enough to accommodate two trash bins.
d, Roll-up doors.
sc 4nslge 2 , ~)
//-_:./
Project No. CUP 99-26
Completion Date
e. Trash bins with counter-weighted lids.
f. Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis.
g. Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of the enclosure and designed
to be hidden from view.
2. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours.
3. The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash and
debris remain for more than 24 hours.
4. 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 dB during the
hours of 7 a.m. until 10 p.m.
b. Loading and Unloading - No person shall cause the loading, unloading, opening, closing,
or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or other
similar objects between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless otherwise specified herein,
in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area.
5. Textured pavement shall be provided across circulation aisle, pedestrian walkway, and plaza.
They shall be of brick/tile pavers, exposed aggregate, integral color concrete, or any combination
thereof. Full samples shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits.
6. All future building pads shall be seeded and irrigated for erosion control. Detailed plans shall be
included in the landscape and irrigation plans to be submitted for Planning Division approval prior
to the issuance of building permits.
7, 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.
8. All future projects within the shopping center shall be designed to be compatible and consistent
with the architectural program established.
9. 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.
10. 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.
E. Building Design
1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated
with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be
included in building plans.
Project No. CU~ 99-26
Completion Date
2. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main
building colors.
F. 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.
4. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances,
and exits shall be striped per City standards.
5. 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.
6. Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more
parking stalls. Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the
rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feet.
7. 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
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping
in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior
final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2. A minimum of 20% of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30% within
commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger.
3.Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking
stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21.
4. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one
tree per 30 linear feet of building.
5, 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.
6. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. 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.
7. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible
for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted
areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and
debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning,
fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, ordecaying plant material shall
be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage.
8. 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.
9. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering
sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along Haven Avenue.
10. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the
perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.
10.All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
11. 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.
H. Signs
1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval.
Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require
separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
I. Site Development
1. 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,
Project No. CUP99-26
Completion Date
and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building
and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition
to an existing development. the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate.
Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee,
School Fees. Permit and Plan Checking Fees.
3.Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and
prior to issuance of building permits.
4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday
through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday.
J. New Structures
1.Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering
use, area, and fire-resistiveness.
2. Roofing material shall be installed as for wind-resistant roof covering at wind velocity not less
than 90 mph.
K. Grading
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved grading plan.
2. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits.
AP P LICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
L. Dedication and Vehicular Access
1. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards.
M. Street Improvements
1, Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr, Lights Trees Trail Island Trail
Haven Avenue e e
Town Center Dr, e e
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk
shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be
provided for this item. Remove and replace existing to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Project No CT3P99,26
Completion Date
2. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans. including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights
on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be
posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City
Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior
to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shalt be paid and a
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any
other permits required.
c. Pavement striping. marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduitwith pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction
project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and
interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides ofthe street at 3 feet outside
of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer.
Notes:
(1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200
feet apart. unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel
with pull rope or as specified.
e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with
adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded
upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be
installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots.
h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check.
3.Street trees. a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in
accordance with the City's street tree program.
4. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with
adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project
intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or
industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required.
N. Public Maintenance Areas
1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
Project NO. CUP 99-26
Completion Date
O. Drainage and Flood Control
1.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.
2. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in
a sump catch basin on the public street.
P. Utilities
1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas,
electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.
3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from
the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first.
Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval
in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential
projects.
Q. General Requirements and Approvals
1. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City. covering the estimated operating costs for all
new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to
buildin9 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:
R. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. 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) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire
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.
2. Fire flow requirement shall be 2000 gallons per minute.
a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department
personnel prior to water plan approval.
b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall
be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel after
construction and prior to occupancy.
Project No CUP99-26
Completion Date
3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed,
and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing
materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel.
4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants,
if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-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 mod~l numbers.
5. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final
inspection.
6. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below:
,/ Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15.
~' Other: 1994 UBC.
Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking,
plastics manufacturing, spray painting, flammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact
the Fire Safety Division to determine if the sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations.
7. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of
sprinkler system.
8. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below:
,/ Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15.
· / California Code Regulations Title 24.
9. 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.
./Other :Fire Lanes.
10. 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.
11. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall
be submitted pdor to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific
details and ordering information.
12.$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.
13. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 U BC, UFC,
UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15.
Project No. CUP99-26
Completion Date
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
FHE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
S. Security Lighting
1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained lofoot 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,
T. Security Hardware
1, One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. Ifwindows are within
40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used.
2. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices,
3. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal gates,
or alarmed.
U, Windows
1. Store front windows shall be visible to passing pedestrians and traffic.
V. Building Numbering
1.Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime
visibility.
2. Developer shall paint roof top numbers on one or more roofs of this development. They shall be
a minimum of three feet in length and two feet in width and of contrasting color to background.
The stencils for this purpose are on loan at the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department.
W. Alarm Systems
I. 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- 4/19199 10
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 9,' 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Debra Meier, Contract Planner
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 99-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA o
An amendment to Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, consolidating the
Industrial Area Specific Plan, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, Foothill Boulevard Design
Supplement, Caryn Planned Community Development Plan, and Residential
Commercial/Industrial Design Guidelines into appropriate sections of the Development
Code. Related files: Industrial Areas Specific Plan Amendment 99-03, Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 99-01, and Caryn Planned Community Amendment
99-01.
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 99-03 - CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA - An amendment to consolidate the Industrial Area Specific Plan
regulatory provisions and design guidelines into the Development Code. Related files:
Development Code Amendment 99-02, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 9~(:
01, and Canin Planned Community Amendment 99-01.
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 99-01 - CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA - An amendment to consolidate the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
regulatory provisions and design guidelines into the Development Code. Related files:
Development Code Amendment 99-02, Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 99-01,
and Canin Planned Community Amendment 99-01.
CARYN PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 99-01 CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA - An amendment to consolidate the Canin Planned Community
Development Plan regulatory provisions into the Development Code. Related files:
Development Code Amendment 99-02, Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 99-01,
and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 99-01.
ABSTRACT: The purpose of these amendments is to consolidate various specific plans into a unified
Development Code.
BACKGROUND: As a result of the numerous Specific Plans and Planned Communities that have been
approved within the City since incorporation, implementation and use of such an array of documents
has become cumbersome for staff, the general public, and the development community to determine
standards, regulations, and guidelines for various segments of the City. The goal of the Code
Consolidation efforl is to consolidate these development regulations into a single document for ease
of use.
ITEM "I-L"
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CODE CONSOLIDATION - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
June 9, 1999
Page 2
This effort included consolidation of the following documents and Planning Commission Policies into
the Development Code:
'Industrial Area Specific Plan
Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
Foothill Boulevard Design Supplement
Caryn Planned Community
Commercial/Industrial Design Guidelines
Residential Design Guidelines
ANALYSIS: Consolidation of the Development Code resulted in amending portions of the following
chapters:
17.02 The addition of definitions pertaining to Recyclables (R) and Waste Types (VV).
17.08 Revisions to the Residential Districts Chapter pertaining to Caryn Planned Community
(Table 17.08.040-B Note M) and the Design Guidelines (throughout 17.08.090).
17.10 Revisions to the Commercial/Office Districts pertaining to the addition of Design
Guidelines (throughout 17.10.060).
17.12 Revisions to the Parking Regulations, adding parking regulations for the Industrial
Districts (17.12.030.D and 17.12.040.C).
17.14 Revisions to the Specific Plans and Planned Communities Districts chapter
reflecting the change in status of the Caryn Planned Community, the Industrial
Area Specific Plan, and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (17.14.030 and
17.14.040).
In addition, two new chapters are being added to the Development Code:
17.30 Industrial Districts. The Industrial Area Specific Plan has been wholly incorporated
as Chapter 17.30 of the Development Code, the subarea concept has been
maintained and is included as 17.30.080 Subarea Development Standards.
17.32 Foothill Boulevard Districts. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan has been wholly
incorporated as Chapter 17.32, again the subarea concept has been maintained
and is included as 17.32.080 Subarea Development Standards.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval.
BB:DC:Is
Attachments: Amended portions of Consolidated Development Code ( distributed separately)
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 99-02, A CONSOLIDATION OF
THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN; FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
SPECIFIC PLAN; FOOTHILL BOULEVARD DESIGN SUPPLEMENT;
CARYN PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN; AND THE
RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
INTO A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for Development Code
Amendment No. 99-02, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution,
the subject Development Code Amendment is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 9th day of June 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said
headng on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on June 9, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located within the City; and
b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan
and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan
and with related development; and
b. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Development Code;
and
c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
,5-/-3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DCA 99-02- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
June 9, 1999
Page 2
d. The subject application is consistent with the objectives of the Development
Code; and
e. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan.
4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been prepared and reviewed in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the
Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and further, specifically finds that based upon substantial
evidence, it can be seen with certainty that them is no possibility that the proposed amendment
will have a significant effect on the environment and. therefore, the proposed amendment is
exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines. Section 15061 (b)(3).
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby recommends approval of Development Code Amendment No. 99-02
shown in Exhibit "A" of the staff report.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JUNE 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 9th day of June 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 99-03, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. RecitalS.
1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for Industrial Area Specific Plan
Amendment 99-03, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafier in this Resolution, the
subject Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 9th day of June 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing
on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on June 9, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located within the City; and
b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set fodh in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That this amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General
Plan and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General
Plan and with related development; and
b. That this amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Development Code
and the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and
c. That the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
d. That the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the objectives of the
General Plan or Development Code.
4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been prepared and reviewed in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
ISPA 99-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
June 9, 1999
Page 2
promulgated thereunder, and further, specifically finds that based upon substantial evidence, it can
be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendment will have a
significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed amendment is exempt pursuant
to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3).
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set fodh in paragraphs 1, 2.3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby recommends approval of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment No. 99°
03, hereby incorporating selected portions of the Industrial Area Specific Plan into the Development
Code, as shown in Exhibit "A" of the staff report, and repealing all other sections of the Industrial
Area Specific Plan.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JUNE 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 9th day of June 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT99-01, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for Foothill Boulevard Specific
Plan Amendment 99-01, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution,
the subject Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 9th day of June 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said
headng on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above-
referenced public heating on June 9, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located within the City; and
b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public headng 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 this amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General
Plan and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General
Plan and with related development; and
b. That this amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Development Code
and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan; and
c. That the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
d. That the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the objectives of the
General Plan or Development Code.
4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been prepared and reviewed in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
FSPA 99-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
June 9, 1999
Page 2
promulgated thereunder. and further, specifically finds that based upon substantial evidence, it can
be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendment will have a
significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed amendment is exempt pursuant
to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3).
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby recommends approval of Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment No.
99-01, hereby incorporating selected portions of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan into the
Development Code, as shown in Exhibit "A" of the staff report, and repealing all other sections of
the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JUNE 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 9th day of June 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
CARYN PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
99-01, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for Caryn Planned Community
Development Plan Amendment 99-01, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Caryn Planned Community Development Plan Amendment is referred to as
"the application."
2. On the 9th day of June 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing
on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW. THEREFORE. it is hereby found, determined. and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on June 9, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located within the City; and
b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That this amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General
Plan and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General
Plan and with related development; and
b. That this amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Development Code
and the Caryn Planned Community; and
c. That the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
d. That the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the objectives of the
General Plan or Development Code.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CPA 99-01 o CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
June 9, 1999
Page 2
4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been prepared and reviewed in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines
promulgated thereunder, and furlher, specifically finds that based upon substantial evidence, it can
be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendment will have a
significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed amendment is exempt pursuant
to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3).
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set fodh in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby recommends approval of Caryn Planned Community Development Plan
Amendment No. 99o01, hereby incorporating selected podions of the Caryn Planned Community
Development Plan into the Development Code, as shown in Exhibit "A" of the staff repod, and
repealing all other sections of the Caryn Planned Community Development Plan.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JUNE 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
A'I'I'EST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
cedify 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 9th day of June 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 9, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission,
FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner
BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-02, VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN
AMENDMENT 98-01 AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 98-01 -
AMERICAN BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
BACKGROUND: On May26, 1999. the planning Commission reviewed the related Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for the above described project. The Commission found that the EIR was
prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and recommended
certification to the City Council. The certification headrig by the City Council is tentatively scheduled
for July 7, 1999. Attached is a letter from the applicant requesting a one-month continuance for the
requested amendments.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission table General Plan
Amendment 98-02, Victoria Community Plan Amendment 98-01 and Etiwanda Specific Plan
Amendment 98-01 to July 14, 1999.
Respel lily submitted,
Bra~ Buller
City Planner
Attachment: Exhibit "A" - Applicanrs letter dated June 3, 1999.
ITEt4 "M-N"
AMERICAN BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT CO.
,. (818) 981 4900 FAX (~11) 981-4121
June 3. 1999
VIA FACSIMILE 909 477 2847
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Cucarsongs
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucarsonga, Califors|a 91729
Re: ~i.~c~oria Arbors
Dear Nancy:
The purpose of this letter is to request a one month continuance of the Victoria
Aroors Comrsunity Plan Amendment Planning Commission Healing which is
presently scheduled for Wednesday, June 9, 1999. Due to recent discussions
regarding our project as it relates to the citywide General Plan Amendment
process, it is evident that we need addffional time to mvlew our project and come
back with a proper r~sponse.
Thank you for your continued cooperation In moving our project along.
Vep/truly yours,
CUCAMONGA 220, L.P.
By: American Beauty Developrsent Co.
Its Agent
John Morriserrs
Vice President / Development
gcj:GE~ GG, EO M'Lr
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 9, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTANDTENTATIVETRACTNO.15540-FU-MAI
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - A request for a time extension of a previously approved
tentative tract map, including design review, for the development of 159 single family
lots on 24.56 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per
acre) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and Development Code areas located
between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route, west of the Cucamonga Creek Control
Channel -APN: 207-211-01, 18 through 21, 31, 32 and 34. Related File: Variance
93-03.
BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract 15540, Design Review and Variance 93-03 were originally
approved by the Planning Commission on June 23, 1993. Since that time, State Senate Bill 426
and Assembly Bill 771 granted automatic time extensions to June 23. 1998. On May 14, 1997. a
time extension for the Tentative Tract alone was requested by the applicant and approved by the
City Planner. This extended the Tentalive Tract's expiration date for one-year to June 23, 1999.
The related Design Review and Variance expired on June 23, 1998.
ANALYSIS: In 1998, the City Council amended the City's Subdivision Ordinance to provide for the
maximum time exlensions allowable under the State Subdivision Map Act. The City may extend
lentative tract maps for up to 11 years from the original approval date. Extensions are granted in
12 month increments. There are two more 12- month time extensions available that may be granted
by the City (up to the year 2001).
Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension and compared the proposal with current
development criteria outlined in the Development Code and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan.
Based on this review, the Tentative Tract Map does not meet the development standards for the
Medium Residential District. The Development Code requires projects in the Medium Residential
District, to have a minimum of 35 percent common open space. The project provides 10 percent
common open space. The Variance was approved to reduce the minimum percentage of common
open space from 35 percent to 10 percent, to reduce minimum side yard building separations from
15 to 8 feet, and to reduce minimum building-to-curb setback from 15 to 10 feet. Since the
approved Variance has expired, the current Tentative Tract Map is not in compliance with the
development standards for the Medium Residential District. Wilhout the Variance, the Tenlative
Tract does not meet the minimum 35 percent common open space requirement for the Medium °
Residential District; hence, would require significant modification and elimination of lots to conform.
ITEM "0"
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT15540-FU-MAI
June 9,1999
Page 2
OPTION: The applicant has requested a contiuance to allow time to submit a new Design Review
and Variance application. A new Design Review and Variance could be scheduled for Committee
reviews in July. Under the State Subdivision Map Act, the City has 60 days from the expiration date
of the tentative map to act on an extension request. Therefore, the City must act on the time
extension no later than the August 11. 1999, Planning Commission meeting.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were malted to all property owners within
a 300-foot radius of the project site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue the time extension
request for Tentative Tract 15540 to their August 11. 1999 meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:RZ:Is
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letters from Applicant
Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "C" - Tentative Tract Map
Exhibit "D" - Tentative Tract Time Extension Chart
Exhibit "E" - Staff Report dated June 23, 1993.
FORMOSA INVESTMENTS & DEVELOPMENTS
FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
801 S. Gartield Ave. Suite 200
AlhamDra. CA 91801
U,S,A.
Tel 818-289-0223
Fax 818-289-4806
F~brum'y 28, 1999
Du~ Colman.
Principle Pl~'me~
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Community Development Dep~'~ment
pl~nn;ng Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
l~ncho Cuc.emonl~ CA 91730
¢;LrB.IECT RF_FERENCE: Tentative Tr~c~ 15540 Time exh, m,lon
12~ex Iv'a. Coleman:
Tent~.ive Tract 15540 will expire on June 23, 1999. I ~.m requesdn8 a one y~s~ ext~sion
to $une 23. 2000. I ne~ this atldition~l time [o process the ~rm.l .m~p documents ~nd to
pr,~,ent undo financial h~rdship on the p~rtncne'jp.
Respect~ly,
FU-MAI LLM~ tF_.D PARTNERSH]ZP
Ro~rt Yu~
,E,,F,/T&)5/F '54" F®RMOSA
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
'IT 15540 - FU-MAI
June 9, 1999
Page 2
OPTION: The applicant has requested a contiuance to allow time Io submit a new Design Review
and Variance application. A new Design Review and Variance could be scheduled for Committee
reviews in July. Under the State Subdivis on Map Act, the City has 60 days from the expiration date
of the tentative map to act on an extension request. Therefore, the City must act on the time
extension no later than the August 11, 1999, Planning Commission meeting.
CQRRESPONDENCF: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletiq newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all properly owners within
a 300-foot radius of the project site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue the time extension
request for Tentative Tract 15540 to their August 11, 1999 meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:RZ:Is
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letters from Applicant
Exhibit "B" - Site Uliljzation Map
Exhibit "C" - Tentative Tract Map
Exhibit "D" - Tentative Tract Time Extension Chart
Exhibit "E" - Staff Reporl dated June 23, 1993.
~/62/19~9 1~:34 9E}9-94B-~dE, 4 I,~a,D(LE ,~,ND ~SOCZ"'TE P~.%GE
Jun-o~-g9 02;3~P Ko Tat Realty
FORMOSA INVESTMENTS & DEVELOPMENTS
FU MAJ UMITED PARTNERSHIP
80 ~ S. Ga,"fle~ Ave. Sun'e 200
Arnarnlara. CA 91801
U.S.A.
tel 8 ! 8-289~]223 .
Fo~ 818-289-4806
RECEIVED
JUN 0 2 1999
Ci(y of R~ncho Cucamong:',
Planning Elivision
June 2, 1999
Dan Cola,
Principle Planner
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CommuniW Development Dc1~a. mncat
PlanlnS Division
10500 Civic Cen|cr Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
SUBJECT P-EFEP, ENCE: Tentative Tract 155 tO Time extcn:fion
Dcm' Mr. Colaan:
I rcqucst the map ¢xtcn~on bc continued until [ pro~ a new Design Review and
Vazie.q¢c ApplicatiolLs with the time tramca allowed by 1,, w.
Rc:~lxcf~.diy,
FU-MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
R~ot~t,yua~a O~q'4,''~
FORMOSA
TENTATIVE TRACT NO, 15540
-~ :-:}L ii!>"T'2-'-" ::::!" "'
/ " - .....=3:: ..... "Z~' ""'" \'
{,'_ __ ,,~ .j> .
~ ,l '~':- ---~ ... · '- ,rl
~- ............. :~ .o_7;~j "-] ...... "-',/
TENTATIVE TRACT 15540
: TIME EXTENSION CHART"
Action( Extensions) TT15540 I)R and Extensior~ Time Expiration
Variance 99-03
Original Approval '~ Ycars Junc 23, 1995
June 23. 1999 "'~' ""~' '
SB 428. ~ Years June 23, 1997
October 12.1993 ""'i" ,,...i.. -
AB711, I Year June 23. 1998
June 6, 1996 ""1" ,,.~.
City Planner. ,,,.-4.' Expired I Year June 23. 1999
May 14. 1997 * (6/23/98)
* May 5. 1997, Staff received letter from applicant, requesting a one ),'car time extension.
EX/Tz/&/;k 'D "
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 23, 1993
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner
BY: Steve Hayes, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 - FU MA[ LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP - A residential subdivision and design review for the
development' of 159 single family home~ on 24.56 acres of land in
the Medium Residential District (8-1.$ dwelling units p~r acre) of
the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and Development Code areas,
located between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route, west of th~
Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel APN: 207-2||-01, 18
through 21, 3|, 32, and 34. Related Files: Variance 93-03 and
Tree Removal Permit 93-04.
VARIANCE 93-03 - FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - A reques~ to reduce
the minlmtlm building separations from |5 to 8 feet, the minlmum
building-to-curb setbacks from 15 to 10 feet, and the required
common open space area percentage from 35 percent to approximately
10 percent of the total project area for a proposed r~sldential
subdivision of 159 single family lots on 24.56 acres of land in the
M~dfum Residential District (8-1.] d~el[ing units per acre) of the
Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and Development Code areas,
located b,:tween Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route, west of th,~
Cucamonga Creek Floor Control Chann-_l APN: 207-2~|-01, ~8
through 2|, 31, ]2, and ]4. Related Fll.zs: T~ntativc Tr,~ct 15540
and Tree Removal Permit 93-04.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Project Density: 6.5 dwelling units per acre.
B. Surroundin9 Land Use and Zoning:
North - Existing Art Studio and Traffic School; Office
South - Existing apartments and single family residences; Medium
Residential (8-14 dwqlling units per acre)
East Existing Flood Control Channel; Flood Control
we~t Existing mobile home park, apartments, market and vacant land;
Medium Residentl,~l (8-1-1 d~elllng units pec acre)
C- General Plan Oen__l~pations:
Project Site - Medium Renidentlal (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
North - Office
South - Medium Residential
PL~ING CO~3~ISSION STAFF REPORT
~ 15540 & VAR 93-03 - FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIp
June 23, 1993
Page 2
East - Flood Control/utility Corridor
West y Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and Medium
Residential
D. Site Characteristics: The narrow, long, basically rectangular site
contains several building foundations near the center of the site. These
foundations remain from the barrick buildings that served to house Italian
prisoners of war on the property during the later stages of World War
II. The site contains 222 mature trees, 69 of which are potentially
worthy of preservation, according to the Clty's arboricultural
consultant. Curb and gutter exist along the slte's Arrow ROute
frontage. The sine slopes generally from north to south at an average of
3 percent.
E. Parking Calculations:
Num~bcr of Nu..-~bcr of
Type Parking Spaces Spaces
of Use Ratio Required Provided
Single Family 2/unit 3|8 3~8
Residential (unit in garage)
Visitor Parking I/4 units 40
Total 350 449
This number is derived by adding 11 off-street parking bay spaces to
120 stree~ visitor parking spaces available on the main private spLne
street.
ANALYSIS:
A. General: The applicant is proposing to subdivide this site for the
development of 159 single family detached homes. Even though the property
is zoned Medium Residential, the applicant is proposing detached homes
because of market research. Three common open space areas, each
containing a minimum of three ameniris., are provided on-site and arc
equally distributed within the project. Two paste connections from the
north and south common open space areas arc provided for access to the
future regional trail along Cueamong. Creek.
The site is proposed to bc served by private streets with Sated entrances
along the Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route frontages. The private
streets are designed to meet the Clty's minimum width requirements for
local residential streets, but have a reduced parkway width behind the
curb line. The Foothill Boulevard vehicular access also provides ingress
and egress to the Case Voiante Mobile Home Park, i~ediateiy west of the
site. Ultimately, the existing mobile home park access [~ planned to be
PL~N~ING COMMISSION STAFF KEPORT
TT 15540 & VAR 93-03 - FU .~AI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
June 23, 1993
Page 3
eliminated. The new access to Foothill Boulevard will be signalized and
have a median opening to facilitate safe traffic flow'for vehicles leaving
these projects in accordance with the design guidelines and objectives of
the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan.
The proposed residential lots range in size from 3,280 to 7,038 square
feet with an average lot size of approximately 4,545 square feet. Four
floor plans with three elevations each (not including reverse plans) are
proposed. The four plans range in size from 1,202 to 1,817 square feet.
Plan 1 is the only single story floor plan. The largest plan also has a
side-on garage version that will be used along the main vehicular spine to
break up the potentially repctitive streetscape.
B. Variance: In conjunction with the subdivision and design review
applications, the applicant has submitted a Variance application to reduce
the minimum side yard building separations, the minimum building-to-curb
setback and the minimum percentage of common open space throughout the
project. The following analyses describe each part of the Variance
request in detail:
Building Separation Reduction: The applicant is proposing to reduce
the required minimum building separations, from 15 feet to a proposed
minimum of 10 feet, in 86 situations through the project. All of the
reduced separations occur in the side yards between units. A 15-foot
minimum building separation is required per the revised multiple
family development standards (Ordinance No. 465). The intent behind
the 15-foot minimum building separatlon requirement was to create a
proportionally suffLcLent open space between larger, more masslye
multiple unit buildings In attached residential projects. The
multiple family development standards apply to this project since the
site is zoned primarily for multiple family development (Medium
Residential). However, the applicant is proposing to construct a
detached single family project at a density (6.5 dwelling units per
acre) typical of the Low-Medium Residential District. For
comparison, the Low-Medium Residential District allows side yard
building setbacks at a minimum of 5 feet from a shared property line,
thereby allowing adjacent buildings to be separated by 10 feet. Even
though the Development Code allows single family homes 10 feet apart
in the Low and Low-Medium Residential residential zones, the Planning
Commission has expressed that sld~ yards should be increased on a
large percentage of lots to allow for recreational vehicle storage in
a visually concealed area. The applicant has stated that the
Covenants, Codes and Restrictions for the project will not permit RV
parking. Therefore, since this project takes on the appearance and
flavor of a project typic,ml to the Low-Medium Residential District
and the applicant is addressing an RV storage issue, staff feels that
the granting of the Variance would not b.~ inconsistent with the
objectives of developing small lot, slngle famliy detached
subdivisions within the City. Therefore, staff feels this port[on of
the Variance should be granted.
PLk~NING CO.~.ISSION STAFF P. EPORT
TT 15540 & VAR 93-03 - FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
June 23, 1993
Page 4
2. Building-to-curb Separation: The application proposes to reduce the
minimum building-to-curb setback, from 15 feet to a minimum Of
8 feet, in 26 situations throughout the project. All of the
situations are in the front yards where the larger, two-story units
are plotted on internal cul-de-sac lots. This standard was also part
of the new multiple family standards. The intent behind the 15-foot
building-to-curb separation was to allow for a landscape area
sufficient for specimen size trees to provide an immediate softening
for the larger scale, multiple unit residential buildings. Since the
applicant is proposing detached homes at a maximum height of two
stories the bulk of the homes will be less than the typical multiple
unit residential building. Therefore, staff feels that the intent
behind the building-to-curb setback does not apply in this
situation. Despite this, the applicant will be providing full front
yard landscaping (a minimum of two trees per front yard, four trees
per corner lot, not including street trees) in each Individual
yard. Staff believes that the intent of the 15-foot building-to-curb
setback should not apply to detached single family projects in
multiple family residential zones; therefore, this portion of the
Variance should be granted.
3. Common Open Space: The applicant is proposing to reduce the common
open space area from 35 to approKimateiy 10 percent of the total net
project area. The applicant contends that their project provides
sufficient open space but, given the product type, a majority of the
open space is located in individual private yards. The Development
Code Table requires pro~ects in the Medium Residential zone to have a
minimum of 35 percent common open space and a total of 40 percent
total open space within project boundaries. The proposed project,
despite having only 10 percent common open space, has approxin~teLy
50 percent of the net area in private open space, which amounts to
60 percent total open space, or 20 percent more than the total open
space required for this zone. Furthermore, the total number of
common open space amenitles (5) required for a ~59 unit residential
project is proposed in the three common open space areas. Staff
believes that the applicant has met the intent of the multiple family
standards by providing the necessary number of common open space
amenities required for multiple family projects in a single family
project. In addition, the abundance of private open space typical of
a detached residential subdivision adequately substitutes for the
loss of cordmen open space area. Therefore, this portion of the
variance should be supported.
Pre-Application Workshop: The Planning Commission reviewed a conceptual
site plan, similar to what is now proposed, at a Pre-Appiicatlon workshop
on June 4, 1992. Generally, the Commission felt the "cluster court" cui-
de-sac concept was an acceptable design on this irregularly shaped site,
but suggested that those units that front onto the main vchicul,~r spine be
varied to a greater extent (i.e., duplex buildings, single story units,
PLkNNING COmmISSION STAFF ~SPORT
TT 15540 ~ VAR 93-03 - FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
June 23, 1993
Page 5
etc.) to eliminate the prominence of garages and introduce a greater
variety of side yard building separations in these areas. In response,
the developer provided ~reater front setback variation and introduced a
Plan 4 side-on garage plotting on ten lots along the main spine. For
further details of this meeting, please refer to the attached Minutes
(Exhibit "L") dated June 4, 1992.
D. Neighborhood Meeting: On May 10, 1993, a neighborhood meeting was held to
allow property owners in the immediate vicinity of the site an opportunity
to review the proposal prior to the Planning Commission public hearing.
No objection to the design of the project was raised by attendsos of this
meeting.
E. Design Review Committee: The Committee (Vailsite, Moleher, Coleman)
reviewed the project on two occasions, most recently on May 4, 1993. At
that meeting, the Committee recommended approval of the project subject to
the following conditions:
1. The Plan 2 elevations should be modified to include stone/brick
veneer against the back wall of the porch, instead of false
window/shutter elements, and wrap around corners to the side return
walls.
2. The chimney caps should be palnted to match the chimney stack co[or.
3. Adequate lighting for the co~on open space areas should be provided
to improve functionality and safety, to the s~tisfaction of the
Planning Division and R,~Ilcho Cucamongd Police Department.
4. The design of the on- and off-street visitor parking areas should be
rcvie.~ed and approved by the Planning DIvision prior to the issuance
of building permits.
5. The curved planter walls, along the streetscape frontages, should be
extended further in both directions, which will take on the
appearance of walls gradually blending into the endelating bermlng.
The specific design should be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Division prior to the issuance of grading permits.
6. The units on Lots 34, 131, and 132 should be set back further from
the recreation areas to the satisfaction of the Planning Division.
7. The final grading plan should be revlsed to indicate a lower
combination block/retaining wdll and lower building p,]ds for Lots
through 8, consistent with the revlsc(I grading exhlblt shown at the
meeting.
8. Individual flag lot driveways should be "necked down" to a maximum
width of ~2 fe~t at the driveway appro,%ch and Include decorativ~
pavement banding to the satisfdction Of the Planning Division.
PLI~NING COmmISSION STAFF RSPORT
TT 15540 & VAR 93-03 - FU ~I LIMITED PARTNERSHIp
June 23, 1993
Page 6
9. Sectional roll-up garage doors and automatic garage door openers
should be provided on all models.
70. Retaining walls should be composed of decorative masonry materials
and be limited to a maximum height of 4 feet.
Decorative paving materials, such as interlocking concrete pavers,
should be utilized at all key pedestrian crossings, off street
visitor parking areas, common open space areas, entrances to cul-de-
sac streets, long driveways on flag lots, and at project entrances.
12. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape area should be provided between
corner side yard walls and sidewalks along the spine street.
~3. The visitor parking area outside the Foothill Boulevard entrance gate
should be screened from view of the major arterial through the use of
berming, dense landscaping, low walls or any combination thereof, to
the satisfaction of the Planning Division.
]4. Wood fencing should be treated with a water sealant.
AIi of the items have been incorporated into the attached Resolutions of
Approval for the project.
F. Technical Review Co,=hitter: On April 2], 1993, the Technical Review
Comunittee reviewed the pro]cot and det.=rmined that, with the recommended
conditions of approval, the project is consistent with all applicable
standards and ordinances. The Grading Committee reviewed and conceptually
approved the project a[ its meeting on April 20, %993.
G. Tree Removal: In conjunction with the Tentative Tract Map, the applicant
has submitted Tree Removal Permit No. 93-04 for the re~oval of 177 Of the
222 mature trees on the property. An arborist report was prepared for the
site and recon=nended that 69 of the 222 mature trees remain on the
property because they were in good health and a valuable natural
resource. Prior to the Design Rcview Committee meetings, the applicant
was proposing to remove 31 of these 69 trees. The primary reasons for the
applicant's proposing to remove these 31 "conflict" trees were poor
str-acture, proximity to other trees proposed for preservation in place,
and the cost Or infeasibllity of reIDcat[on. In walking the entire site
with the development team, staff and the landscape architect concurred
that it would be feasible to preserve 46 trees on the property.
Therefore, only 23 of the 69 trees originally reco~n,~ndcd for preservation
would ~= removed. A totdl Of 176 trees on the site will require
replacement planting per the CLty Tree Preservation Ordinance. Staff
r~commended conditions of approvol pertaining to tre~ preservation and
replacement are included [n the attached Besolutfon of Approval for the
subdivision map.
PLANNING COmmISSION STAFF REPORT
~ 15540 & VAR 93-03 - FU .HAl LIMITED PARTNERSHIp
June 23, 1993
Page 7
H. Historic Preservation Commission: On May 11, 1993, the Historic
Preservation CoGTaission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
historic significance of the Cucamonga Labor Camp site, used primarily
during the later stages of World War II as an Italian prisoner of war
camp. The Commission recordmended that the site be designated a local
historic point of interest and commemorated through the p lacemeat of
placards within the rock wall pilasters near the guard gate entrances at
Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route and the main recreation area. The City
Council approved this action at their meeting on June 2, 1993.
I- Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed
by the applicant. Staff has completed Part If, the Environmental
Checklist, and found that there could be a significant noise impact on
residents if sound attenuation devices (interior and exterior) are not
incorporated into the project design to screen noise impacts created by
traffic on Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route. An acoustical analysis
study prepared for the site recommended that, in order to mitigate noise
to "safe" levels, that a minimum 6-foot high wall be constructed along
both Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route, along the top of the proposed
streetscape berm~ and/or slopes. These walls are already incorporated
into the conceptual design of the subdivision. Secondly, the project
could have a significant effect on the environment by exposing residents
to the impacts associated with the Red Hill Fault. The northwest portion
of the site is located within the City's Adopted Special Study zone for
the Red Hill Fault. An updated geologic study was provided by the
applicant which concluded, after significant trenching and soll studies,
that the fault did not exist on this site. The City's g~ologfst found the
study sufficient and concurred that the fault could not be in the area of
concern. Thereforc, although the project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there will not b~ a significant effect in this case
because of the mitigation measures included in the project design and
conditions of approval. If the Co~ission concurs, then issuance of a
mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order.
FINDINGS:
A. Tentative Tract Map:
1, The project is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code,
and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan.
2. The project will not be dctrim,~nta[ to the public health or saf0:ty or
cause nuisance or significant adverse envlronmcntal impacts.
3- The projcct's use, su~jivlslon m.]p, and conceptu.ll pl.lns, together
with the conditions of appcov.ll, arc in compiLance with the
applicable provisions of the Development Code and City standards.
PLt'~NING CO~IISSION STAFF REPORT
~ 15540 & VAR 93-03 - FU .~tAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
June 23, 1993
Page 8
B. Design Review:
I. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General
Plan.
2. The proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the
Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site
is located.
3. The proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable
provisions of the Development Code.
4. 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.
C. Variance:
1. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulations would result In practical difficulty or unnecessary
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code.
2. There are eKceptional or eMtraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the
project that do not apply generally to other properties in the same
district.
3. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would dcpr:vc the applicant of privileges enjoyed by
owners of other properties in the same district.
4. The granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties
classified in the same district.
5. The granting of the Variance will not ~. detrimental to public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
CORKESPONDENCE: 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 the adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the
project site, as well as all property owners withln Subare.~ I of the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan. In addition, a neighborhood meeting was held.
RECOmmENDATiON: Staff recommends that the Planning Conm~isslon approve
Tentative Tract 15540, the design review thereof, Variance 93-03, and r~lated
Tree Removal Permit He. 93-04 through adoption of the attached Resolutlons of
Approval with Conditions and issue a mitigated Negative Declaration.
PL~N'NING COb~ISSION STAFF REPORT
TT 15540 ~ VAR 93-03 - FU .~AI LIMITEO PARTNERSHIP
June 23, 1993
Page 9
City Planner
BB:SH:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "B" - Tentative Tract Map
Exhibit "C" - Architectural Site Plan
Exhibit "O" - Detailed Site Plan
Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Landscape Plan
E×hibit "F" - Conceptual Grading Plan
Exhibit "G" - Phasing Plan
Exhibit "H" - Building Elevations
Exhibit "I" - Floor Plans
Exhibit "J*' - H.lin Recreation Area/Amenity Plan3
Exhibit "K" - Variance Justification
Exhibit "L" - Planning Co~lssfon Minutes d.lted June 4, 1992
Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract 15540
~[th Conditions
Resolution of Approval for Design Review for T~nta~ivc
Tract 155-I0 '-'izh CondL[iong
Resolution Of App~ov.]l for Variance 9]-03