HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/07/28 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY JULY 28, 1999 7:00 PM
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chamber
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Chairman McNiel _ Vice Chairman Macias _
Corn. Mannedno __ Com. Stewart B Corn. Tolstoy __
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following Consent Calendar items as expected to be routine and non-
controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without
discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for
discussion.
A. VACATION OF A PORTION OF VICTORIA STREET - WOODSIDE
HOMES - A request to vacate the southerly portion of Victoda Street
west of Etiwanda Avenue fronting Tentative Tract 15915
APN: 207-101-04.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
99-16 - CENTE× HOMES - A review of the detailed site plan and
building elevations for Tract 14379, consisting of 35 single family lots
on 13.48 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling
units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the
northeast corner of Etiwanda and Wilson Avenues - APN: 225-451-01
through 35. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice
their opinion of the related project. Please wa it to be recognized by the Chairman
and address the Commission by stating your name and address. A~ such opinions
shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each prejecL Please sign in after
speaking.
C. 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 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. (Continued from July 14, 1999)
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT 14162 - FAN - A request for an extension of a
previously approved tentative tract map, including design review, for
the development of 17 single family lots on 4.7 acres of land in the Low
Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south
side of 19th Street at the western Cil:y limit - APN: 202-021-37. Staff
has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for
consideration.
E. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 99-03 - CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA - A request to re:quire wireless communication
providers to install facilities that would not interfere with the City's 800
MHz public safety radio communications system.
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-13 .- FOOTHILL PROPERTIES, LLC
- A request for a time extension of a previously approved master plan
for a retail shopping center consisting of design review for 116,394
square feet of leasable space on 11.75 acres of land under the
Community Commercial designation of the Industrial Area Specific
Plan (Subarea 7), located between .';pruce and Elm Avenues on the
south side of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-352-63 through 69.
Related file: Tentative Parcel Map 15044. A Negative Declaration was
adopted for this project in August of 1997. Staff has prepared a
Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
Page 2
· G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15044 - FOOTHILL PROPERTIES, LLC -
A request for a time extension for a previously approved Parcel Map
for the subdivision of 11.75acres of land into 11 parcels in the
Community Commercial designation of the Industrial Area Specific
Plan (Subarea 7), located between Spruce and Elm Avenues on the
south side of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-352-63 through 69.
Related file: Conditional Use Permit 97-13. A Negative Declaration
was adopted for this project in August of 1997. Staff has prepared a
Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
H. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-27- FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP -
A design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a
previously approved Tentative Tract Map 15540 consisting 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, located between Foothill Boulevard and
Arrow Route, west of the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel -
APN: 207-211-01, 18 through 21, 31, 32 and 34. Related
files: Variance 99-06, Tentative Tract 15540, and Tree Removal
Application 93-04.
I. VARIANCE 99-06 - FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP- A request to
reduce the minimum building separations from 15 to 10 feet, the
minimum building-to-curb setbacks from 15 to 8 feet, and the required
common open space area percentage from 35 percent to
approximately 10 percent of the total project area for the proposed
residential subdivision of 159 single family lots on 24.56 acresof land
in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the
Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and Development Code, located
between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route, west of the Cucamonga
Creek Flood Control Channel - APN: 207-211-01, 18 through 21, 31,
32 and 34. Related files: Tentative Tract 15540, Development Review
99-27, and Tree Removal Application 93-04.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place for the general public to addrass the Commission. Items
to be discussed hera are those which do not already appear on this agenda.
VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS
J. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROGRESS - Oral report
Page 3
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an
11:00 p. m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they sha~ be heard only
with the consent of the Commission.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ADJOURN TO A
WORKSHOP IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING IN THE RAINS
ROOM TO HA VE A QUARTERL Y DISCUSSION AND REVIEW
OF DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE.: PROJECTS.
I, Gaff 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 July 22, 1999, at least 72 hours prior to the
meeting per Government Code Section 5~1964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive,
Rancho Cucamonga. ~ ~
Page 4
VICINITY MAP
CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 28, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer
BY: Maria E. Perez, Assistant Engineer
SUBJECT: VACATION OF A PORTION OF VICTORIA STREET - WOODSIDE HOMES -
A REQUEST TO VACATE THE SOUTHERLY PORTION OF VICTORIA
STREET WEST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE FRONTING TENTATIVE TRACT
15915 - APN 207-101-04
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
On January 27, 1999 the Planning Commission conditionally approved Tentative Tract 15915. A
condition of approval of the tentative map required the developer to vacate the south half of Victoria
Street fronting the proposed tract.
The northerly 20' of the south half of the street will be designed as an extension of a pedestrian
access through the Victoria CommUnity. The soulhefty 1Y will be incorporated into the Tract as a
portion of the private equestrian trail.
The utility companies have been notified of the vacation and have requested a 20' wide public utility
easement be reserved across the 3Y wide arch.to be vacated. The northerly 20' will be reserved as
a public utility easement. A lettered lot for pedestrian access over the public utilities easement shall
be dedicated to the City on the final map.
The north half of Victoria Street will be addressed at the time the vacant property north of Tract
15915 develops.
ITEM A
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
V-164 - WOODSIDE HOMES
July 28, 1999
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Comrnission make the finding, through minute action, that the
vacation conforms with the General Plan. This finding will be forwarded to the City Council for
further processing and final approval.
Respectfully submitted,
Dan James
Senior Civil Engineer
DJ:MEP
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map
Exhibit "B"- Vacation Exhibit
. , .-, :., -. , .... ili::_, , : ....... ;!'.,
~,, \:. L -- ' '
.............. ,V1CTORIASTREE'F
, , i "',.: . 'm '.. ! !.L_I '.~ i:-i ,
,'-/-.', --*- ~-, I
0 !,'. ~ ; .'.'~:i: ~,: :'~::
~ . ' ' ' '/.'.".'*'.":-'.';.'.'
" > ',", ' :',, . .:', :'
'.,,,,, ,, . / , . . .... :
',. ,'. , %' ,,. , ; ,, : : ~ : <I: ;
" ... ':, ~ :1'--'
· : ': : ...... . ,'.
,~ ,,:;: ,: : .
::, i ' .. . . ~ ~ ..... ]
i::" ..: :,'
. '. .".',.' .- . .'f ': : [ I
. ,..
--T:BA~ ',E LINE ROAD"' ---:: .......
CITY OF rrEM: V-164
RANCH0 CUCA1VIONGA TrrLE: Vicinity Map
INGINEERING DMSION EXHIBIT:"A"
SOUTHERLy LINt: LOT 15
~ ~ COLONY L,~DS M.B. 2/24
~ TORIA , N8~59'391 STeEET ~o' f Z
VlC >
~ ~ NO~LY UNE ~ 2 ~Y ~S ~T 2 -- /W ~
z B~ 'J'. ~DA B~ 'J', ~A B~ 'J* ~DA Q
h CO~ ~DS l.B. 2/24 CO~ ~DS M.B. 2/24 CO~ '~DS M B 2/24
" ,~
CITY OF ~ ITEM: V-164
RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: Victoria Street
ENGINEERING DIVISION Vacation
EXHIBIT: "B'
CITY OI: RANCFIO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 28, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner
BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-16 -
CENTEX HOMES - A review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for
Tract 14379, consisting of 35 single family lots on 13.48 acres of land in the Low
Residential district (24 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan,
located on the northeast corner of Etiwanda and Wilson Avenues - APN: 225451 -
01 through 35.
SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site is located on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of
Wilson Avenue. Tract 14139 is located to the north and Tract 12659 is located to the south (both
of these tracts were developed by Centex Homes). Master Craft Homes is currently building homes
on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue. The project site is currently vacant and was rough graded
several years ago.
ANALYSIS:
A. Backqround: On September 28, 1988, the Planning Commission approved Tract 13527 for
the subdivision of 88 acres into 252 single family lots. Prior to tract recordation and design
review, Tract 13527 was broken down into smaller tracts of which the subject tract is a part.
Tract 14379 has been recorded.
B. General: Four home plans are proposed. Plan 1 is a single story and Plan~2 through 4 are
two-story homes. They range in size from 2,276 to 3,491 square feet. The four floor plans
have three elevations each, which are designed to reflect the architectural styles of the
Etiwanda North Specific Plan; Ranch style - Elevation A, Monterey style-Elevation B, and
San Juan style - Elevation C. The intersection of Wilson and Etiwanda Avenues is
designated as a Neighborhood Entry per the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, which has
special design criteria.
C. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee
(Stewart, Tolstoy, Henderson) on June 1, 1999 and the Design ReviewCommittee
requested significant design revisions to the project. The revised project was subsequently
reviewed by the Design Review Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Henderson) on June 15, 1999
and the Committee requested further design enhancement of the single story home plan.
The project was again reviewed by the Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Fong) on July 20, 1999
at which time the Committee recommended approval. Please refer to the attached Design
Review Action Agendas for further details.
ITEH B
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 99-16 - Centex Homes
July 28, 1999
Page 2
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING: Due to the infill nature of the proposed project, the developer
conducted a neighborhood meeting inviting existing homeowners in the area. The meeting was
held on July19, 1999 in the Rains Room. Three individuals artended the meeting; a couple living
in the existing Master Craft project to the 'west and an interested home buyer who lives outside the
City. The couple living in the Master Craft project (southwest corner of North Overlook Drive and
Etiwanda Avenue) expressed concern about the two story home on lot 11 blocking their view. Note
that the City does not ha~,e a view preservation ordinance. Furthermore, the home on Lot t I is
plotted approximately 14 feet lower than the couple's home. While the two story home will be visible
from the north, it will not significantly block a view of the valley. The interested home buyer said
that the one story home design appeared "blah" and requested more brick/stone work and use of
french doors to exit to the rear yard.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The applicant prepared Part I of the Environmental Checklist.
Staff completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and found that certain environmental
conditions have changed since the original project approval. The project site is located in an area
identified as potential habitat for endangered or threatened species. A habitat survey was required
to determine quality of on site habitat, presence of threatened or endangered species, and potential
impacts, particularly to the federally-listsd threatened California gnatcatcher (CAGN) and the
endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR). The results of the survey indicate that the site
does not contain habitat for these species nor is the site occupied by either of the two species.
Since the species are not likely to occur on the site, further development of the site would not have
a negative impact on the species. Based upon this information, the proposed development will not
result in adverse effects to endangered or threatened species or their habitat_.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development
Review 99-16 through adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration
of environmental impacts.
Respectfully submitted,
City Planner
BB:TG:Is
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Grading Plan
Exhibit "D" - Landscape Plan Floor Plans
Exhibit "E" - Floor Plans
Exhibit "F" - Elevations
Exhibit G" - Design Review Committee Action
Exhibit "H" - Initial Study
Resolution of Approval
TRACT MAP NO. 14379
~
3 BEDROOM / DEN / 2 BATH
3 CAR C;ARAC,[
PLAN 1 - 2276 ,SQ. FT.
Ba~.OOM / LC~T *
'1/2 BATH
3CAR GARaGE
PLAN 2 - 3041 SO. FT.
4 I].cJ:)ROOM / BONUS
DEN / 3 BATH
3CAR. GA~GI~
PLAN 3 - 3419 SQ. FT.
4 B~DROOM ! TEN ROOM
m,~ / ~ ~/~ .^~ PLAN 4 - 3504 SQ. FT.
:,:!; ,,..,,!,, :.;,;/:' ~"o.
PLAN 1A - 2276 SQ. FT. RANCH
PLAN 1B - 2276 SQ. FT. MONTI REY
..... · ~ ~..
~ / / ~ / ~,. ~o~
PLAN ~C - 2276 S~, FT.
SAN JUAN
o ,__ GHT
,.,,_ _: :: _':.'2::. , ........... ',
, ,,.oo0 corm : I
..v e- ~ ~ LEFT
: Im[ ~ ~ ' ~
~ .. ......
PLAN 2A - 3041 SQ. FT. RANCH
~, ~. c~v m LEFT
.... '~~~
:::.~:: ...... ~~~ ~'~
~.' REAR ~ o. ] FRONT
PLAN 2B - 3041 S~. FT.
MONTEREY
~ CC~,~:~T~ 'S' TLE Y.OPt. t~CX , J!__ RIGHT ,
w 6' ~v ~ LEFT
"~ REAR '~ c~ ,.~ ~J~ FRONT"'
PLAN 2C - 3041 SQ. FT.
SAN JUAN
-'-- .,[
~ ' t' ::: '::F: :: \ z. RIGHT
~1 C(,hCR.[T[ fiAT TIJE Z. FENCE
I ~'~ ~ :;~ ;, " ~ . ...
v s~co st~ c~ m~ LEFT
,., . , , ','.' ~.,.~._... ~.,
PLAN ]A - 3419 Sq. FT,
RANCH
":*'L, z ....... ~ RIGHT
' .
LEFT
PLAN 3B - 3419 SQ. FT. MONTEREY
~ ~ ' ~' B RIGHT
· CONOLrIE RAT rLE Z. Frd~'CE
C. S~CO
~ ,,.~ ~ ~q ....... :
v s~co s~ c~ -~ LEFT
::~ - : -~ ~: ~ -, ~ ?-~ ....
PLAN 3C - 3419 Sq. FT.
SAN JUAN
~ ~'~o°~,~,~''''' :,, }~,.:
F. S~CCO COtU~N "~'~' ~1 ''
""'~"' ' 8B~ ~~'
~ ~' ~ ~ LEFT
· _ .......;_..,'~
-.. 2:;~} _.,: ,...
c REAR Y. ~ / c ~J FR
PLAN 4A - 3504 SQ. FT.
RANCH
RIGHT
"' .................. .-gE' "
· " f?'~ ~ , . ..Z ..~
PLAN 4B - 3504 SQ. FT. MONTEREY
"
"' o.~
PLAN 4C - 3504 SO. SAN JUAN
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:20 p.m. Brent Le Count June 1, 1999
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-03 - CENTEX HOMES - A review of the detailed site plan and
building elevations for Tract 14379, consisting of 35 single family lots on 13.48 acres of land in the
Low Residential district (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Nodh Specific Plan, located
on the northeast corner of Etiwanda and Wilson Avenues - APN: 225-451-01 through 35.
Desiqn Parameters: The project site was initially approved as Tract 13527 which provided for the
subdivision or 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 has been recorded.
The proposed architecture is based upon homes approved and built within Tract 12659 (Etiwanda
Estates) located on the west side or Etiwanda Avenue, south of the subject site. The home designs
are similar to those recently approved for Mastercraft Homes (Tract 14380) on the west side of
Etiwanda Avenue, in terms of use of materials and basic massing. However, the side and rear
elevations of the proposed homes do not have the same level of window treatment (enhanced trim,
shutters, divided light), balconies, or decorative trim approved for the Mastercraft homes (see
attached examples). Four home plans are proposed - Plan 1 is a single story and Plans 2 through
4 are two-stories, ranging in size from 2,276 square feet to 3,491 square feet. The four floor plans
have three elevations each designed to reflect the architectural styles of the Etiwanda North Specific
Plan; Elevation A - Ranch, Elevation B - Monterey, and Elevation C o San Juan. The intersection
of Wilson and Etiwanda Avenues is designated as a Neighborhood Entry per the Etiwanda North
Specific Plan which has special design criteria.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Coi~mittee
discussion.
Major Issues: There are no design issues associated with the current development application:
1. Upgrade side and rear elevations to include enhanced window treatment (decorative trim.
shutters, divided light), balconies, decorative trim features, cornice details, used on front
elevations.
2. Provide greater variation/distinction between Ranch, Monterey, and San Juan architectural
styles for all home plans, especially on side and rear elevations.
3. The Neighborhood Entry treatment at the corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue
should be designed to match as closely as possible the latest preferred design for the
opposite side of Etiwanda Avenue to be developed by Master Craft Homes. This would
mainly involve revising wall design to provide greater change of plane dimensions. See
attached plan excerpts. The applicant is strongly encouraged to work with Master Craft
Homes to develop a coordinated design for the Neighborhood Entry.
Secondary Issues: Once all the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary issues:
1. Reorient homes on wedge shaped lots to be parallel to a property line to provide more
useable side and rear yard area and variation in street scape.
2. Retaining walls shall not exceed a height of 3 feet within front yard areas visible from
surrounding streets and 4 feet elsewhere.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 99-03- CENTEX
June 1. 1999
Page 2
3. Wood fencing may be used to separate side and rear yard areas behind front return walls only
where the fencing will not be visible from surrounding streets. Those at top of slope and any
other area visible from surrounding streets shall be decorative masonry or wrought iron with
pilasters.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and brought back for further
review.
Attachments
Desiqn Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Pare Stewart, Peter Tolstoy, Larry Henderson
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
The Committee (Stewart, Tolstoy, Henderson) reviewed the project and requested that the project
be redesigned in light of staffs comments and the following additional comments and be brought
back for further review. The applicant agreed to revise the project design accordingly:
1. Upgrading of side and rear elevations should include increased pop-outJchange of plane
dimensions.
2. Provide a Plan 1 home on Lot 10 and Lot 24.
3. Return wall gates facing streets shall be wrought iron or other decorative material other than
wood.
4. The applicant shall work with Master Craft Homes to develop a coordinated Neighborhood
Entry design.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:50 p.m. Brent Le Count June 15, 1999
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-03 - CENTEX HOMES - A review of the detailed site plan and
building elevations for Tract 14379, consisting of 35 single family lots on 13.48 acres or land in the
Low Residential district (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located
on the northeast corner of Etiwanda and Wilson Avenues - APN: 225-451-01 through 35.
PLANS AND COMMENTS FOR THE ABOVE PROJECT WILL BE PRESENTED AT THE
MEETING,
Desiqn Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
The Committee reviewed revised plans based upon comments from the June 1, 1999 Design
Review Committee meeting. The Committee accepted the two-story home designs (Plans 2 thru
4) but had the following Comments:
1. At least 20 percent of two-story homes shall have balconies on the rear elevation. These
shall be located along Ihe south and west project perimeter where rear elevations of two-
story homes are visible from Wilson and Etiwanda Avenues.
2. The single story home plan (Plan 1 ) is overly boxy and does not have enough variation
between the three styles (Ranch. Monterey, San Juan).
a, Provide clipped gables for the Monterey plan.
b. Raise height of s~ucco wainscoting on the San Juan Io the mid point of the large
window and fur out wainscoting.
c. Add decorative wall feature to right of main window on front elevation 8_f Ranch plan.
d. Use decorative trim cap for Ranch plan stone wainscoting,
e. decorative porch railing/pilasters for front of Ranch plan.
f. Add decorative buttress on left side of front elevation of San Juan plan.
3. Return walls between homes shall be stuccoed and colored to match Ihe homes. Color
changes shall occur at interior corners where walls jog at properly lines.
4. Rear yard fencing visible from pubtic streets, whether interior or perimeter, shall be
decorative masonry or wrought iron instead of wood.
5. The Committee may be open to allowing wood gates facing streets if it can be
demonstrated that they will be visually attractive. Provide design sketches/photographs
accordingly.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:40 p.m. Brent LeCount July 20, 1999
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-16 - CENTEX HOMES: A review of the detailed site plan and
building elevations for Tract 14379, consisting of 35 single family lots on 13.48 acres of land in the
Low Residential district (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located
on the northeast corner of Etiwanda and Wilson Avenues - APN: 25-241-01 through 35.
Backqround: The Committee has previously reviewed this project on June 1 and 15, 1999.
Previously the Committee has accepted the proposed design of the two-story plans with added
conditions which have been previously outlined. The focus of the review at this time is the single-
story plan (Plan 2276) in response to cornments provided on June 15, 1999. Copies of the June
15, 1999 Design Review Committee Action, and a letter from the applicant are attached for
reference.
The applicant has provided a photograph of an existing home which contains similar roof line,
building relief and shadow as the proposed Plan 2276. The photograph is not intended to portray
any of the specific elevations proposed with this tract.
Staff Comments: The staff comments provided for Committee consideration and discussion are
based on the Design Review Committee Action on June 15, 1999. Variations to each of the three
architectural styles - Ranch, Monterey, and San Juan - were suggested, The applicant will provide
colored elevations responding to these comments at the meeting on July 20, 1999.
Ranch
1. Add decorative wall feature to right of main window on front elevation of Ranch plan. The
applicant has added stone veneer with a decorative niche to this wall in response to
Committee comments,
2. Decorative porch railing/pilasters fcr front of Ranch plan, The applicant has added a stone
pilaster and decorative wrought iron porch rail to the front of the elevation,
3. Use decorative trim cap for Ranch plan stone wainscoting. The applicant has proposed the
use of a wood trim as a cap to the wainscoting as shown on the plans,
Monterey
1. Provide clipped gables for the Monterey plan. The applicant has revised the plan as
suggested.
San Juan
1. Raise height of stucco wainscot on the San Juan plan to the mind point of the large window,
and fur out wainscot. The wainscot detail has been modified based on Committee
comments,
2. Add decorative buttress on the left side of the front elevation of the San Juan plan. The
modifications to the San Juan plan has been modified to include the buttress element
across the entire elevation.
Finally, the Committee, discussed allowing wood gates facing the streets, if the design could rove
to be visually attractive, The applicant will provide design sketches and/or photographs for
Committee review and discussion.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 99-16 - CENTEX HOMES
July 20, 1999
Page 2
Desiqn Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
The Committee recommended approval subject to the following:
1. The wainscoting trim cap for Plan 1 Ranch style home shall be stuccoed over for durability.
2. At least 20 percent of homes shall have second story balconies. Balconies shall be located
on homes along Wilson Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue.
3. Between home return walls shall be stuccoed on both sides with color matching the home
on each lot.
4. Gates facing the street shall be decorative wrought iron instead of wood.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: Development Review 99-16
2. Related Files: Final Tract 14379
3. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW 99-16 - CENTEX HOMES - A review of the detailed site plan and building
elevations for Tract 14379, consisting of 35 single family lots on 13.48 acres of land in the
Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan,
located on the northeast corner of Etiwanda and Wilson Avenues - APN: 225-451-01
through 35.
4. Project Sponsor°s Name and Address:
Armando Townsend
Centex Homes
2280 Wardlow Circle, Suite 150
Corona, CA 91720
5. General Plan Designation: Low Residential
6. Zoning: Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre). Etiwanda North Specific Plan
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
North - Vacant
South - Existing residential development
East - Vacant
West - Existing and under-construction single family homes (Mastercra~)
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: None
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-16 for 'IT 14379 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 (v') Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Sentices
( ) Population and Housing (v') Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Sentice Systems
(V') Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (V') Aesthetics
( ) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources
( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation
(v') Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment.
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. or agreed to. by the applicant. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment. but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation IncoFp_orated." 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:mitigatiOn ~posed project.
Brent Le Count, AICP
Associate Planner
June 24. 1999
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-16 for TT 14379 Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IIVlPACTS
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? ( ) ( )
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community? ( ) ( )
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Wou/d the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed o~cial regional or local
population projections? ( ) ( ) ( )
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)? ( ) ( ) ( )
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( ( ) ( )
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in
or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) (V) ( )
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) (V) ( )
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-16 forTT 14379 Page 4
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) (V) ( )
d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( )
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( )
0 Erosion, cfianges in topography, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) (V) ( )
g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( )
h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( )
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( )
Comments:
a) The subject tract is pa~ of a large, original "parent tract." Tract 13527. In completing
the Environmental Checklist for the original subdivision in 1988, staff identified that
the site may be subject to significant adverse impacts as a result of a location of the
Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone for the Red Hill Fault which transverses the site
from noaheast to southwest. The applicant had conducted a geologic investigation
which located a fault trace along the east bounda~ of the project, in the area of
proposed Bermuda Coud. ~th the fault trace being identified, a 50-foot building
setback on either side of the fault was recorded on the final tract map (Tract 14379)
to indicate locations where buildings could be safely constructed. With the setback
included as pad of the subdivision, a Negative Declaration was issued for Tract
13527. The subject Development Review application is designed in conformance
with the 50-foot building setbacks from the fault line.
b) See "a" above.
c) See "a" above.
I 0 The site was rough graded by a previous home builder. The topography of the site
will be fu~her altered to accommodate the proposed street improvements and
residential buildings. Grading will be supeNised by a licensed soils engineer or
registered geologist to ensure compliance with building code requirements. This
impact is not considered to be significant.
4. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (V) ( )
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-16 for TT 14379 Page 5
b) Exposure of people or properly to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( )
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g, temperature,
dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) (V)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ( )
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ( ) ( )
0 Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations, or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) (V)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater othe~ise available for public water
supplies? ( ) ( ) ( )
Comments:
a) The absorption and runoff rates will be altered due to the hard scape proposed;
however, drainage will be directed to facilities designed to handle the flows. The
impact is not considered significant.
5. AIR QUALI~. Would the proposah
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( (V)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( (V)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ( ) ( )
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) (V)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-16 for TT 14379 Page 6
Comments:
a) The site has been rough graded and the short term effect of fine grading and construction
activities on a 13-acre site is anticipated to be less than significant. Standard grading
practice involves use of water for dust control during grading of the site. 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 35 single family homes consistent with the existing land use designation for
the properly, Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North
Specific Plan. 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. Furthermore, Table 6-3 of the same handbook establishes a construction
threshold of 177 acres graded on a quarterly basis and 1,309,000 square feet of residential
construction on a quarterly basis. The proposed 35 home project on 13.48 acres of land is
well below these thresholds. Therefore, air quality impacts are not expected to be
significant.
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (,,,') ( )
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) (,/)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ( ) ( )
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) . ( ) (~/)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) - ( )
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) (V)
g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) (~/)
Comments:
a) The proposed development will result in the development of a total of 35 single
family units which will generate additional passenger car and truck trips. The
proposed density of development and its traffic impacts were factored into the
design of the street system.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-16 for TT 14379 Page 7
.... '7:;:"'
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. ~uld the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats (including. but not limited to: plants, fish.
insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) (~) ( )
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees,
eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g,
eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) (~) ( )
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and
vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
e) ~ld~ife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
Comments:
a) The project site is located in an area identified as potential habitat for endangered
or threatened species. The site has been rough graded and the vegetation cleared
circa 1990; therefore, the potential for habitat is ve~ low. A habitat assessment was
required to determine potential impacts, padicularly to the federally-listed threatened
California Gnatcatcher (CAGN) and the endangered San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
(SBKR). The habitat assessment was conducted by Natural Resource Consultants
in June of 1999. The high level of site disturbance has added to the presence of
non-native plants. No California Gnatcatchers, Kangaroo Rat or rat sign or any
sensitive plant species were obse~ed. The species is not likely to occur on the site
and furlher development of the site is not expected to have a negative impact on the
species. No additional su~eys were recommended.
c) See "a" above.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal.'
a) Conflict with adopted energy consedation
plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
ine~cient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-16 for TT 14379 Page 8
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 emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) )
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fiammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( )
10. NOISE. W/I/the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( )
b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-16 for TT 14379 Page 9
d) Maintenance of public facilities. including roads? ( ) ( ) (
e) Other governmental seaices? ( ) ( ) (
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need 8r new .systems or supplies or
substantial alterations to the follo~ving utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ( } ( )
b) Communication systems? ( ) ( )
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( ) ( )
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ) ( )
e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ) ( )
O Solid waste disposal? ( ) ) ( )
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( )
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposah
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
( ) (v)
c) Create light or glare? (
Comments:
c) New light and glare impacts will be created with the residential development of the
vacant site. The residential development and associated street lights will be
checked to ensure compliance with City policies relative to avoiding the casting of
excess light and glare onto adjacent pmpedies.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-16 for TT 14379 Page 10
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah
a) Disturb paleontotogical resources? ( ) ( ) ( (~)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( (~)
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (Y)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
( ) ( ) ( ) (V)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( )
15. RECREATION. Would the proposah
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( )
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( )
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 impo~ant examples of the major
periods of California histo~ or prehisto~? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
-Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-16 forTT 14379 Page 11
b) Sho~ term: Does the project have the potential
to achieve sho~-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A shod-term
impact on the environment is one which occurs
in a relatively brief, definitive period of time.
Long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.) ( ) ( ) ( )
c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) (¢) ( )
d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have
environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( )
Comments:
c) Adoption of the proposed project will not have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable. The proposed project will pay development impact
fees established by the City, the rates of which have been designed to mitigate the
potential impacts to fire protection se~ices, police protection se~ices, parks or other
recreational facilities, and other governmental se~ices to a level of non-significance.
To the e~ent, the project may impact upon utility resources provided by private utility
companies, potential impacts upon such resources will be mitigated~y the payment
of rates and charges to these companies.
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following
earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division o~ces, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply):
(V) General Plan EIR
(Cedified April 6, 1981 )
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-16 for 'IT 14379 Page 12
(v')Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115. certified January 4, 1989)
(v') Etiwanda Nodh Specific Plan EIR
(SCH #89012314, cedified April 1, 1992)
City of Rancho Cucamonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: Development Review 99-16 Public Review Period Closes: July 28, 1999
Project Name: Project Applicant: Centex Homes
Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the northeast corner of Etiwanda and Wilson
Avenues - APN: 225-451~01 through 35.
Project Description: AreviewofthedetailedsiteplanandbuildingelevationsforTract14379, consisting
of 35 single family lots on 13.48 acres of land in the Low Residential Distdct (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of
the Etiwanda North Specific Plan.
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an
Initial Study to detern~ine 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 signil~cant
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.
July 28, 1999
Date of Determination Ad~eTL~y~
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW 99-16 FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE
PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR TRACT 14379 CONSISTING OF
35 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, LOCATED EAST 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: 225-451-
01 THROUGH 35
A. Recitals.
1. Centex Homes has filed an application for Development Review 99-16 for Tract
No. 14379, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Development Review request is referred to as "the application."
2. On July 28, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a
meeting to consider the application.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part "A," of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting on July 28, 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 district 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 facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration.
together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the
application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration, based upon the
findings as fo,,ows:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 99-16 - CENTEX HOMES
July 28, 1999
Page 2
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 or the habitat upon which wildlife
depends. Further. based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the
staff reports and exhibits, and the inforrnation 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.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below
and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Planninq Division:
1) All applicable conditions of approval of Tentative Tract 13527, as
stated in Planning Commission Resolutions 88-200 and 88-200A and
as stated in Planning Commission Resolution 91-145 shall apply.
2) Avoid having combined retaining walls with fence walls above. Provide
minimum 3-foot wide terrace between walls with landscaping.
3) Revise driveway profiles for Lots I and 3 to eliminate narrow strips of
15% grade to provide smoother profile.
4) Provide wrought iron fencing or a combination of decorative masonry
with wrought iron fencing above at the end of the Bahama Coud cul-
de-sac between return walls on Lots 24 and 25.
5) Provide a minimum useable rear yard depth of 15 feet for all homes.
6) The design of the landscaping and walls at the neighborhood entry at
the corner of Wilson Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue shall match that
across the street being installed by Mastercraft Homes as much as
possible in terms of wall height, alignment, materials, and plant
materials.
7) At least 20 percent of homes shall have second story balconies on the
rear elevation. These shall be located along the south and west
project perimeter where rE;at elevations of two-story homes are visible
from Wilson and Etiwanda Avenues.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 99-16 - CENTEX HOMES
July 28, 1999
Page 3
8) Return walls between homes shall be stuccoed on both sides and
colored to match the homes. Color changes shall occur at interior
corners where walls jog at property lines.
9) Rear yard fencing visible from public streets, whether interior or
perimeter, shall be decorative masonry or wrought iron instead of
wood.
10) Gates facing the street shall be decorative wrought iron instead of
wood.
11 ) Retaining walls shall not exceed a height of 3 feet within front yard
areas visible from surrounding streets and 4 feet elsewhere.
12) Use stucco over trim for wainscoting cap for Plan I ranch style home.
Enqineerinq Division:
1) All applicable conditions of approval of Tentative Tract 13527, as
stated in Planning Commission Resolutions 88-200 and 88-200A and
as stated in Planning Commission Resolution 91-145 shall apply.
2) The developer shall complete all frontage improvements, including the
Wilson Avenue median and the Community Trail along the east project
boundary. Since the public improvement plans are more than a year
old, they will need to be rechecked for consistency with current City
Standards and the Landscape Maintenance District plans shall be
updated in line with present policies.
3) Provide gated maintenance vehicle access to Community Trail from
Etiwanda Avenue as well as Wilson Avenue.
4) The lots backing onto the Community Trail along the east tract
boundary are draining to a cross lot drainage facility located outside
the perimeter block wall. Plans submitted for grading permit plan
check shall provide details to show how lot runoff will get though said
wall. Also. include a detail to show how sump overflows within the
storm drain easement on Lot 33 will pass through the perimeter wall to
Wilson Avenue.
Fire Prevention:
1) All homes shall be protected with fire sprinklers to the satisfaction of
the Fire Prevention/New Construction Unit.
4. The Secretary to this Commission shall cedify the adoption of this Resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTI(::)N NO.
DR 99-16 - CENTEX HOMES
July 28, 1999
Page 4
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF JULY 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. -McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Bullet, 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 28th day of July 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: Development Review 99-16
SUBJECT: Residential Design REview
APPLICANT: Centex Homes
LOCATION: NEC Wilson Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909)477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
General Requirements Completion Dale
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 Etiwanda North Specific Plan.
sc .~4~ 1
Project No
Completion Date
2. 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.
3. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be / /
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
4. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for / /
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading. tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.) or prior to final map approwll in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved
use has commenced, whichever comes first.
5. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code / /
all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
6. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc.. shall be / /
located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete
or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single
family residential developments. transformers shall be placed in underground vaults.
7. The Covenants, Conditions. and Restrictions (CC&Rs) 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&Rs.
8. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the __/ /
Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions
and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the
City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the
name and address of their officers on or before Januar7 1 of each and every year and whenever
said information changes.
9. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the.property
owner. homeowners' association, or other rneans 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.
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 feet, 6 inches above grade.
12. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant.
13. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-fi}ot setback between waits/fences and sidewalk.
Pn0ject NO.
Comptetlon Date
14. For residential development, return walls. corner side walls, and walls visible from the street shall
be decorative masonry.
15. For residential development, recreation area/facility shall be provided as required by the
Development Code.
16. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be reap river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured
products.
D. Building Design
1. All dwellings shall have the front. side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment,
detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
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.
3. All roof appurtenances. including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or
projections. shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such 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. Landscaping
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan. including slope planting and model home landscaping
in the case of residential development. shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior
final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2. All private slopes of 5 feet or 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.
3. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 c;cgreater
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area. 1 -gallon or larger size
shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks
in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or
larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in
staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall
include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
4. For single famity residential development, all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously
maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold
and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be
conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition.
5. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development
Code and/or the Etiwanda Specific Plan. This requirement shall be in addition to the required
street trees and slope planting.
Project NO
Completion Date
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. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering
sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required at the corner of
Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue per the neighborhood entry requirements of the Etiwanda
North Specific Plan.
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. 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.
F. Environmental
1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock
Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash
deposit on any property.
2. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the fault trace at the
northeast corner of the site, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to
accepting a cash deposit on any property.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
G. General Requirements
1. Submit four complete sets of plans including the following:
a. Site/Plot Plan;
b. Foundation Plan;
c. Floor Plan;
d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan;
e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size
of service entrance conductors. panel schedules, and single line diagrams;
f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste
diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air
conditioning; and
g. Planning Division Project Number (i.~;., 'FF #, CUP #, DR #, etc.) clearly identified on the
outside of all plans.
Project NO
Completion Date
2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. __/__ __
Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal.
3. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. /
4. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage
to the City prior to permit issuance.
H. 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 permit application. Please contact the Building and Safety
Division for availability 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. Applicant shall provide
a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance.
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 all
supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bernardino County Department of
Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic Tank
Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits.
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 or holidays.
I. New Structures
1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances cor~sidering
use, area, and fire-resistiveness.
2. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions.
3. Roofing materials shall be Class "A."
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 geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the
time of application for grading plan check.
Project NO
Completion Date
4. The ~nal grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of buiiding permits. __/__ __
5. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for __/___
existing buildings where improvements being proposed wilt generate 50 cubic yards or more of
combined cut and fill The Grading Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California
Registered Civil Engineer.
/
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
K. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. The developer
shaft commence, padicipate in, and consummate or cause to be Commenced, padicipated in, Or
consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (C FD) 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 1,000 gallons per minute.
A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department
personnel prior to water plan approval.
For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants Shall
be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel after
construction and prior to occupancy.
3. Fire hydrants are required. A;t required public or on-site fire hydrants shaft 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 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.
6. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for aU hydrants and installed prior to final
inspection.
7. 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.
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.
Project NO
Completion Date
"Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers. hood systems, alarms.
etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans.
9. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 URC, UFC, / /
UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15.
sc -~4,s9 7
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-lisled project. This program
has been prepared in compliance with State law ~o 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 significanl 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
c..
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Development Review 98-10
Page 2
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 depadment 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 t0 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 #: Development Review 98-10
SUBJECT: New Sin,~le Family Homes
APPLICANT: Bartart American
LOCATION: E/S Archibald Avenue. N/O Cartart 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 Olle
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 Csty. 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 or 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. Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved
use has not commenced within 5 years from the dale 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 fire 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,
Project NO. DR ~l~{_ I 0
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 approved
use has commenced, whichever comes first.
4. Approval of this request shall not waive cempliance 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
Focated 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.
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, 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.
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 effod 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 projecrs
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 of two '/z-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.
11. 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.
14. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured
products.
D. Building Design
1. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rt;ar 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.
sc .4119n9~ 2
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 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 30% of trees in front yards shall be - 24- inch box or larger.
4. A~~privatesl~pes~f5feet~rm~reinvertica~heightand~f5:1~rgreaters~~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.
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 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.
6. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously
maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold
and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be
conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition.
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 walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas. the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
Project NO, Dt~ ~g- [ O
Completion 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
I characteristics of the selected tree speciE;s.
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 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.
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,
G. 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 dev~Jopments 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 prior 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, Tit~e 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 devE;Iopment 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 Ran Checking Fees, and School Fees.
SC - 4/19/g9 4
Project NO, DR 9S* 10
Completion Oate
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.
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 prior to issuance of building permits.
5. In hillside areas, residential developments shall be graded and constructed consistent with the
standards contained in the Hillside Development Regulations Section 17.24.070.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACTTHE 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, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment
and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map.
Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be
reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map.
2. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards.
L, Street Improvements
1. All public improvements (interior streets. drainage facilities. community trails, paseos, landscaped
areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards.
Interior street improvements shall include. but are not ~imited 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:
SC, 4119/99 5
Archibald Ave.
Carrari Court
Almond Street / ,/ ,/ e ,/ ,/
Almond Coud v'
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. (e) Maintenance vehicle access to Community Trail.
4. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights
on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be
posted and an agreement executed to the 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 lhe City Engineer's Office in addition to any
other permits required.
c. Pavement striping. marking, traffic signing. street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction
project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and
interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside
of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer.
Notes:
(1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200
feet apad, 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. / /
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. 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.
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 thereof) 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 developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone A designation removed
from the project area. The developers engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans, and
hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be
obtained from F EMA 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 District is required for work within its
right-of-way.
O. 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 design~;d 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.
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 flnalization of any development phase. sufficient improvement plans shall be completed
beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the
approved tentative map.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
Q, 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 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 buildeddeveloper 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 prior to delivery of any comb,jstible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing
materials. etc.). Hydrants flushing shall hi; 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 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.
ProlectNo. DRcJ,~-tO
Completion Date
6. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final
inspection.
7. 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.
8. 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.
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 $13200 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 SUBMI'FI'ED DIRECTLY TO THE FIRE PREVENTION
NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT AT TIME OF PLAN SUBMITTAL TO BUILDING AND SAFETY.
Contact the Fire Prevention New Construction Unit located in the Building and Safety Division.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
R. Security Hardware
1. A secondan/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 secondan/locking devices.
S. Windows
1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondan/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.
RiCEIVED: 7-28-99; 11;18; 76Q 918 0638 => R CUCAMONGA COM OEV; #2
United States Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Fx:ological Services
Cadsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
2730 Loker Avenue W~st
Cm'tsbad, California 92008
Brent LcCount JUL P. 8 1999
planning Division
City ofPamcho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Post Office Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91727
Re: Proposed Residential Development by Barratt American on Tentative Tracts 13316 and
15914, Ranthe Cucamonga, San Bernardthe County, California
Dear Mr. LeCount:
This letter responds to your July 20, 1999, facsimile request for comments on two reports involving a
proposed residential development by Barran American on Tentative Tracts 13316 and 15914 in
Rancho Cucamonga, San Bematdino County, California. One report was a habitat assessment for the
fedemily endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas edttha qulno. "Quino'), while the
other report described live-trapping surveys for the fedemily endangered San Bernardtrio kangaroo rat
(DIpodomy~ merriamiparv~, "kangaroo rat") on the subject L,'acts. Because the proposed
development may impact fcderally listed species and their habitat% wc are commenting pursuant to
our responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended, and a Federal
agency under section 15082 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines.
The protocol survey for the kangaroo mt on Tentative Tract 13316 appears adequate, based on the
preliroinary July 18, 1999, report summarizing these surveys, and conversations with hialngists from
Tiorra Madre Consultants, Inc. No kanSaroo rats were captured during the 5-night live-trapping
survey. However, several acres Qfpotential habitat for kangaroo rats on the western portion of this
site were grubbed prior to this survey and without the approval of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
(City). As a result, we recommend that Barratt American offs~ impacts to grubbed sage scrub by
preserving sage scrub at an appropriate ratio (e.g., 3 to I).
The habitat assessment for Quino appaars to I~ adcquat~ if this effort focused on detecting Plantago
and Castilleja plants on the site. If the survey botanist w~s not specifically ~earching for these Quino
host plants, then we recommend an appropriale habitat assessment be conduct~l next spring. The
survey botanist should clarify the focus and rigor of these surveys with regards to Quino host plants.
Recent sighrings have provided insi8hts into the distribution of the federally threatened coastal
California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica, "gnatcatche~") on the Etiwanda alluvial fan
complex, and the importance of this area for the recovery of this subspecies in San Bernardtrio
County. Although protocol surveys conducted during 1998 did not detect the 8natcatcher on the
proposed project site, the habitat is suitable and contiguous with areas where gnatcatchers recently
have been sighted. For example, a gnatcatcher was observed during the 1999 nesting season near the
carthen levees along Etiwnnda Creek, which is approximately 5 miles from Tentative Tract 13316. In
jUL-28-9~ I~'5D [[:25 ~ ~S GIRLSBAD, CA FAX :iO. 750 ~[;E L638
2
addition, a gnatcatcher pair wE obeyed in Febm~ 1~8 i~diatety across I Iighl~d Avenue
from ~e pm~ University developmen~ wi~in h~ilat similar to ~at on T~tive Tnct 13316.
Given ~at g~tcatche~ ~ pass through or rc~upy ~e proj~t ~a at ~y time ~d that pmt~ol
su~eys are valid for only t ye~, ano~er prom~l s~ey for gnatcatchers should be co~uct~d ~forc
any ~ ofsui~ble habi~ a~ di~ctly or indi~ctly imp~t~ by ~e project.
Th~ pm~s~ proj~t hi~igh~ ~veml problems reg~g the imp~ of~ntinuing development
along the Eli~nda fin. Fi~ ~e conelnu~ Io~ of h~ieats eo developmenl may hinder ongoing,
regional mulli-s~i~ pl~ing eftore. Coas~l sage scrub has ~en ~tegorizcd as an endangered
ecosystem (85-98 F~ent declino) by ~c National Biological ~i~, U.S. D~plcnt of In~rior
(~dan~red Eco~ste~ of the United States: ~ Prelimin~ ~essment of ~ ~d ~Fa~tlon.
Biologi~l Rc~a 28, Fcb~a~ 1995). ~c~ c~sys~ms sup~ sevc~l cnd~gc~d and ~atcncd
s~cics, and humerus splits lhat are proposed ~ ~ covc~ in the San Bcm~dino VaH=y Multi-
S~cics Habi~t Con~ation PI~ (MSHCP), including ~c ~cn~t tiger ~ctlc (Ciclndela
wanque~rica virid~sima), co~[ western whi~il (C~mi~p~ tiFis multis~tat~). San
Bcma~o ring-necked ~ (DlMophls~ctat~ m~), ~l fo~ boa (Lichan~a
trlvlrgata r~a~ca), whigtailed ~ (Elan~ leuc~s), S~ Diego black-~il~jac~bbit (~
cal~ornicus bendfilth, ~d ~s ~ge[cs ~kct mou~ (Pero~ath~ Ion~membr~ brevin~).
Hence. p~t~ting ~1 ngc ~mb is ~ obvio~ ~y ~ promote ~ co~cNafion of list~ s~ies
that dc~nd on th~ ccosy~ms for ~eir Iong-tc~ su~ival. ~e cs~blis~cnt of a viable regional
p~sc~c system is vi~l to the su~ival and ~ovc~ offfic fcdc~lly list~ and ~nsi~vc s~ics
mcntion~ a~ve, ~d is a ccn~l goal offfie MSHCP ~at is now in ~e pl~ing stage. As a ~sult,
· e pro~ction of ~maining ~a~l ~ge scrub will ~ a ~gh priority in ~e MSHCP, ~d continued
unmitigated lo~es of hicks of ~gc scrub may affect ~c ~unty's abili~ to develop a viable prc~e
system in ~c future. To ~is~ in ~ MSIICP cffo~ ~e Ci~, a ~l~to~ of the Mcmo~dum of
Unde~nding ~O~ for ~e development of ~c MSHCP, should minimize and mitigate furor
lo~cs offfiis c~sy~cm ~F. Althou~ ~ project site w~ clca~d of native vcgc~tion prior to
1972, coastal ~ge scrub has ~-g~wn over much of~e si~ ~d it ap~ to ~ ~vcring rapidly.
~e diversi~ ~d qualiW offfiia habK~t will I~ely ~ntinue ~o improve if it is le~ undcve[o~
~caus~ it is ~nfiguous ~ one of ~e l~gcst ~malnln8 bloc~ of~ia habi~ ~.
Se~nd, ~ co~a~on m~ur~s pro~s~ by ~ appli~nt ~ not sufficient to offset ~e impac~
to biological ~urccs a~oe[atcd wi~ ~e p~d proj~t, S~ifically, ~c mitigation p~scd by
Barrett Amcric~ is inadequate to off~t impac~ ~ ~ge ~mb. and will con~ibu~c to apct I~ of~is
cnd~ge~ ~c~tcm. Ba~ Amcric~ ~ p~gd ~ mifig~ for ~c~ to 0.3 ac~s of
ju6~ictional s~am h~i~ (i.e., "~mn~f' ~gc ~b) at a 2:1 ratio (Lc., 2 a~ ofp~s~cd
habi~t for each acre of~neatly lost habitat). In addition, ~ey ~vc ~mmi~cd to creating
app~ximately 2.5 acres of sh~b ~d wctl~d ~bi~t on ~c sloFs ofa pro~sed detention b~in.
tlowcvcr, no com~nsation for ~e loss of"recovering' ~gc ~mb ~ offered, even though a large
~aion (app~ximatcly 75 acres) of ~e pm~s~ proj~t site sup~ "large ~tches of buckcat,
~itc ~gc, and coa~l sagebrush" ~d "provide ~itabl~ habitat for the ~lifomia Gna~tcheC'
~ccm~r 18, 1999, Ic~cc f~m R. Mitchcl B~uchsmp, Pacifi~ ~uthw~ Biological Sc~i~s, {o
B~nt I~Count, City of~ncho Cucamonga). Ba.aR Amedc~'s rationale.for not ~mpen~ting for
recovering ~gc scrub was that ~c p~jcet was the ~bjcct of a negative declaration.in 1989 ~at did
not ~ui~ such mitigation. If all p~jcc~ ~ct~g ~l ~g~ ~mb we~ to mitigate only for
~latively-undistut~d sage scab, ~d to do so at low nfios of~cd sage ~mb to ~ancntly
lost ~gc scrub, ~ca the ~gional di~ibulion of this ~sys~m W~ will ~ntinue to ~ ~uc~ and
JU1-28-9~ '~2D [1:30 ~Z{ FWS CA~,LSBAD, CA FA~ ,.'iO. 7CO 91S 0538
Brent LcCount 3
fragmented. Due to the imperiled status of coastal sage scrub throughout southern California, and its
impertance for the survival and recovery of listed species and species that are proposed to be covered
in the MSI ICP, we recommend that mitigation be required for any impacts to coastal sage scrub, even
if it has been previously disturbed and is now recovering. As mentioned above, the diversity and
quality of these areas would likely continue to improve if they were not permanently disturbed, as
evidenced by the recovery of Tentative Tract 13316 following prior disturbance. An appropriate
replacement rate for impacts to coastal sage scrub would be, minimally, 3 acres of preserved sage
scrub for each acre lost or degraded, although somewhat lower ratios may be applicable for highly
disturbed areas or monotypic patches of scrub. In addition, we recommend that impacts from this
project to sage scrub be offset by the acquisition and protection of alluvial fan sage scrub on the
Etiwanda fan. An endovnnent for the management of the acquired land in perpetuity should be
established and, prior to any transfer and dedication of mitigation lands, the title and related
documents must be reviewed for conflicting easements and prior dedications for the purposes of
natural open space.
Finally, multi-year delays between the approval of development projects and their implementation
may constitute significant, changed circumstances under CEQA owing to changes in habitat
conditions, use of the site by listed species, and species listing status. Hence, the us~ ofoutdated
environmental reports to approve development pre]ects and mitigation requirements for impacts to
biologieal resourcea taises questions regarding the adequaey of CEQA compliance. CEQA guidelines
require that impacts to sensitive and listed species and their habitats be addressed in an environmental
document and mitigated. !fmultiqear delays occur between the approval of development projects
and their implementation, then site occupancy and species listing status may change substantially in
the interim. As a result, unmitigated losses of habitals and sensitive or listed species may occur. As
mentioned above, environmental clearance and mitigation requirements for the development of Tract
i 3316 was based on the adoption of a negative declaration in 1989. Since that time, additional
species have been listed under the Act, including the gnatcatcher and kangaroo rat, and the sage scrub
on the site has recovered to the point where it now provides suitable habitat for thasc species. We
recommend that the City review pending development applications to identify those that rely on
biological information in CEQA documents that axe several yea~s old, or fail to address species that
have been faderally listed since their application was received. The City can then notify the applicant
and us of the potential need to reass~s the possible impacts to biological reseurees owing to their
proposed projects.
We appreclatc the opportunity to comment on this proposed project, and your conscientious
consldcration of this issue. We look forward to further involvement in this project and rcglonal
planning for species and habitat conservation in general. If you have any questions rugarding this
letter, please contact P.J. White of this office at (760) 431-9440.
Sincerely,
~~m A. Bartel~~
Assistant Field Supervisor
1-6-99-HC-294
co: Glenn Black, California Department of Fish and Game
CI~Y OF RANCHO
PI,ANN[NG COMMISSION
July 28, 1999
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTEK
COUNCIL CHAMBER,
10500 CMC CEN'IEK DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAI ,IFORNIA
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW 98-10 - BARRATT AMERICAN
Mate~ presenmdby:
Diana Santini
5207London Ave
· ~ Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737
Diana Santini
5207 London Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737
(909) 945-9840
June 9,1999
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Dear Commissioners:
As a follow-up to my letter of June 3, 1999 addressed to Dan James, Senior Civil
Engineer (ATTACHMENT A), ] am expressing specific concerns and requests to be
considered prior to approval of the housing project identified as Tract 13316.
My home is the first lot immediately south of the project on the corner of London
and Carrari Avenue. It is my understanding that the drainage project consists of
an underground pipe which will surface above Carrad and empty into a cement
storm drain which will be in my immediate backyard and will be directed towards
the existing natural drainaqe flow. When I purchased my home in 1993, I was
informed by the City that I was not allowed to interrupt the natural drainage of
water, therefore, not allowed to interrupt or permanently construct on my
property.
I am therefore requesting the following issues be taken into consideration:
1. On February 15, 1989, the City of Rancho Cucamonga passed, app;oved and
adopted Resolution No. 89-066 which in part required construction of a
Master Plan Storm Drain line through the site which will dewater the system
into an existing open channel. It appears that the current Drainage Plan does
not extend the storm drain line to the existing open channel but allows the
water to be directed onto dry land which may impair the integrity & stability of
existing slopes private property. (ATTACHEMENT B)
2. Verify that the drainage easement includes drainage construction. It may be
limited to allowing for the natural drainage flow vs. directed drainage which
will now be directed to empty into a channel and onto natural surface
property.
Planning Commission
6~9~99
Page 2
3. GeoSoils Engineering Inc., conducted a limited Geotechnical Evaluation of
my property in 1992 (ATTACHMENT C). Issues of Concern include:
~" Drainage of adjacent, northly property appears to direct drainage toward
the subject property and to the ephemeral drainage. If allowed to
continue, this runoff Could degrade the integrity of the slope where it
descends into the ephemeral drainage. Additional erosion of this nature
could undermine the block wall on the north property boundary near the
ephemeral drainage or undermine portions of the residence.
~. Accumulated surface drainage should be directed to an appropriate
location for disposal by providing a graded swale with a minimum gradient
of 2 percent or an appropriate surface Collection device with nonperforated
pipe to an outlet at the street or other suitable location. Off-site runoff
should not be allowed to pond on the site. Water should not be
allowed to flow over any slopes.
~" Water should not be allowed to discharge adjacent to the residence.
Drainage systems should not be altered without expert Consultation.
> Slopes should not be altered without expert Consultation. Whenever the
homeowner plans a topographic modification of the lot or slope, a qualified
geotechnical consultant should be Contacted.
> A stability analysis should be performed on the existing slopes to verify
stability.
> Since the approval of the resolution in 1989. I have Constructed a
suspended wooden deck which overhangs the existing natural dr. ainage
area and an in ground pool has been installed. I therefore request a Copy
of the geographical evaluation of the property and proposed development
& drainage system plan Conducted after 1992. If one has not been
conducted after 1992, that such evaluation be performed and reviewed
prior to approval for commencing construction.
4. If a drainage plan is approved, that it consist of a buded pipe emptying into
the existing storm drain as per the City's approval in 1989.
5. If an open channel is considered, that it be located on the East portion of the
property which will essentially extend the existing channel southerly of my
property. This was identified as a viable Concept by Russell H. Maguire, City
Engineer in 1990 which would extend the channel 250 feet south.
(ATTACHMENT D).
Planning Commission
6~9~99
Page 3
6. If an open channel is approved as currently planned, that a crossover bridge
be provided to reach the East portion of my property without having to exit
into the Community Trail as was decided on June 22, 1989 by the Design
Review Committee meeting. (ATI'CHMENT E)
7. Request that no two-story homes be built immediately adjacent to my
property in order to preserve privacy.
8. All debris left in the existing street in front of my property be cleared daily.
Sincerely,
Diana Santini
Diana Santini
5207 London Ave.
Alta Loma, CA 91737
(909) 945-9840
June 3, 1999
The City of Rancho Cucamonga
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
RE: Tract 13316
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
Carrad and empty into a 'dp wrap" which will be fenced. My home is the first lot
immediately south of the project on the comer of Cartad and London Avenue. It has
been described that the 'dp 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 Row 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 flew 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 rfghts. In addition, a Geotechnical Evaluation conducted on
my property in 1992 made several observations and recommendations regarding water
drainage. A portion of this report specifically states that '... off-site runoff shquld 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.
Cc: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
Betty A. Miller. Associate Engineer
-- crrY of I ANCHO CUCAbIONGA
STAFF REPORT J.
UATE: February 15, 1989 (~ ~J
/3: City Council and Actin9 City Manager
FROM: Russell H. Maguire, Ci~ Engineer
BY: Gary H. Sheu, Assistant CIvil Engineer
SUBJECT: ApproYal of a Resolution accepting an offer of dedication
of a 3rainage easeeat offered to the CIty of Rancho
Cucamon~a on Tract No. 9590 leca~d east of Archibald
Avenue and south o~ Almond Avenue
Staff rcco~ends that City C,unctl approve the attached resolution
accepting the drainage eas~-ent as sho~n on the map of Tract I~o. 9590 and
described on the attached resolution.
O~ckare~=~/An~lysis
The proDosed davelopmen~ e~ Tr:ct I3316 (Fr~s~--~n Han~e_s) is required to
construct a Master Plan Stnrm Drain l~ne thrnugh the site which will
dewater the s~stem Into an existing open channel. City previously had an
offer of dedication for drainage purposes within this open c,annel as a
part of development of Tract E~SgO. To facilitate the draining of the
storm drain sySt..-n for Tract 12316, tt ts necessary to accept this offer
of dedication.
An exhibit is enclosed to show the proposed Tract 13316 and lccatton of
thn offer of dedication.
AttaChment
;~ncho Cucam0nga, CA 91730 RESOLUTION NO. 89-066 ,~:~' ' '; ~'~
<9 < """'
· ~ ..,
A P2SOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO "/~ "
CUC,~ONGA, CAJ~IFOPuNIA, ACCEPTI~IG A DRAINAGE EASEpLENT.7 ~5
DEDICATION ON TRACT NO. 9590 LOCATED EAST OF A~RCHIBA3~D ~-O
A~NUE ~D SOUTH OF ~OND A~NUE -~
~_.
~... ..
The City Council of the City of Rancho cuc~onga does hereby resoive
as follows:
SECTION 1: The offer to dedicate to the City of Ranch6 Cuc~onga,
County of San Sernardino, State of california, the property herein described for
drainage purposes, is hereby accepted. Said property is described as follows:
Those ~rtions of the easement as offered to dedicate to the
City of Rancho Cuc~onga ~r Tract No. 9590 as recorded in Map Book
138, Page 47-48.
Co~encing at the southeast corner of Tract No. 9590 as
recorded in Map Book 138, Page 47-48, Official Records of said
county, recorded January 6, I978; thence north 0 23'01' east, 6.18
feet to the tru~ ~int of beginning; thence north S1 11'19" west,
'290.09 feet; thence north 56 37'07' west, 154.49 feet; thence north
18 50'18' west, 89.81 feet; thence north 10 39'37' west, 86.49 feet;
thence north 38 14'47" west, 108.23 feet; thence north 20 15'23'
west, 89.54 fee~; thence north 28 58'28' east,'46.26 feet to a point
in the north line of said Tract; thence north 80 33'14" east, 480.00
.. fee~ to .~e northeast corner of said Tract; thence south 0 23'O1-
.we~, 646.04 feet along the eae~ line of said Tract to the true
point of beginning.
~ECTION 2: The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed
cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed for record in the office
of the County Recorder of the county of San Bernardino, State of California.
PASSED, APPRO~D, and ~OPTED this 15th d'ay of February, 1989.
AYES: Alexander, Brown, Buyer, Stout, Wright
NOES: None
~SENT: None
"~
.., ...-
I, BE~IRLy A. AUTHELET, CITy CLER/i of the City of Rancho Cucamonaa
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed,
approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 15th day of
February, 1989.'
Executed thi8 16th day of February, 1989 at Rancho Cucamonga, California.
' Seve;i" 'Ad=hele=, cit~' Cler~
eoSoils, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering · Engineering Geology
24890/eftarson A:'enue · P.O. Box 490 · A, lurrieta. Culifornia 92564 · [714) 677-9651 · FAX' (714] 677-9301
September 3, 1992
W.O. 562-A-RC
Better Homes and Gardens Realty
6642 Camellia
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91701
Attention: Ms. Heidi Burns
Subject: Limited Geotechnical Evaluation of 5207 London Avenue,
Alta Lama Area of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino
County, California
Reference: "Approved Standards," 1980, by Home Owners Warranty
Corporation.
Dear Ms. Burns:
In accordance with your request and authorization, this report
presents the findings of our limited geotechnical evaluation of the
subject property. Inasmuch as this study was performed ~ithout the
benefit of site-specific subsurface information, the conclusions
and recommendations presented herein are limited and should be
considered preliminary in nature. In addition, our observations
were performed on the exterior of the residence only.
BACKGROUND
The subject site is currently under ownership of a financial
institution. The following is our understanding from the client,
Ms. Heidi Burns, the real estate representative for the owner.
1. The residence is an approximately 14-year-old home.
2. The home recently has been refurbished in preparation for
sale. During this refurbishment, Ms. Burns noticed evidence
of surface water run-off during recent rains from the
adjacent, north~r.]y property.
3. The client has expressed concerns regarding drainage on the
site and drainage from adjacent properties affecting the site:
therefore, the client requested this evaluation of site
conditions
Lns Angeles Co. 16181785-2158 · Orange Co. (7141647-0277 · San Diego Co 1619] 438.3 155
Better Homes and Gardens Realty W.O. 562-A-RC
5207 London September 3, 1992
Rancho Cucamonga, California Page 2
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of our services has included the following:
1. Review and reconnaissance of general site conditions from a
geotechnical viewpoint with an emphasis on site drainage
conditions.
2. Geotechnical analysis of the data collected.
3. Preparation of this report.
GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site is a rectangular-shaped lot, consisting of about
1.17 acres. The property fronts on London Avenue in the Alta Loma
area Of the city Of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County,
California. The site i~ bounded by adjacent residential property
on the south, London Avenue on the north, and vacant property on
the north and west. The west half of the lot has been developed
for the residential structure, while the east half of the lot
remains in an essentially natural condition.
A slope, about 10 feet high, descends from the south property line
to the adjacent property at a gradient of about 2:1 (horizontal to
vertical). A natural, ephemeral drainage transects the subject lot
and drains to the south. This ephemeral drainage is about 50 feet
wide and 20 to 30 feet deep. Slopes descend into the ephemeral
drainage at a gradient of about 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical).
Block walls exist on the western portions of the north and south
property boundaries. In the front yard, the walls are about 2 feet
high and serves as a retaining wall between the site and adjacent
properties. The remainder of each block wall is about 6 feet high
and serves as divider between properties.
A two-story, wood-frame residence with stucco and wood siding
occupies the central portion of the lot. It appears that the
residence is rounded on continuous perimeter footings wi'th concrete
slab-on-grade floors.
OBSERVATIONS OF DRAINAGE FEATURES
Our observations of the drainage conditions indicate:
1. Gutters and downspouts are not present on the residence.
Drainage devices have not been constructed on any of the
slopes on the site or slopes adjacent to the site.
GeoSoils, Inc.
Better Homes and Gardens Realty W.O. 562-A-RC
5207 London September 3, 1992
Rancho Cucamonga, California Page 3
2. An ephemeral drainage, about 50 feet wide and 20 to 30 feet
deep, transects the subject lot and drains toward the south.
3. Drainage on the front (west) portion of the site generally is
toward the southwest corner of the lot, to the street.
4. Drainage on the south side of the house is generally toward
the south.
5. Drainage on the north side of the house is generally to the
south, toward the north wall of the house.
6. Drainage on the rear (east) portion of the site is generally
directed from the rear of the residence to the east, toward
the ephemeral drainage and from the rear of the property to
the west, toward the ephemeral drainage.
Natural drainage on the vacant property, located north of and
adjacent to the site, is g~nerally to the southeast toward the
subject site and the ephemeral drainage. This ephemeral
drainage has caused a rill to be eroded in the slope as it
drains into the ephemeral drainage on the subject property.
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION~
The drainage features observed on the site at the time of our site
reconnaissance indicate that the current drainage patterns
generally direct water runoff away from the residence and toward
the rear of the property or to the street. However, surface
gradients on the north side of the residence directs drainage
toward the residence. In addition, drainage of the adjacent,
northly property appears to direct drainage toward the subject
property and to the ephemeral drainage. If allowed to_ continue,
this runoff could degrade the integrity of the slope where it
descends into the ephemeral drainage. Additional erosion of this
nature could undermine the block wall on the north property
boundary near the ephemeral drainage or undermine portions of the
residence.
The following preliminary recommendations are presented:
1. Positive drainage should be established and maintained on the
property. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing
a gradient of at least 4 percent for a minimum distance of 5
feet away from the residence. Accumulated surface drainage
should be directed to an appropriate location for disposal by
GeoSoils, Inc.
Better Homes and Gardens Realty W.O. 562-A-RC
5207 London September 3, 1992
Rancho Cucamonga, California Page 4
providing a graded swale with a minimum gradient of 2 percent
or an appropriate surface collection device with nonperforated
pipe to an outlet at the street or other suitable location.
Off-site runoff should not be allowed to pond on the site.
Water should not be allowed to flow over any slopes.
2. Eave gutters should be installed where appropriate and
connected to downspouts. Downspout discharge should be
directed to a nonperforated drain system that outlets to an
appropriate location. Water should not be allowed to
discharge adjacent to the residence. Drainage systems should
not be altered without expert consultation.
3. A grade stabilization structure or drainage device should be
installed at the north property line on the slope to carry
concentrated water runoff from the adjacent, northerly
property down the slope and into the ephemeral drainage and
reduce erosion of the slope.
4. Drought-tolerant vegetation should be planted on the slope
into the ephemeral drainage to reduce erosion of the slope.
5. Irrigation should be reduced to the minimum necessary to
maintain plant vigor.
6. All drains should be kept cleaned and unclogged, including
gutters and downspouts. Terrace drains or gunite ditches
should be kept free of debris to allow proper drainage.
During heavy rain periods, performance of the drainage systems
should be inspected. Problems, such as gullying and ponding,
if observed, should be corrected as soon as possible.
7. Any leakage from pools, waterlines, etc. or byRassing of
drains should be repaired as soon as possible.
8. Animal burrows should be filled, because they may cause
diversion of surface runoff, promote accelerated erosion, and
even trigger shallow soil failures.
9. Any open bottom planters adjacent to settlement-sensitive
structures should be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10
feet. As an alternative, closed-bottom planters could be
utilized. An Outlet placed in the bottom of the planter could
be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any
exterior concrete flatwork.
GeoSoils, Inc.
Better Homes and Gardens Realty W.O. 562-A-RC
5207 London September 3, 1992
Rancho Cucamonga, California Page 5
10. Slopes should not be altered without expert consultation.
Whenever the homeowner plans a topographic modification of the
lot or slope, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be
contacted.
11. If unusual cracking, settling, or earth slippage occurs on the
property, the homeowner should consult a qualified soil
engineer or an engineering geologist immediately.
12. A stability analysis should be performed on the existing
slopes to verify stability.
13. Measures should be taken to prevent the undercutting and
erosion at the toe of the slopes that descend into the
ephemeral drainage.
14. Consideration should be given to consulting a qualified design
civil engineer to review the above recommendations with
respect to line and grade and surface drainage.
This evaluation of surface conditions at the property should not be
construed to be a evaluation of subsurface conditions. This
evaluation has not assessed the potential for changes in surface or
subsurface conditions in the future. If site conditions do not
change in the future, the integrity of the lot would be expected to
remain consistant with respect to past performance; however, GSI
can make no statement as to the specific integrity/performance of
the property in the future, due to changes in surface or subsurface
conditions. The property is located in a seismically-active
region, and intense ground shaking at the site should be
anticipated in the future. This ground shaking could cause
distress features at the subject site.
If in the future any additional improvements are planned for the
site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical
aspects of design and construction of said improvements could be
provided based on a subsurface evaluation of site conditions. A
proposal for this type of site evaluation could be provided upon
request. GeoSoils, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for
work, testing, or recommendations performed or provided by others.
Inc.
Better Homes and Gardens Realty W.O. 562-A-RC
5207 London September 3, 1992
Rancho Cucamonga, California Page 6
These opinions have been derived in accordance with current
standards of practice, and no warranty is expressed or implied. We
sincerely appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If you
have any questions or if you need any clarifications, please
contact us at (714 ) 677-9651.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOSOILS, INC.
~herry'~. Eaton
Senior Geologist
John P. Frank in ~
Engineering Geologist, CEG 1340 Civil Engineer, RCE 49754
SLE/RCS/JPF/sh
Distribution: (4) Addressee
GeoSoils, Inc.
-CITY OFRANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 16, 1990
T0: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer
BY: tucinda E. Hackerr, Contract Engineer
SUBJECT: Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security,
acceptance of offer of dedication and Ordering the Annexation to
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street
Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 for Tract 13316, located at the
northeast corner of Archibald and Carrari Avenues, submitted by
Friedman Homes
RECO~IENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions
approving Tract 13316, accepting the subject agreement, security, offer of
dedication, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1
and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. I and 2, and authorizing the
~ayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement and to cause said map to
record.
~p~
ANALYSIS/BACKGROUND
Tract 13316, located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Carrari Avenues,
in the Very Low Density Residential District, was approved by the Planning
Commission on March 25, 1987, for the division of 84.5 acres into 123 lots.
During the review process, various property owners to the south of the tract
have voiced their concern regarding the proposed storm drain facility that
extends southerly of the tract boundary approximately 107 feet.' This facility
~s an emergency spillway channel and is part of the debris-basin system.
Staff has met extensively with these property owners over the past few years
to listen to their concerns and desires. First, they wanted to underground
the system in a pipe and fill in the canyon to enlarge their backyards. This
is not possible due to the fact that this is part of a debris basin system ahd
must be an open channel with a service road to maintain the outlet'
structure. Their second desire was to terminate the channel at the southerly
boundary of Tract 13316. This also cannot be done because the c~annel has to
pass under the Community Trail and then be directed towards the existing
natural drainage channel. Their third choice is to extend the channel
southerly of their properties. This is a viable concept and the channel could
be extended approximately 250 feet south, but it is not needed for development
and there is little or no benefit for the abutting properties. Friedman Homes
have met all the requirements of their tract and state law requires that
administrative action be taken to approve the map. If the channel is to be
extended, it will have to be conditioned upon future developments in the area.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REFORT
TRACT 13315 - FRIEDMAN tlOMES
~AY 16, 1990
PAGE 2 ~
The Developer, Friedman Homes, is submitting an agreement and security to
guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in the following
amounts:
Street Storm Utility
Improvements Drain Landscaping Undergrounding
Faithful Performance Bond:
$2,100,000 $1,300,000 $380,000 $435,000
LaDor and Material Bond:
$1,050,000 $ 650,000 $190,000 $217,000
Copies of the agreement, security and offer of dedication are available in the
City Clerk's Office.
Letters of approval have been received from the high school and elementary
school districts. C.C. & R.'s have been approved by the City Attorney. The
Consent and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer is on file in
the City Clerk's office.
Respectfully ~ubmitted,
RIIM:L~H:9~A: sjm~'
A~tachments
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
,. DATE: May 29, 1990
T0: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Russell H. Naguire, City Engineer
BY: Joe Stofa, Jr., Associate Civil En9ineer
SUBJECT: Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security,
acceptance of oFFer oF dedication and 0rderin9 the Annexation to
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting
Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 for Tract 13316, located at the
northeast corner of Archibald and Carrari Avenues, submitted by
Friedman Homes (Continued From
RECOg4ENDATION
It is reco~uended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions
approving Tract 13316, accepting the subject agreement, security, offer of
dedication, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1
and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2, and authorizing the
.'.) Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement and to cause said map to
record.
ANALYSIS/DACKGROUND
The above referenced project was continued from the City Council meeting of
May 16, 1990. At that meeting, local residences expressed concern regarding
the development, particularly the storm drain facilities. Due to the
massiveness of the project, the Council requested additional time to visit the
site and directed staff to provide more detail background analysis.
The Planning Commission unanimously approved Tentative Tract' 13316 at the
March 25, 1987 meeting. Two main issues were brought out by surrounding
property owners. They are: 1) orientation of the honles backing onto Carrari
Street and 2) requirements of local Equestrian trails and keeping of horses'.
No records were found of the property owners voicing any concerns about the
proposed storm drain Facilities. Although the tentative map shows the storm
drain going to the east, the Conditions of Approval For the tract ;peciFically
state that the debris basin and tile entire storm drain system shall be
constructed to the satisfaction of tile City Engineer and that lots 9 and 10
which are located at the southerly extension of the main north/south street
and adjacent to the southerly tract boundary shall contain a flood protection
wall or other overflow protection device to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. Tile conditions combined required tile storm drain facility as it is
now designed.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF R[i
TR 13316
i~AY 29, 1990
PAGE 2
At the May 6, 1987 City Council meeting an appeal of Tentative Tract 13316
with regards to Planning Commission's decision of orientations of homes on
Carrari Street along with the requirements of local equestrian trails and
keeping of horses was heard. City Council modified the Planning Com~n~ssions'
decision relative to Carrari Street to provide increased landscape area and
placement of walls along the top of the slope. The City Council upheld the
General Plan policies and Development Code standards regarding equestrian
trails and keeping of horses. Once again, no conerns were raised with regards
to drainage.
Time Extension for Tentative Tract 13316 went before the Planning Commission
on April 26, 1989. The Planni'ng Division received letters froin several
homeowners along London Avenue expressing their concern of tile proposed
drainage facilities. The time extension was approved to May 6, i990, but
Planning Commission discussed the issue of storm drain spillway and requested
that the Planning Department review the storm drain plans to be sure the
channel was as aesthetically pleasing as possible as it crossed over the
affected properties.
At the june 22, 1989 Design Review meeting, the con~ittee stated that the
final design of the spillway should be reviewed by the committee for
aesthetics, after the technicial part of the design is tentatively approved.
An access should be provided to the homeowner to get to the rear of the lot
east of the spillway. Planning requested that Friedman Homes submit revised
plans for additional comnittee review.
The Design Review Committee on February 8, 1990 recommended at the request of
Enaineerin9 that the foot bridge be deleted due to the fact that the foot
bridge is only 40' away from the proposed Community Trail bridge with an
access road on the east side of the bridge which is available to allow access
to the easterly side of the homeowners property. In addition landscaping
surrounding the spillway will require tile final approval of tile Design Review
Committee prior to the final approval of tile improvement-plans by the City
Engineer
Respe~ . "' 'tted,
RH~:jS:dlw
Attachments Staff Report 5-16-90
The Law Office of
Matthew Dee Rees
Attorney at law
9587 Arrow Route, Ste. "D" (909) 945-2225 Telephone
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 945-2227 Fax
July 28, 1999
The Planning Division
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
OBJECTION TO APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10
BY BAREATT AMERICAN: TEACT 13316
Dear Planning Commission Members,
My name is Matthew Rees, residing at 5217 London Avenue,
Alta Loma, California, just south of the planned
development, with my wife and child. It has come to my
attention that today is a hearing upon the approval of the
proposed development plan, which I have objected to more
than once in the past few months. Though I am impressed by
the scope of the development, and the design of the planned
homes, it would appear that little or no thought has been
given to the impact of this proposed development upon the
lower easement land owners. Our property backs up against a
dry creek bed which drains the development area during
adverse weather conditions. My property is impressed with an
"easement for natural drainage". The proposed development
intends to drain about half the proposed plan area into my
backyard, collecting all the storm waters from the entire
hillside above my home, and dumping them into my back yard
and the yard of Diane, immediately north of my property.
This plan is unlawful, ill advised, a clear eye sore for the
immediate property owners, a danger to children, and an
unlawful taking of my property without compensation. I
oppose this plan vociferously.
I have suggested in the past that I would be amenable to a
continuation of this 5-6 pipe down the hill to the lower
drainage pond. The pipe needs to be buried. This is
expensive and this is why it is opposed by the developer.
I'm sorry, but we will have a buried pipeline or we will
have a lawsuit. the City is about to accept the dedication
of this drainage pipe, therefore the City is hereby placed
on notice that I will take whatever action is necessary to
prevent this abomination from appearing in my backyard.
The Commission is hereby advised to have the City Attorney
take a close look at this law before approving this plan.
The proposal is a clear burden upon the lower easement
holders. Do not buy into this proposal.
When I met with the Planning Department (which occurred
after a recent public hearing hosted by Barrett} I was told
the city planned to decorate the end of this pipe, put in
some debris catchers, clean the pipe out once in a while,
and pour a little cement in my backyard, and put up a fence
to keep the kids out. Well this all sounds fine and dandy
except the City doesn't own my backyard, and the City will
not be puring cement in my backyard and the City will not be
putting up any fencing in my backyard. Remember this pipe is
5 to 6 feet in diameter. Kids will be walking up this pipe
unless it is fenced off, and the city does not own any
property. This is a ~natural drainage" easement. It should
remain a natural drainage easement. When the developer lays
miles of impervious roads and gutters, and collects all the
water off this system of streets, and destroys all the
natural drainage, and shunts everything into an impervious
pipelene and aims it at my backyard, threatening to erode my
property and destroy my patio and backyard, I get a little
angry. Fix the problem, do not let this get any worse.
I have attached a little case law as an attorney is apt to
do in the event somebody would like to actually read what
the law has to say about my right and the rights of my
family. Do not concentrate the entire drainage of this
mountain into my backyard. Concentrating the entire drainage
of the mountain in time and space, and discharging it into
my backyard is not ~natural drainage".
Believe me, I have done the research, this cannot be
happening, but it just might tonight, nevertheless, unless
some thoughtfull action is taken immediately. I thank you
for your time, and should anyone wish to discuss this matter
I am easy to get ahold of.
CtthewI ~.~.~---,
Attorney a ~w and D
Ob~cal Resident
P.S.: If it makes any difference "environmentally", there
are also desert tortoises in my backyard. One has walked
into my backyard, been fed lettuce for lunch, and directed
back into the desert for dinner. And we have pictures to
prove it.
Legal Authorities: (Drainage Easements)
1. Albers vs. County of Los Angeles (1965) 62 Cal.2d 250
2. Inns vs. San Juan U.S.D. (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 174
3. Frustruck vsl City of Fairfax (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 345
4. Burrows vs. State of California (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 29
5. Sheffet vs. County of Los Angeles (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d 720
6. Weaver vs. Bishop )1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1351
7. Yue vs. City of Auburn (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 751 ~
Yue v. City of Auburn (1992) 3 Cal. App.4th 751, 4 CaI.Rptr.2d 653
View This Case Only · Cases Citing This Case ]
[No. C009412. Third Dist. Jan 31, 1992.]
WILBERT J. YUE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
CITY OF AUBURN, Defendant and Respondeat.
Stnv~o,av
An individual, on behalf of a corporation doing business as a restaurant and bar, filed a
complaint against a city, alleging a taking by inverse condemnation, and seeking damages
for loss in value to the real property and for loss in value to the corporation's business and
leasehold interest in the property, based on several incidents of flooding. Plaintiffs alleged
that the constntction of a subdivision increased impervious surfaces which in turn
substantially increased storm water rimoff onto plaintiffs' property, and that the city had
failed to require the developer of the subdivision to mitigate the storm water runoil; and
had failed to upgrade its drainage facilities to accommodate the increased flow of water.
The city demurred to an amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action. This
general demurrer was sustained without leave to amend, due to plaintiffs' failure to plead
that the citys flood control project failed to work as intended and that the failure was the
restfit of some unreasonable conduct on the part of the city. The trial court entered
judgment dismissing the complaint.
(Superior Court of Placer County, No. 76821, Richard L. Gilbert, Judge.)
The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment dismissing plaintiffs' complaint, and ordered
the trial court to overrule the general demurrer to the complaint. The court held that
plaintiffs' complaint was sufficient, since it alleged that plaintiffs had a private property
interest in the damaged property, that damage to plaintiffs' property was caused by the
project as designed and built, that it was a public project that caused the harm, and that
the harm was substantially caused by the project. Inasmuch as the case involved surface
waters inundating property that was not subject to historical flooding, the court held that
plaintiffs need not have alleged that defendant's drainage system filled to ~mction as
intended. The allegations allowed the reasonable inference that plaintiffs' property was not
previously subject to flooding, and the complaint also expressly alleged that the repeated
incidents of inundations suffered by plaintiffs dated fxom the time the upland subdivision
was developed.
(Opinion by Mader, J., with Blease, Acting P. J., and Sims, J., concurring.) [page 752}
(1) Pleading §23--Demurrer to Complaint--Demurrer as
Admission--Application of Rule on Appeal--Standard of Review.--On appeal t~om a
judgment of dismissal following the sustaining of a general demurrer, the appellate court
treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, as well as those which
reasonably arise by implication, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or
law. Further, the appellate court gives the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it
as a whole and its parts in their context. When a demurrer is sustained, the court
determines whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action on
any theory. Moreover, the allegations of the complaint must be liberally construed with a
view to attaining substantial justice among the parties. A demurrer challenges only the
legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiffs
ability to prove those allegations.
(2a-2d) Waters §98--Surface and Flood Waters--Actions and Remedies--Parties
and Pleadings--lnverse Condemnation--Sufficiency of Complaint.--In an inverse
condemnation action, in winch plaintiffs alleged that their restaurant and bar had been
damaged by flooding and excessive water caused by the city's failure to require a
subdivision developer to mitigate storm nmoffwater, and by the city's failure to upgrade
its drainage facilities to accommodate the increased water flow, the trial court erred in
sustaining defendant's general demurrer, where the complaint alleged that plaintiffs had a
private property interest in the damaged property, that damage to plaintiffs' property was
caused by the project as designed and built, that it was a public project that caused the
harm, and that the harm was substantially caused by the project. inasmuch as the case
involved surface waters inundating property that was not subject to historical flooding,
plaintiffs need not have alleged that the city's drainage system failed to function as
intended. Further, the allegations allowed the reasonable inference that plaintiffs' property
was not subject to historical flooding, and the complaint also expressly alleged that the
repeated incidents of inundations suffered by plaintiffs dated ~-om the time the subdMsion
was developed.
(3) Waters §89--Surface and Flood Waters--Protection Against Surface
Waters--Inverse Liability of Public Agencies: Eminent Domain §131--Remedies of
Owner--Inverse Condemnation--Inverse Liability of Public Agencies--Water
Damage.--Inverse [page 753] liability of public agencies due to water damage is
determined primarily by private law rules governing interference with surface waters, flood
waters, and stream waters. First, one has no right to obstruct the flow onto ins or her land
of what are technically known as surface waters. Second, one has the right to protect
oneself against flood waters, and for that purpose to obstruct their flow onto his or her
land, even though such obstruction causes the water to flow onto the land of another.
Third, one may not obstruct or divert the flow of a natural watercourse.
(4) Waters §98---Surface and Flood Waters--Actions and Remedies--Parties and
Pleadings--Inverse Condemnation--Foreseeability and Substantial Cause.--A cause
of action for inverse condenmation based on surface water damage must conform to
general inverse condemnation principles and must be grounded in the Constitution, which
states that private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just
compensation having first been made to the owner ( Cal. Const., art. I, § 14). An owner
of private property may recover in an inverse condemnation action where actual physical
damage is caused to his or her property by a public improvement as deliberately planned
and built, whether or not the damage is foreseeable, and a governmental agency may be
held strictly liable, with or without fault, if the public improvement constitutes a
substantial cause of the damage even if only one of several concurrent causes. [Damage to
private property caused by negligence of governmental agents as "taking," "damage," or
"use" for public purposes, in constitutional sense, note, 2 A.L.R.2d 677. See also
CaI.Jur.3d (Rev), Eminent Domain, § 307; 8 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed.
1988) Constitutional Law, § 1057 et seq.]
(5) Waters 898 Surface and Flood Waters--Actions and Remedies---Parties and
Pleadings--Protection Against Surface Waters---Inverse Condemnation--Rule of
Reasonableness.--An inverse condemnation cause of action based on damage by surface
water is governed by a role of reasonableness peculiar to that genre. If the upper owner is
reasonable and the lower owner is unreasonable, the upper owner wins. If the upper
owner is unreasonable and the lower owner is reasonable, the lower owner wins. If both
the upper and lower owners are reasonable, the lower owner wins. However, titis
reasonableness doctrine simply presents a question of fact to be determined in each case
upon a consideration of afl the relevant circumstances. A plaintiff need not plead the
defendant's unreasonableness to state a cause of[page 754] action. Instead, the defendant
must answer and raise the issue of the plaintiffs unreasonableness to prevail. Further,
there is no incentive to try to plead and prove that the upper owner's diversion of surface
water has been unreasonable, since the lower owner may prevail, regardless of the nature
of the upper owner's conduct.
(6) Waters §89--Surface and Flood Waters--Protection Against Surface
Waters--Inverse Condemnation--Utility of Project Versus Harm to
Landowner.--Reasonableness in the contex~ of surface water inverse condemnation cases
has to do with balancing the utility of the public project against the gravity of the harm
caused to the plaintiff.. The gathering of surface waters into a system of impervious storm
drains which follow natural drainage routes may result in greatly increased volume,
velocity, and concentration of water, and thus may constitute an unreasonable method ot
disposing of such water when weighed against the seriousness of the resulting harm to
lower landowners whose property is damaged as a resttit.
(7) Waters §98 Surface and Flood Waters--Actions and Remedies--Parties and
Pleadings---Surface Water and Flood Control Inverse Condemnation--Governing
Policies.--The policies governing surface water and flood control inverse condemnation
cases are different. In flood cases, the purpose &requiring allegations of both substantial
causation and unreasonableness on the part of the government entity defendant is to
prevent discouraging construction of flood protection facilities. However, no such
concern is involved in surface water cases, since surface water damage typically follows
alteration of natural drainage patterns by a party who has developed a piece of property
for profit, instituting improvements which are later incorporated into a goveramental
infrastructure. While this type of development is socially beneficial, there is no reason
why the economic cost incident to the expulsion of surface waters should be borne by the
adjoining landowners, rather than by those undertaking such projects for profit.
(8) Waters §97---Surface and Flood Waters--Actions and Remedies--Inverse
Condemnation--Duty to Upgrade Drainage Systems--Surface Waters Versus Flood
ControL--In an action against a city for inverse condemnation, in which plaintiffs alleged
that their property was damaged by flooding and excessive water caused by a poorly
engineered drainage system, the trial court erred in sustaining defendant's general
demurrer, even if defendant did not have a duty to upgrade existing systems to prevent
damage caused by any and all future storms. Where the evidence discloses that flood
control projects [page 7551 undertaken by the defendant decreased the amount of flooding
that would otherwise naturally have occurred on the plaintiffs land, the defendant is not
hable. However, plaintiffs were not alleging that defendant had a duty to build or upgrade
a flood control system to prevent naturally occurring flood waters from flowing onto
plaintiffs' land; rather, they were claiming that defendant approved a subdivision, which
increased the flow of surface waters, and then built a culvert emptying into an inadequate
drainage system, inevitably causing plaintiffs' land to be flooded.
COUNSEL
Daniel P. Patterson, Curran & Alschuler and Donald W. Curran for Plaintiffs and
Appellants.
Stumbos, Mason & Thomas and Douglas W. Brown for Defendant and Respondent.
OPINION
MARLER, J.--
This appeal is taken fxom an order and judgment of dismissal entered by the trial court
after sustaining the general demurrer to plaintiffs' second amended complaint for inverse
condemnation without leave to amend. We shall reverse.
Facts and Procedural History
On May 23, 1986, Richard Yue, on behalfofRHRH, Inc. (doing business as the Shanghai
Restaurant and Bar) filed a claim against the city of Auburn alleging that his restaurant and
bar, located in the old city portion of Auburn, was damaged on February 18, 1986, by
flooding and excessive water "caused by [a] poorly engineered drainage system." This
claim was rejected by the city on June 12, 1986.
On December 3, 1986, plaintiffs filed a complaint in superior court alleging a taldng by
inverse condemnation end a second cause of action for negligence. ARer a succession ot
amendments and demurrers, plaintiffs abandoned their negligence cause of action because
of their failure to meet the filing requirements of the Government Tort Claims Act ( Gov.
Code, § 900 et seq.), and ultimately filed a second amended complaint based solely on
inverse condemnation. This complaint sought money damages for loss in [page 756I
value to plaintiffWilbert Yue's ownership interest in the real property and for loss in value
of RHRl-rs business and leasehold interest in the property based on several separate
incidents of flooding.
The gravamen of the complaint is as follows: A development known as the Skyline
Subdivision Project was built above plaintiffs' property. Defendant "planned, approved,
designed, ... constructed, ... and otherwise substantially participated in activities for the
public use or benefit including the exercise ofdorainion and control over drainage courses
which included offsite storm drainage facilities both man-made and natural dedicated for
public use as a condition for the development of the upstream Skyline Subdix~sion Project.
..." The subdivision is in the Brewery Lane drainage basin and plaintiffs' land is below, in
the Old Town area. The construction of the subdivision substantially increased impervious
surfaces which in turn substantially increased storm water nmoff. The maximum inflow
tiom the Brewery basin culvert is 105 cubic feet per second (cfs) while the capacity of the
preexisting drainage structure below is 75 cfs. Defendant failed to require the developer
of the subdivision to mitigate the storm water runoff and defendant failed to upgrade its
drainage facilities to accommodate the increased flow of water. Defendant's drainage
facilities are inadequate to handle the increased storm water rimoff and plaintiffs' land has
been inundated with water repeatedly as a consequence.
On April 11, 1990, the city demurred to the second amended complaint for failure to state
a cause of action. This general demurrer was sustained without leave to amend on May
23, 1990, due to plaintiffs' failure to plead that the city's "flood control project failed to
work as intended and that the failure was the restfit of some unreasonable conduct on the
part of the public agency." Thereafter, the judgment dismissing the complaint was
entered, from which plaintiffs timely appealed.
Discussion
(1) The standard of review on an appeal from judgment of dismissal following sustaining
of a general demurrer is guided by long settled rules. We treat the demurrer as admitting
all material facts properly pleaded, as well as those which reasonably arise by implication,
but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39
Cal.3d 311, 318 [2 16 Cal. Rptr. 718, 703 P.2d 58]; Douglas v. E. & J. Gallo Winery
(1977) 69 Cal. App.3d 103, 114 [137 Cal. Rptr. 797]; Benson v. GriJJ (1954) 127
Cal. App.2d 382, 386-387 [274 P.2d 47].) "Further, we give the complaint a reasonable
interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their [page 757] context." (Blank,
supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318.) When a demurrer is sustained, we determine whether the
complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action on any theory. (Ibid;
Beason, supra, 127 Cal. App.2d at pp. 386-387.) Moreover, "'the allegations of the
complaint must be liberally construed with a view to attaining substantial justice among
the patties.'" (Heckendorn v. City of SanMarino (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 481,486 [229
Cal. Rptr. 324, 723 P. 2d 64], quoting Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70
Cal. 2d 240, 244-245 [74 Cal. Rptr. 398, 449 P. 2d 462].) A demurrer challenges only the
legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiffs
ability to prove those allegations. (Perdue v. Crocker National Bank (1985) 38 Cal. 3d
913,922 [216 Cal. Rptr. 345, 702 P.2d 503].)
H
The dispute on appeal centers on the requirements for pleading an inverse condemnation
cause of action based on water damage. That a dispute exists is understandable as there is
considerable confusion in the law regarding the requirements for such a cause of
action. 1 ( 1 )
(2a) Defendant contends that the trial court was correct in mllng that the second
amended complaint is defective because it fails to plead the conjunction of substantial
causation and unreasonableness as set forth in Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control -
Dist. (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 550 [253 Cal. Rptr. 693, 764 P.2d 1070]. Defendant argues we
should follow the trial court's lead and apply the specific holding of Belair that "when a
public flood control improvement fails to function as intended and properties historically
subject to flooding are damaged as a proximate result thereof; plaintiffs' recovery in
inverse condemnation requires proof that the failure was attributable to some unreasonable
conduct on the part of the defendant public entities." (Id. at p. 567, italics added.)
Plaintiffs, on the other hand, maintain that they have adequately pleaded a cause of action
in inverse condemnation under the requirements applicable to the facts of this case.
For reasons which follow, we conclude that Belair does not apply to the case at bar and
that plaintiffs have stated a cause of action in inverse condemnation. [page 758]
There are causes of action for inverse condemnation due to water damage which differ
according to the type of water involved. (Van Alstyne, Inverse Condemnation:
Unintended Physical Damage (1969) 20 Hastings L.J. 431,448-465; 4 Witkin, Summary
of Ca[. Law (3d ed. 1985) Real Property, §§ 797-806, pp. 975-983; Condemnation
Practice in Ca[., supra, Inverse Condemnation, §§ 13.13-13.17, pp. 348-354; 5 Miller &
Starr, Ca[. Real Estate Law 2d (1989) Adjoining Landowners, §§ 14.20-14.23, pp.
343-357; 2 Nichols on Eminent Domain (3d ed. 1990) Taking and Damage, § 6.08[3], pp.
6-50 - 6-51 .) The policy considerations and pleading requirements vary considerably with
each type. Thus, the determination of whether there is a cause of action in inverse
condemnation for water damage begins with the traditional analytical approach of finding
what type of water caused the damage.
This categorization process originated in ton cases and is followed in inverse
condemnation lawsuits as well. (3) "[1Inverse liability of public agencies is determined in
the main by the peculiarities of private law roles governing interference with" 'surface
waters,' 'flood waters,' and 'stream waters?H" (Van Alstyne, op. cit. supra, 20 Hastings
L.J. at pp. 448-449.) The legal rights and consequences following such categorization of
water types have recently been summarized as follows: "'" 'First, one has no right to
obstruct the flow onto his land of what are technically known as surface waters ....
Second, one has the right to protect him~elfagainst~oodwaters ... and for that purpose to
obstruct their flow onto his land, and this even though such obstruction causes the water
to flow onto the land of another ....Third, one may not obstruct or divert the flow of a
natural watercourse. [Citations.]' .....(Weaver v. Bishop (1988) 206 Cal. App.3d 1351,
1353-1354 [254 Cal. Rptr. 425] [private litigants], italics added.)
In the present case, the complaint permits the inference, appropriate on general demurrer,
that the water which inundated plaintiffs' property was surface water. The complaint
describes increased "impervious surfaces," increased "storm water rtmott;" "storm
waters," and a culvert, built upland from plaintiffs land to collect "rimoff" InKeys v.
Romley (1967) 64 Cal. 2d 396 [50 Cal. Rptr. 273,412 P.2d 529], the Supreme Court
described surface water as being "[w]ater diffused over the surface of land, or contained in
depressions therein, and resulting from rain, snow, or which rises to the surface in springs
.... It is... distinguishable from... water collected in an identifiable body, such as a river
or lake. The extraordinary overflow of rivers and streams is known as 'flood water.' "(Id
at p. 400, italics added.)
The facts alleged in the complaint are very similar to those in other inverse condemnation
cases involving property damage caused by the diversion or obstruction of surface waters.
For example, in Shefret v. Co~mty of [page 759] Los Angeles (1970) 3 Cal. App. 3d 720
[84 CaLRptr. 11] the plaintiff recovered for damages caused by reduction in the natural
absorption surface in a new development which created an increased and different pattern
of surface flow from the upland tract and concentrated nmoffto plaintiffs property.
Burrows v. State of California (1968) 260 Cal. App.2d 29 [66 Cal. Rptr. 868] was a case in
which defendant's road resuffacing and widening project eliminated a drainage ditch, thus
changing drainage patterns of surface water and causing flooding of plaintiffs land.
Frustuck v. City of Fairfax (1963) 212 Cal. App.2d 345 [28 Cal. Rptr. 357] involved
damage caused by an accelerated flow of surface water over newly developed land
adjoining phintiffs property, collected in an enlarged culvert and sent through plaintiffs
existing ditch. The court noted the basis of the city's liability was its failure to appreciate
the probability that the drainage system from the new development to the Frustuck
property, ~mctioning as deliberately conceived, and as altered and maintained by the
diversion of waters from their normal channels, would restfit in some damage to private
property. (Id. at p. 362.) The drainage system, which the city had accepted and
approved, was a public improvement and it did not matter if the city had not been the one
that actually physically diverted the water. (Ibid.) "The fact that the work is performed by
a contractor, subdMder or a private owner of property does not necessarily exonerate a
public agency, if such contractor, subdivider or owner follows the plans and specifications
furnished or approved by the public agency." (Id. at pp. 362-363.)
Finally, in Inns v. San Juan Uni~edSchoolDist. (1963) 222 Cal. App.2d 174 [34
Cal. Rptr. 903] a school altered its propert3fs natural surface drainage pattern through a
wide, vegetation- covered swale to direct water through a 28-inch culvert onto plaintiffs
property. Although the plaintiff had always been subject to a "servitude" for the water
from the school's land, this court held the increase in volume and velocity of water
released into the swale created inverse condemnation liability. (Id. at p. 177, citing
LeBrun v. Richards (1930) 210 Cal. 308 [291 P. 825, 72 A.L. 1L 336].)
(4) A cause of action for inverse condemnation based on surface water damage must
conform to the general inverse condemnation principles set forth in Albers v. County oJ
Los Angeles (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 250 [42 Cal. Rptr. 89, 398 P. 2d 129], and grounded in
Califomia's Constitution.2(2) (Sheffet, supra, 3 Cal. App.3d at pp. 73 1-732.) In certain
circumstances, an owner of private property may recover in an inverse condemnation
action where [page 760] actual physical damage is caused to his property by a public
improvement as deliberately planned and built, whether or not the damage is foreseeable.
(Albers, supra, 62 Cal.2d at pp. 262, 263-264; contra Belair v. Riverside County Flood
Control Dist., supra, 47 Cal. 3d at p. 567 [re Hood Waters]; Holtz v. Superior Court
(1970) 3 Cal. 3d 296, 306-307 [90 Cal. Rptr. 345, 475 P.2d 441].) In certain
circumstances, a governmental agency may be held strictly liable, with or without fatfit, if
the public improvement constitutes a substantial cause of the damage even ffonly one of
several concurrent causes. (Souza v. Silver Development Co. (1985) 164 Cal. App.3d 165,
171 [210 Cal. Rptr. 146]; accord, Belair, supra, at pp. 559- 560.)
(2b) The complaint alleges that plaintiffs are owners in fee of certain described real
property in the Old Town portion of the City of Auburn, and are lessees of a restaurant
sited on that property. Thus, the requirement that plaintiffs have a private property
ownership interest in the damaged property is satisfied.
The complaint further alleges that "as a direct and proximate restfit of [city's design and
operation] of the improvements ... and exercise ofdominlon over man-made and natural
watercourses ... for the management and control of storm waters, plaintiffs' ... real
properties have since development of upstream properties repeatedly been subject to
inundation and invasion by storm waters and suffered damage ... because of the
unreasonable activities and conduct of[city]." This satisfies the requirement of alleging
damage to plaintiffs' property caused by the project as designed and built.
The complaint alleges that the city "dedicated for public use" the drainage facilities located
above phintiffs' property, thus satisfying the necessity of alleging a public project caused
the harm.
Finally, the complaint alleges, albeit somewhat unclearly, that defendant constructed the
Brewery basin culvert, with a capacity of 105 cfs, and sent water liom the surface moil[
of the subdivision through it into a preexisting 75 cfs drainage facility adjacent to plaintiffs'
property, and that defendant's "failure to reco~tmize" the existing storm "drainage facilities
[were] inadequate" to collect the increased storm water mnoff~om Skyline Subdivision
"proximately and substantially caused" damage to plaintiffs' property. Thus, theAlbers
requirement of pleading substantial causation is satisfied.
(5) An inverse condemnation cause of action based on damage by ranice water is
governed by a rule of reasonableness that is peculiar to that getIre. (Burrows v. State oJ
California, supra, 260 Cal. 2d at pp. 32-33.) [page 761 ] Burrows, which first applied the
reasonableness rule of private surface water law to an inverse condemnation case,
succinctly summarized this rule as follows: "1. If the upper owner is reasonable and the
lower owner [is] unreasonable, the upper owner wins; 2. [i]fthe upper owner is
unreasonable and the lower owner [is] reasonable, the lower owner wins;... 3. [i]fboth
the upper and lower owners are reasonable, the lower owner wins." (Burrows, supra, at
pp. 32-33; accord Sheffet v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 3 Cal. App.3d at p. 728.)
However, this reasonableness doctrine simply presents a question of fact to be determined
in each case upon a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. (Keys v. Romley,
supra, 64 Cal.2d at p. 410.) Plaintiffs need not plead defendant's unreasonableness to
state a cause of action. (Burrows, supra, 260 Cal. App.2d at p. 33.) Instead, defendant
must answer and raise the issue of plaintiffs' unreasonableness to prevail in this case. As
the Burrows court w~ly notes, there is no incentive "to try to plead and prove that the
upper owner's diversion of surface water has been unreasonable. He prevails, whatever
the nature of the upper owner's conduct. Why should he undertake the burden of proving
the upper owner's diversion to be unreasonable? (6)(See fn. 3.) The reasonable diverte~'s
money spends just as nicely." (Ibid.)3(3)
(2c) Inasmuch as the case involves surface waters inundating property that was not
subject to historical flooding, defendant's reliance on Belair v. Riverside County Flood
ControlDist., supra, 47 Cal. 3d 550 is misplaced and plaintiffs need not allege defendant's
drainage system failed to function as intended. First, as the Belair case deals with flood
water (id. at pp. 554-555), another body of law altogether, it is inapposite. Second, the
Belair court's use of the phrase "failed to fimction as intended" was a means offleshing
out the requirement for pleading substantial causation (id. at p. 560) based upon the
particular factual underpinnings of the case. In Belair the subject water had escaped fi'om
a dike constructed to protect a site that had been historically subject to flooding. (Id. at p.
556.) Therefore, to show that defendant's facility was a substantial cause ofinjmy to that
site, it was necessary for the plalntiffin Belair to eliminate the other probable causes of
damage, i.e., natural flooding. This in turn required focusing on the fimctional capability of
the failed public project: if the dike had overflowed after [page 7621 it reached its design
capacity, instead of when it was still below capacity, the cause of flooding might have
been nature alone. (.rd. at pp. 558-560.) Although nature had a hand in the injury
produced in Belatr, the dike there failed to protect plaintiff even when it was not operating
at capacity, thus it failed to function as intended, presenting a substantial cause of the
injury. (Id. at p. 560.)
The facts of the case at bench present no similar obstacle. The allegations allow the
reasonable inference that plaintiffs' property was not subject to historical flooding; the
complaint also expressly alleges that the repeated incidents ofintmdation suffered by
plaintiffs dates from the time the upland subdivision was developed.
(7) Third, we note that the policies governing surface water and flood control inverse
condemnation cases are different. In flood cases, as Belair states, the purpose of requiring
allegations of both substantial causation and unreasonableness on the part of the
government entity defendant is to prevent discouraging construction of flood protection
facilities. (47 Cal. 3d at p. 558.) However, no such concern is involved in surface water
cases. If anything, the opposite is tree: surface water damage typically follows alteration
of natural drainage patterns by a party who has developed a piece of property for profit, in
this case a land subdivider, instituting improvements which are later incorporated into a
governmental infrastructure. (See, e.g., Frustuck v. City of Fairfax, supra, 212
Cal. App.2d at pp. 362-363.) The coitus have held that while this type of development
"[is] socially beneficial, there [is] no reason why the economic cost incident to the
expulsion of surface waters should be borne by the adjoining landowners, rather than by
those undertaking such projects for profit." (Sheffet, supra, 3 Cal. App.3d at p. 73 1, citing
Armstrong v. Francis Corp. (1956) 20 N.J. 320 [120 A. 2d 4, 59, A.L.R. 2d 413].)
Finally, we note that Belair is inapposite because it deals with unintended damage
resulting from breach of a dike and the flooding that occurred thereafter. (Belair, supra,
47 Cal. 3d at p. 554.) As Burrows noted, "in ... surface water cases we do not usually deal
with -hintended, though foreseeable consequences of acts or omissions, but rather with
intended results which may or may not be reasonable, depending on all of the
circumstances." (Burrows v. State of California, supra, 260 Cal. App.2d at p. 34.)
(2d) The trial court erred in applying Belair's pleading standards to a complaint alleging
surface water invasions. Ipage 7631
(8) Plaintiffs allege that the cit3?s unreasonable "failure to recognize" the obvious problem
in design, and its corresponding unreasonable "failure to upgrade" the existing drainage
system, resulted in damage to their property. Defendant contends these allegations
undermine plaintiffs' cause of action for inverse condemnation because defendant is under
no duty to upgrade existing systems to prevent damage caused by any and all future
storms. But defendant is relying on inapposit~C~o""o_d control cases)for authority. (E.g.,
Tri-.~Che~n. Inc.~v. Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. ( 1976} 60 Cal. App.3d 306
[132 Cal. Rptr. 1421; S, hae,,ffer v..State o[Cal~[brnia (1972)22 Cal. App.3d 1017 [6'~' _
Cal. Rptr. 861] (overruled on other grounds in County of San Diego v. Miller (1975) 13
Cal.3d 684, 693 [119 Cal. Rptr. 491, 532 P.2d 139]).) The cited cases did not involve a
failure to plead a cause of action for inverse condemnation under any possible theory.
Instead, they concerned the plaintiffs' tailure to prove the defendants' flood control
projects caused flood waters to inundate plaintiffs' properties. (Tri-Chem, supra, 60
Cal. App.3d at pp. 310-312; Shaeffer, supra, 22 Cal. App.3d at pp. 1019-1021.) The
defendants were not liable because the evidence disclosed the flood control projects
decreased the amount of flooding that would otherwise have occurred naturally on the the
plaintiffs' lands. (Tri- Chem, supra, at p. 310; Shaeffer, supra, at p. 1019.)
Unlike the cited cases, phintiffs are not alleging defendant had a duty to build or upgrade
a flood control system to prevent naturally occurring flood waters from flowing onto
plaintiffs' land. (Tri-Chem, supra, 60 Cal. App.3d at pp. 308-312; ShaeJfer, supra, 22
Cal. App. 3 d at pp. 1019-102 I. ) Instead, they are contending defendant approved the
development of a subdivision, which increased the flow of surface waters, then built a
culvert to divert these surface waters even though defendant knew, or should have known,
the new culvert would empty into an existing drainage system with a si~tmi~cantly smaller
capacity, inevitably causing plaintiffs' land to be flooded. In other words, plaintiffs are
aileging defendant had a duty to prevent harm to plaintiffs' land caused by conditions
defendant approved or created. Since the cited cases do not hold that a defendant has no
duty to upgrade an existing drainage system to accommodate an increase in and diversion
of surface waters caused by the defendant, defendant's reliance on these cases is
unavailing. [page 764[
Disposition
The judgment dismissing plaintiffs' second amended complaint should be reversed and the
trial court ordered to overrule the general demurrer to the second amended complaint.
Plaintiffs should recover their costs on appeal.
Blease, Acting P. J., and Sim~ J., concurred. [page 765]
FOOTNOTE 1. A practitioner's manual warns that "[d]ecisions in water damage cases
defy logical synthesis. The practitioner should recognize that each case is decided on its
particular factual situation, with little reliance on precedent. The characterization of
inverse condemnation decisional law as 'muddled and disorderly' [citation] is particularly
descriptive of water cases." (Condemnation Practice in Cal. (Cont. Ed. Bar 1973) Inverse
Condemnation, § 13.14, p. 350.)
FOOTNOTE 2. Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just
compensation having first been made to ... the owner .... "( Cal. Const., art. I, former §
14.)
FOOTNOTE 3. Reasonableness in the context of surface water inverse condemnation
cases has to do with balancing the utility of the public project against the gravity of the
harm caused to the plaintiff.. "[T]he gathering of surface waters into a system of
impervious storm drains which follow natural drainage routes may restfit in greatly
increased volume, velocity and concentration of water, and thus may constitute an
unreasonable method of disposing for such water when weighed against the seriousness
the resulting harm to lower landowners whose property is damaged as a result." (Van
Alstyne, op. cit. supra, 20 Hastings L.J. at pp. 451-452, fn. omitted.)
Endnotes
1 (Popup)
FOOTNOTE 1. A practitioner's manual warns that "[d]ecisions in water damage cases
defy logical synthesis. The practitioner should reco~nlze that each case is decided on its
particular factual siftration, with lirtle reliance on precedent. The characterization of
inverse condemnation decisional law as 'muddled and disorderly' [citation] is particularly
descriptive of water cases." (Condemnation Practice in Cal. (Cont. Ed. Bar 1973) Inverse
Condemnation, § 13.14, p. 350.)
2 (Popup)
FOOTNOTE 2. Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just
compensation having first been made to ... the owner .... "( Cal. Const., art. I, former §
14.)
3 (Popup)
FOOTNOTE 3. Reasonableness in the context of surface water inverse condemnation
cases has to do with balancing the ut'dity of the public project against the gravity of the
harm caused to the plaintiff.. "IT]he gathering of surface waters into a system of
impervious storm drains which follow natural drainage routes may result in greatly
increased volume, velocity and concentration of water, and thus may constitute an
tinreasonable method of disposing for such water when weighed against the seriousness
the resulting harm to lower landowners whose property is damaged as a result." (Van
Alstyne, op. cit. supra, 20 Hastings L.J. at pp. 451-452, In. omitted.)
RECEIVED
To: The Planning Commission
10500 Civic Center Drive JUt 2 11999
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91729
Dear Planning Cormmission, Ci~y0fRanCho Cuca~ 17, 1999
P~anning Division
I am sending my concerns in writing for the proposed develop-
ment at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the
street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). I
find this necessary since the date for this public hearing has
been changed three times now. (It was originally scheduled on
July 14th, then Aug. llth and now July 28th.) Myself and many of
my neighbors have tried to schedule around these constant changes
in the hearing date. This last date is impossible for me to
schedule around. I ask once more for a hearing date in Septem-
ber, when more residents can attend. Although moving up the
hearing date clearly benefits the developer, please consider the
residents wishes as well.
I would no reiterate several points made at the planning
commission meeting on June 9th for your consideration. On this
date, I presented you with a petition signed by 23 residents.
The petition opposes the continuation of Hidden Farm Road across
Archibald into the new BarratE Development and requests the new
housing be one story only homes and/or fully comply with the
Hillside Ordinance.
Twelve out of sixteen homes on Hidden Farm are represented, with
the remaining signatures from residents on the development peri-
meter--including Almond St. and JadeiCe Ave. to the west, Archi-
bald to the north and Carrari to the south.
The reasons for opposing the continuation of Hidden Farm Road
into the new tract are:
1. The difference in age between the tracts is approximately 20
years. When originally planned there would only have been a few
years difference.
2. Most importantly, the danger to children in both tracts.
Currently kids ride their bikes and roller skate on our street,
if the road continues across Archibald, kids would be more likely
to try to cross this 50 mph, downhill road. And as one resident
said, "lowering the speed limit will not make it safe."
3. Hidden Farm road is a cul-de-sac, it doesn't go anywhere, so
why connect it into the new tract?
I suggest off setting the streets, as most already are in the
area. So children would not be tempted to try to cross Archi-
bald.
Hillside ordinance issue
The Planning cornmission workshop minutes from June 10, 1998
state:
1, "Previous approval included a condition limiting development
tO One-StOry homes"
This was intended to minimize visual impact and 2 story homes
would have more impact.
2. Concerns were voiced about 2 story homes being built without
stepping the pads and that allowing this project to proceed is
allowing a dangerous precedent to be set for hillside develop-
ment.
3. Our questions are:
a. Do the proposed flat pads "fit the terrain" as the Hillside
Ordinance stipulates?
b. What is being done to retain "minimal visual impact"?
c. At the design review meeting I saw planning commissioners
taking great care to assure visual impacts from structures and
yards were minimized. Since this new development does not have
an association, how will this be maintained?
Also of concern are the 3 exits proposed on Archibald, with
only 1 exit on Hermosa that mentions impact on emergency access.
This is a severe fire danger area! In the event of a wildfire
people will want to get there pets and possessions and get out.
How does the proposed mitigation of one through street connection
from Archibald to Almond solve the emergency exit problem?
Especially when Archibald narrows to one lane below Hillside!
With 3 exits on Archibald and one on Hermosa, I think most will
try to exit on Archibald.
My last concern is with the grading done over June 7-9th.
This grading was done "without city approval" according to asso-
ciate planner, Brent Le Count. Shrub removal for fire prevention
usually is done on the perimeter of the property. On June 8th,
one fourth to one half of the area was cleared from north of
Almond St. south to Carrari. Including the middle portion, not
just the perimeter. My understanding is this type of grading is
done after mitigation is complete. Ralph Crane of the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Department said normal fire clearance includes
mowing, discing or hand cutting the area 100 feet in from the
curb. Since the residents have complained, Bartart development
has erected an ugly, barbed wire chain link fence around the
entire property. We feel this is in retaliation for our com-
plaints and to prevent the movement of wildlife through the
neighborhoods, as it has done. I ask you, to please consider the
residents in your decisions, and this developer's lack of consid-
eration for the residents in ~is 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. It also says the review
committees value public participation and encourages it. There-
fore, myself and the signers of this petition hope you will con-
sider these points,
Thank you for your time.
S~ncerely,
Cindy Shannon
9574 Hidden Farm Road
Alia Loma, Ca. 91737
RECEIVED
JUL 2 1 1999 Krishna K & Vidya K Kudva
9683 Cartart Court
City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cuca=nonga, CA-91737
Planning Division
July 19,1999
Planning Division
City ofRancho Cucamonga
P.OBox 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA-91729
Sub: Environmental Assessment and Development review 98-10 - Barratt American
Dear Sirs,
We received your Notice of Public Hearing and Environmental Notice dated July 15, 1999
on the above subject.
We oppose the proposed construction of the I23 dwelling units on the 84 acres of land on
the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrari Court. As the area residents of nearly
tv.'enty (20) years, we strongly feel that the proposed construction will have negative and
damaging impact on the environment, and degrade the quality of life the area residents are
currently enjoying. We are. therefore, voicing our strong objections to any further land
development or construction of any nature in the proposed area.
Thank you for giving us this opportunity to express our views on this issue.
~irishn'a~K~
Vidya Kudva
MY NAME 1S DON BLUNK. IRESIDE AT974S CARRARL P. AkNCHO CUCAMONGA, TH~IS
DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED TRACT iZii6, i HAVE LiVED TiiERE frOR 20 yEARS, IllAVE
WATCHED AS THREE DIFFERF. NT ~ESIDENTIAL BUILDERS HAVE AI-izMPTED TO BUII.h ACROSS
!mROMMYliOMF_., TIIE FIRST ONE WASNEVERRLAI.LyAI;ACTOp,. FREEDMAN HOMES WAS
THE SECOND BUILDER TO ATTEMPKD TO BUILD IN THIS LOCATiON. Aiq-m~MUCliDISCUS~ION
WITH THE CiTY AND ~iEgOMAN HOME~, THERE WAS A MEETING Of THE MinDS AND THE TRACT
WAS APPROVED UNAN IMASLY BY THE PLANNING COMMt t]'.~ ON MARCH 2~tlk 1987, TWO OF THE
PEOPLE PROM THAT PLANNING COMMISSION ARE ON THIS BOARD. MANY OF OUR NEIGIIBOf4S
WERE INVOLVED IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THIS BUH,DI~t, AND MP, NY LETTF, R$ WRITFEN TO THE
CITY ABOUT THIS AREA MOSTLY CONCERNING THE FACT THAT liOMSES WERE GOING TO BE
ALLOWED IN THIS ARF.~ A LOT OF P~OPLE WEP, g VERY MUCli AGAINST IIAVff4G FARMS
AlqAMALS IN THER NEIGHBORliOOB. THE TItACT WAS TO Bg OF Mr/ r.n lEOUSING, ONE AND TWO
STORY HOMRN: BUT BECAUSE OF AN APPEAL IT WENT TO Tlig CfrV COUNCIL. AND WITH MUCli
ADDITIONAl, WORK, IT WAS APPROVED BY TIlE COUNCIL,. P~OPLE ON ALL SIDES OF TIffS TRACT
(13316) WERE SOMEWliAT RESIGNED TO THE FACT TI!AT THai DEVELOPMENT WAS GOING TO BE
BUILT. eVERyONEONLONDONATTHATTiMgWASAWARgOFTHgpLANSFORTHEFLOOD
CONTROL, AND MOST PEOPLE AT THAT TIME AGREED WITli THE FLNAL APPROVKD MAP, I AM
NOT AWARE OF ANY OF THE ORIGINAL OWNERS STILL LIVING ON LONDON. i WOULD TtI~NK
THAT A~YONE MOVING '170 THOSE LOT WOULD WANT TO FIND OllT |1~ ANY THING MIGliT gSFZCT
TIIEM IN THE I?UTURE BEFORE 111EV WOULD INVL~T IN THERE liOM~S. I KNOW T]LAT THERE
'I!iLE REPORT WOULD SIIOW THE CURRENT ILASEMF24T. Tlig TRACT WAS FINALLY APPROVED
IN JUNE 1990, BUT TIlls TRACT STOPPED WHEN FRgEDMA~ liOlt!L~ CEASED WORK ON THE
PROJECT AND LET THE LAND GO BACK TO THE BANK_ IT SZI~MS IRONIC THAT AT THAT TIME
THERE WERE NO LOUD CRIES FOR ENDANGERD BIRDS, RAT, BUd*ItaLy OR EVEN SAGE BRUSH.
OR IF TIIKRE W AS, IT W AS NOT VERY LOUD. O~ ~OI//,D IT ~ I2'L,JT 2Y2,Z~R~' M~P.2tE NOT
E~D~NGp2~:D PZANT~ OR ~l.~f~Z,~* AT 77Z~T 'fi~E ~?/C~ T/~~ T~fl*,' ZZL4?' I HAFE L1~7,3~ ll~.R~ T?IE
BRUSII ACI¢O,~' TIIF 87RF_.ET IIAS I~:~;N CT. IT YFI~?I A DI,~L', IT llA8 BEEN C/f/* Y/HI/A D8 TRAC'TOR ~41j,
DOWN ?U TIlt:' DIRT. tr IM,~ II~:N CUT ON All. ,%TDE,X NORT[I OF CARRARI 81'RF~T AT LF21,%7,.7) JO0
lr I~4N BEE,~ Ct fl' ON BOTll ,~IDF~ OF TIlE ~J[l TIIA T GO~' DOFf' TIIE Mll)l)lt OF TIlE PROPERTY 11~ ~
CRI&~' C~05~ PATI~.RN . I REALLY WOND~2R m AIff ENDANGP. P~Z) ANAIZdAI~ OR PL43ff COIIIJ) ,~7?IJ.
t;tTR IN lfll,~' AR~{., ff~'J*[ ~ TIll.? (?IfiTING OR li" TIIf~RE FFOU~D BE A ~blNC.!'.' ~DR TIIP2d TO
Ri~'%TZ4BLI~71 TIJ ,A~ISI,lt/F~ . IN TIlE g~lvT~.R MONTII~' MANY MO'/r,~(,'rC/.~RLDERS PRACtiCE 7II~Y~'
tlOBBY IN TIII.$' I/I~:I,D. I I~{tq~ITII~3RD It) MGL'tl OFA LOUD FOIC~'TO 57OP TIlI~ PIMClICt:'TO IIL~P
PROII..'C.T Tilt:' ENDANOI,2U.:L~ PI.4NTS AND ANI~L~I2~ J~T LIKE MANY OF OUR I~PaOIIBOP, X gtE.¢:t~R [~ILD
Lf~E IN TIlE Ffi'2.D ...t K,VO}' OF COI'OT~..% OPO~UM. ~K{]zYK~ . RAT~ ~UARREI,.q , .~PIIY'P,~q. Al~l)
i'},~' ~.~' O( :Ag~lONtlZ DF.~.R, ~F~/I1~ ~ ~ ILdD MORI'.' TI!JIV OUR SIL4J~' 01,' Rt!?TLl~Wlll~' TIll8 rt~lR
~rf21i. .,IX ?'lit:' lAST FE~' 1'~24R.~ . I glOUIi) MI.~%' TTIi' I~A T~A~ ~4 {fIT OF TIlE IIIU,. BUT 1 AM
OFA RE24LL3'F. W~: IMFE BEEN AMAZKI) TlblT TlllSAIq~A IIA8 PI{FF BEEN DIT/F. LOPFJI IN All. TII~'
1 tlAI'l..'/IL~FAy.? KNO~' THAT ~FII~:N YOU MO~ ~' I.~FIT).~l AREA. ~'~ClALLI }FFFII FAC~41q'F Bb2LDABI2~.
LAPiD TIIAT YOU S!IOt/LD Bh; RI,~tDY TO .~2;'.WJA~'TItlNG I.~ ,FF. firFtMI~F f~OZhlO i F~ IIdFE. g"A~711ED
P~.'01~22' ON BO?II .qlDh: OFARCIIIBJLD,~Ob ~' A}F.4Y AND hEW PEOPLE I~OI/E IN. TII/..'~/.:AR.-t'' PEOPLE
APE. ~[07' ~ ~FARE OF 7111~ [, IGI ~S 171A T IIA g 't:' aON~.' ON ~TTtl BUJIJ)KRX TO U~.T TIZE BEST
Dt:'I~ZOI'ilI?NT I?IAT IIIE CTIT CAN IIjF~:.,rIND ....... ~IOH/ P/~.',~P, EATTIIAT,~iME DOOR AC~IN.
HAR S'ORKk:l) I[~tRD TO FIND .gC),%¢EOt~T TO D~I'~LClF Illt" LAND. BUT Wfl?l N~:~F PfZIP!2' I~I TIlt:'l,
NOS' IIAt 7"A NEg" FIGIfi'. IZllb' Tale THe: L/'.77/'21~/?L4TAP,/~' B ;I~NG DRITI~2N DEI. tt4Fl'.'
AMIJ&[L.~ IN TIIK~t lN~TEdD OI: AIJOI~' fIORSf~ r!!E ~'AS~I IX AGAI,%r A tqb.~ ClMIJANUE. BUT TIII,.' CrlT
J~IYIJo IR~YArG TO GE~'TiII. Y IIIR{L Y/E$1OUI. D T~7.L TII~'2?~tlU)~i~$,iiiATTIt-FAREIN FOR d R~M1,
FIGIfi' II.' TII~:T P/ANT ?~) BUILD IN TIIIS Cfil; Tltt~I? ARI,~ P~;OI'I.I~ FFIIO FANT TO MAKI,,' ~ PRKS'~RF~' OUT
OF TIll?., LAND. OF COEZRSE I I lAP~: .~.'~I NO Pl.4NS ?TI DO TtI~. MAFBb' ?II~.'}' TIIIIqlC TIIF. CITY
BUY TIIF. I.4ND FROM TIIE DEVELOI' ,ER . 1~7~'JU~T SI'F~ND M{}R~ MONEY INSTF. dD OI,'IIAFIN(~ TIIF. IAND
MAKE.~tO~rEY IN IVT'.'~Y 77d J~'AND F 'EI':,S' FUR 77ire' CJTT, INCJ. f/DI~T~ MORE 2~EYE~UI~ ~OR BIJXlN~2~ IN
AR~d.. IF ~L" $rKR~; Tfi LET TItE L4ND C~O RiCK TO fi~ N.4T~fI~4L ~T.~T~.
BRU~I IIAS GRO|¢'N l~tCT~ TIll,: 1. ?RE MAt~S~IAL ~'OI/LD ?~'~L 80.~t270N~' TO C'rfl' ;fTIE BRU~II AGAIN TO
PRO~C~I'HlP; IIOAIEOI{TV ,I~R~' t~710 LIt 'E IV,EAR 771E PROI' ,ER}~ AGA/NST I+ILDI, ZI ,OES. llljH F/fIAT WOULD
WE IIA~ ~.' G/I/N/z'D ... TIlE HATURAL IIK~ t,77... OF COURSIZ.. . I!lff ,%Y))/IE PEOPLI~' FITLL bTILL !lA ~7~.' TIlE
AIJ. 77II,7 7'.t~/~Sfl T!L!T C:~7;5' DUAI!'ED IN !RE FTP. ZD. AtZ. 'HIE TU,~,IIEE. 1tt,7,.'/~;13,5' libIT CY)M~.' DO~' IlIE IIILL
IN ObT{ WINDY TII~tI~. YI,,~' AND SO,~IE PEOPLIz' WILL ,%'IEL It4VE HII,;RE VIEW. rile PEOPI, E tVIIO ARE NOT
DIRL:CTtI. Y E~ I,'b'CI'EI) IIY TfI1S 71~1C?1'. OUSDIDI,.' OV111E TIL4I,'I,TC, AbZ) A IJITLK MORE N0157,.'. tl,~l 71MI:'
I~Y)R 11'11,.' COAfZvg,510N 70 ,S7~)1' I'LA )TNG ~)TII TIllS L4NO OR W/i' P/IIJ, 11l:' DOING TIllS AGAIN IN ANOTItI~
FEW FI,91RS /{71EN SOAlt..' D/'.T Y. LOPI,:R WA,NT$ Z'O TRY AND B~LD. WIIA'[' [{ILL BE ~[~; /blrlrLE CRY T!IF, N. AS
YOU C~IN rEIJ, I AM FOR TIllS TRA( ~7. 1T CAN ONI, Y [l ,hT, P TO ENIIANCE MINE AND Tl!lf $URRONI)IHG
PROP ,FJtT'r VAI, UF_S IIlE JNZ~&tI.S l~71J. ,%771,L BE HIAR~:....BU'P $/NCE IHIS'IS AIV API'RO VED TRACT MAP
WIIA T IF ,~)ME DEI~:I, OPEI{ MIGIIT ONLY WAI~I' 7~') PUT 57REKlS' IN AND St~L TIlE LAND 1,19R .C. U57Y. h~/
IIOMES. 1 UNDP;R,.~7~I.~:D HIAT IlIERE ARE I)IFI:ElthT PROCEEDURP.~' FOR TIII,~ AND TII~SJ, E M1GIrf NOT
BE NEkD I'UR A PUI~IJC M ~I~71NG. IT GIFE, IkIE SOMI,.TtlING TO TiI~VK AiR)Crl.~IblTi iFOUIjJ NOTZiE iIApioy
P/ITII.. WORK W17tt TIll( ~;bI.~'CT"ED PI,.'OPLE Olv I. ONDO.~' ST. A,~l) HIEN PLEASE AI'PROP~ IIIE
THANK YOU
DON BLUNK
9745 CARRARI ST, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA,
CITY 01~ RANCHO
PLANNING COMMI~iSION
July 28, 1999
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CMC CENTER
COUNCIL CHAMBER
10500 CWIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONCA CAI,IFORNIA
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW 98-10 - BARRATT AMERICAN
Material presented by:
Diana Santini
5207 London Ave
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737
Diana Santini
5207 London Avenue
Rancho Cucatnonga, CA 91737
(909) 945-9840
dune 9, 1999
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Dear Commissioners:
As a follow-up to my letter of June 3, 1999 addressed to Dan James, Senior Civil
Engineer (ATTACHMENT A), I am expressing specific concerns and requests to be
considered pdor to approval of the housing project identified as Tract 13316.
My home is the first lot immediately south of the project on the corner of London
and Carrari Avenue. It is my understanding that the drainage project consists of
an underground pipe which will surface above Carrari and empty into a cement
storm drain which will be in my immediate backyard and will be directed towards
the existing natural drainaqe flow. VVhen I purchased my home in 1993, I was
informed by the City that I was not allowed to interrupt the natural drainage of
water, therefore, not allowed to interrupt or permanently construct on my
property.
I am therefore requesting the following issues be taken into consideration:
1. On February 15, 1989, the City of Rancho Cucamonga passed, approved and
adopted Resolution No. 89-066 which in part required construction of a
Master Plan Storm Drain line through the site which will dewater the system
into an existing open channel. It appears that the current Drainage Plan does
not extend the storm drain line to the existing open channel but allows the
water to be directed onto dry land which may impair the integrity & stability of
existing slopes private property. (ATI'ACHEMENT B)
2. Verify that the drainage easement includes drainage construction. It may be
limited to allowing for the natural drainage flow vs. directed drainage which
will now be directed to empty into a channel and onto natural surface
property.
Planning Commission
6/9/99
Page 2
3. GeoSoils Engineering Inc., conducted a limited Geotechnical Evaluation of
my property in 1992 (A'I'rACHMENT C). Issues of concern include:
> Drainage of adjacent, northly property appears to direct drainage toward
the subject property and to the ephemeral drainage. If allowed to
continue, this runoff could degrade the integrity of the slope where it
· descends into the ephemeral drainage. Additional erosion of this nature
could undermine the block wall on the north property boundary near the
ephemeral drainage or undermine portions of the residence.
> AccUmulated surface drainage should be directed to an appropriate
location for disposal by providing a graded swale with a minimum gradient
of 2 percent or an appropriate surface collection device with nonperforated
pipe to an outlet at the street or other suitable location. Off-site runoff
should not be allowed to pond on the site. Water should not be
allowed to flow over any slopes.
> Water should not be allowed to discharge adjacent to the residence.
Drainage systems should not be altered without expert consultation.
> Slopes should not be altered without expert consultation. Whenever the
homeowner plans a topographic modification of the lot or slope, a qualified
geotechnical consultant should be contacted.
> A stability analysis should be performed on the existing slopes to verify
stability.
:> Sinca the approval of the resolution in 1989, I have constructed a
suspended wooden deck which overhangs the existing natural drainage
area and an in ground pool has been installed. I therefore request a copy
of the geographical evaluation of the property and proposed development
& drainage system plan conducted after 1992, If one has not been
conducted after 1992, that such evaluation be performed and reviewed
prior to approval for commencing construction.
4, If a drainage plan is approved, that it consist of a buried pipe emptying into
the existing storm drain as per the City's approval in 1989.
5. If an open channel is considered, that it be located on the East portion of the
property which will essentially extend the existing channel southerly of my
property. This was identified as a viable concept by Russell H. Maguira, City
Engineer in 1990 which would extend the channel 250 feet south.
(ATTACHMENT D).
Planning Commission
6/9~99
Page 3
· . 6. If an open channel is approved as currently planned, that a crossover bridge
be provided to reach the East portion of my property without having to exit
into the Community Trail as was decided on June 22, 1989 by the Design
Review Committee meeting. (ATTCHMENT E)
7. Request that no two-story homes be built immediately adjacent to my
property in order to preserve privacy.
8. All debris left in the existing street in front of my property be cleared daily.
Sincerely,
Diana Santini
Diana Santini
5207 London Ave.
AIta Loma, CA 91737
(909) 945-9840
June 3, 1999
The City of Rancho Cucamonga
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
RE: Tract 13316
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 attended 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 "tp wrap" which will be fenced. My home is the first lot
immediately south of the project on the comer of Carrari and London Avenue. It has
been described that the "tip wrap" will be in my immediate back yard with the gutter and
drainage water directed to empty onto my properly.
When I purchased my home in 1993, it was my understanding that the city had
an easement on my property for Natural Drainage Flow 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 "r/p 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 portion 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 15ipe 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.
Cc: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
Betty A. Miller, Associate Engineer
-- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA , --r~,
STAFF REPORT
DATE: Fehru,~ry 15, 1989 ~ ~
TJ: City Council and Acting City Hanager
FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer
BY: Gary H. Sheu, Assistant Civil En~inee~
SUBJECT: Approval of a Resolution acce~ting an offer of dedication
of a irainane eas~ent offend to the City of Ra~ho
Cucamonga on Tract No. 9590 Icca~d east of Archibald
Avenue and south o'~ Almond Avenue
Staff r~con~ends that City Council approve the attached resolution
accepLing the drainage ease~,ent as sho~n on the map of Tract No. 9590 and
described on the attached resolution.
O~ckorcund/Anatysis
The p,-oposed development c~ Tract 13316 (Fric~--~n Homes) is required to
construct a Master Plan Storm Drain llne thrnugh the site which will
dovetot the system into an existing open channel. Ctb* previously had an
offer of ded~cation for drainage purposes within this open channel as a
part of development of Tract !)590. To facilitate the draining of the
storm drain syst..*m. for Tract 13316, tt t~ necessary to accept this offer
of dedication.
An exhibit is enclosed to show the proposed Tract 13316 and location of
the offer of dedication.
Attachment
i!. 0. BOx 807 ~ I .
l",ancha Cucam0nga, CA 91730 RESOLUTION NO. 89-066
z,.9 < .--,.
-~ .-,
A P~ESOLUTIOI~ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ~CHO "~ b-', " "
~ c.
CUC~ONGA, C~IFO~IA, ACCEPTIIlG A D~INAGE EASE~NT
DEDICATION ON T~CT NO. 9590 LOCATED EAST OF ~CHIB~D '
" A~NUE ~D SOUTH OF ~OND A~NUE
~'..
The city Council of the City of Rancho Cuceonga does hereby resolve
as follows:
,~.
SECTION 1: The offer to dedicate to the= City of Ranch6 Cuc~onga,
County of San Bernardino, Sta:e of California, .the property heroin described for
drainage purposes, is hereby accepted. said proper=y is described as follows:
Those ~rtions of the easement as offered to dedicate to the
City of Rancho Cuc~onga ~r Tract No. 9590 as recorded in Map Book
138, Page 47-48.
comencing at the southeast corner of Tract NO. 9590 as
recorded in Map Book 138, Page 47-48, Official Records of said
County, recorded January 6, I978; thence north 0 23'01" east, 6.18
feet to the tru~ ~int of beginning; thence north 51 11'19" west,
290.09 fee:; thence north 56 37'07" west, 154.49 feet; thence north
18 50'18" wes~, 89.81 feet; thence north 10 39'37" west, 86.49 feet;
thence north 38 14'47" west, 108.23 feet; thence north 20 15'23"
west, 89.54 feet; thence north 28 58'28" east, '46.26 fee: =o a point
in the north line of said Tract; thence north 80 33'14" east, 480.00
-.,. fe~ to '~e northeast corner of said Trac:; thence south O 23'01"
.we~, 646.04 feet along the east line of said Tract to the true
point of beginning.
~ECTION 2: The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed for record in the office
of the County Recorder of the County of San Bernardino, State of California.
PASSED, APPRO~D, and ~OPTED this 15th ~ay of February, 1989.
AYES: Alexander, Brown, Bu~et, stout, Wright
NOES: None
~SENT: None
ATTEST: C-'-:l' U; 'L:;=' ;2::2.~ .'.~ -.-: ';"2 ~: ~ ..~
t 'j... 2' -:j.
I, BEVERLy A. AUTHELET, CITY CLERK, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed,
approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 15th day of
February, 1989.'
Executed this 16th day of February, 1989 at Rancho Cucamonga, California.
Bevejly/A.'Authelet, City Clerk
GeoSoiis, Inc.
.. Geotechnical Engineering · Engineering Geology
24890 Jefferson Avenue · P.O. Box 490 · Murrieta. Culifornia 92564 · (714) 677-9651 · FAX (714) 677-9301
September 3, 1992
W.O. 562-A-RC
Better Homes and Gardens Realty
6642 Carnellia
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91701
Attention: Ms. Heidi Burns
Subject: Limited Geotechnical Evaluation of 5207 London Avenue,
Alta Loma Area of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino
County, California
Reference: "Approved Standards," 1980, by Home Owners Warranty
Corporation.
Dear Ms. Burns:
In accordance with your request and authorization, this report
presents the findings of our limited geotechnical evaluation of the
subject property. Inasmuch as this study was performed without the
benefit of site-specific subsurface information, the conclusions
and recommendations presented herein are limited and should be
considered preliminary in nature. In addition, our observations
were performed on the exterior of the residence only.
BACKGROUND
The subject site is currently under ownership of a financial
institution. The following is our understanding from the client,
Ms. Heidi Burns, the real estate representative for the owner.
1. The residence is an approximately 14-year-old home.
2. The home recently has been refurbished in preparation for
sale. During this refurbishment, Ms. Burns noticed evidence
of surface water run-off during recent rains from the
ad3acent, northerly property.
3. The client has expressed concerns regarding drainage on the
site and drainage from adjacent properties affecting the site:
therefore, the client requested this evaluation of site
conditions
Los Angeles Co. (8181785-2158 · Orange Co. [714) 647-0277 · San Diego Co. (619) 438-3155
Better Homes and Gardens Realty W.0. 562-A-RC
5207 London September 3, 1992
Rancho Cucamonga, California Page 2
SCOPE OF SERVICRR
The scope Of our services has included the following:
1. Review and reconnaissance of general site conditions from a
geotechnical viewpoint with an emphasis on site drainage
conditions.
2. Geotechnical analysis of the data collected.
3. Preparation of this report.
GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site is a rectangular-shaped lot, consisting of about
1.17 acres. The property fronts on London Avenue in the Alta Loma
area of the city of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County,
California. The site i~ bounded by adjacent residential property
on the south, London Avenue on the north, and vacant property on
the nor%h and west. The west half of the lot has been developed
for the residential structure, while the east half of the lot
remains in an essentially natural condition.
A slope, about 10 feet high, descends from the south property line
to the adjacent property at a gradient of about 2:1 (horizontal to
vertical). A natural, ephemeral drainage transects the subject lot
and drains to the south. This ephemeral drainage is about 50 feet
wide and 20 to 30 feet deep. Slopes descend into the ephemeral
drainage at a gradient of about 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical).
Block walls exist on the western portions of the north and south
property boundaries. In the front yard, the walls are about 2 feet
high and serves as a retaining wall between the site and adjacent
properties. The remainder of each block wall is about 6 feet high
and serves as divider between properties.
A two-story, wood-frame residence with stucco and wood siding
occupies the central portion of the lot. It appears that the
residence is founded on continuous perimeter footings with concrete
slab-on-grade floors.
OBSERVATIONS OF DRAINAGE FEATURES
Our observations of the drainage conditions indicate:
1. Gutters and downspouts are not present on the residence.
Drainage devices have not been constructed on any of the
slopes on the site or slopes adjacent to the site.
GeoSoils, Inc.
Better Homes and Gardens Realty W.O. 562-A-RC
5207 London September 3, 1992
Rancho Cucamonga, California Page 3
2. An ephemeral drainage, about 50 feet wide and 20 to 30 feet
deep, transects the subject lot and drains toward the south.
3. Drainage on the front (west) portion Of the site generally is
toward the southwest corner of the lot, to the street.
4. Drainage on the south side of the house is generally toward
the south.
5. Drainage on the north side of the house is generally to the
south, toward the north wall of the house.
6. Drainage on the rear (east) portion of the site is generally
directed from the rear of the residence to the east, toward
the ephemeral drainage and from the rear of the property to
the west, toward the ephemeral drainage.
Natural drainage on the vacant property, located north of and
adjacent to the site, is generally to the southeast toward the
subject site and the ephemeral drainage. This ephemeral
drainage has caused a rill to be eroded in the slope as it
drains into the ephemeral drainage on the subject property.
PRELIMINARy CONCLUSIONS aND RECOMMENDATION~
The drainage features observed on the site at the time of our site
reconnaissance indicate that the current drainage patterns
generally direct water runoff away from the residence and toward
the rear of the property or to the street. However, surface
gradients on the north side of the residence directs drainage
toward the residence. In addition, drainage of the adjacent,
northly property appears to direct drainage toward the subject
property and to the ephemeral drainage. If allowed to continue,
this runoff could degrade the integrity of the slope where it
descends into the ephemeral drainage. Additional erosion of this
nature could undermine the block wall on the north property
boundary near the ephemeral drainage or undermine portions of the
residence.
The following preliminary recommendations are presented:
1. Positive drainage should be established and maintained on the
property. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing
a gradient of at least 4 percent for a minimum distance of 5
feet away from the residence. Accumulated surface drainage
should be directed to an appropriate location for disposal by
GeoSoiis, Inc.
Better Homes and Gardens Realty W.O. 562-A-RC
5207 London September 3, 1992
Rancho Cucamonga, California Page 4
providing a graded swale with a minimum gradient of 2 percent
or an appropriate surface collection device with nonperforated
pipe to an outlet at the street or other suitable location.
Off-site runoff should not be allowed to pond on the site.
Water should not be allowed to flow over any slopes.
2. Eave gutters should be installed where appropriate and
connected to downspouts. Downspout discharge should be
directed to a nonperforated drain system that outlets to an
appropriate location. Water should not be allowed to
discharge adjacent to the residence. Drainage systems should
not be altered without expert consultation.
3. A grade stabilization structure or drainage device should be
installed at the north property line on the slope to carry
concentrated water runoff from the adjacent, northerly
property down the slope and into the ephemeral drainage and
reduce erosion of the slope.
4. Drought-tolerant vegetation should be planted on the slope
into the ephemeral drainage to reduce erosion of the slope.
5. Irrigation should be reduced to the minimum necessary to
maintain plant vigor.
6. All drains should be kept cleaned and unclogged, including
gutters and downspouts. Terrace drains or gunite ditches
should be kept free of debris to allow proper drainage.
During heavy rain periods, performance of the drainage systems
should be inspected. Problems, such as gullying and ponding,
if observed, should be corrected as soon as possible.
7. Any leakage from pools, waterlines, etc. or bypassing of
drains should be repaired as soon as possible.
8. Animal burrows should be filled, because they may cause
diversion of surface runoff, promote accelerated erosion, and
even trigger shallow soil failures.
9. Any open bottom planters adjacent to settlement-sensitive
structures should be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10
feet. As an alternative, closed-bottom planters could be
utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter could
be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any
exterior concrete flatwork.
GeoSoiis, Inc.
Better Homes and Gardens Realty W.O. 562-A-RC
5207 London September 3, 1992
Rancho Cucamonga, California Page 5
10. Slopes should not be altered without expert consultation.
Whenever the homeowner plans a topographic modification of the
lot or slope, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be
contacted.
11. If unusual cracking, settling, or earth slippage occurs on the
property, the homeowner should consult a qualified soil
engineer or an engineering geologist immediately.
12. A stability analysis should be performed on the existing
slopes to verify stability.
13. Measures should be taken to prevent the undercutting and
erosion at the toe of the slopes that descend into the
ephemeral drainage.
14. Consideration should be given to consulting a qualified design
civil engineer to review the above recommendations with
respect to line and grade and surface drainage.
This evaluation of surface conditions at the property should not be
construed to be a evaluation of subsurface conditions. This
evaluation has not assessed the potential for changes in surface or
subsurface conditions in the future. If site conditions do not
change in the future, the integrity of the lot would be expected to
remain consistant with respect to past performance; however, GSI
can make no statement as to the specific integrity/performance of
the property in the future, due to changes in surface or subsurface
conditions. The property is located in a seismically-active
region, and intense ground shaking at the site should be
anticipated in the future. This ground shaking could cause
distress features at the subject site.
If in the future any additional improvements are planned for the
site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical
aspects of design and construction of said improvements could be
provided based on a subsurface evaluation of site conditions. A
proposal for this type of site evaluation could be provided upon
request. GeoSoils, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for
work, testing, or recommendations performed or provided by others.
GeoSoils, Inc.
Better Homes and Gardens Realty W.O. 562-A-RC
5207 London September 3, 1992
Rancho Cucamonga, California Page 6
These opinions have been derived in accordance with current
standards of practice, and no warranty is expressed or implied. We
sincerely appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If you
have any questions or if you need any clarifications, please
contact us at (714) 677-9651.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOSOILS, INC.
I~jEngineering Geologist, CEG 1340 ~ Civil Engineer, RCE 49754
SLE/RCS/JPF/sh
Distribution: (4) Addressee
GeoSoiis, Inc.
CITy OFRANCHOCUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
· - DATE: May 16, 1990
T0: City Council and City Manager
7ROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer
BY: Lucinda E. Hackerr, Contract Engineer
SUBJECT: Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security,
acceptance of offer of dedication and Ordering the Annexation to
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting
Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 for Tract 13315, located at the
northeast corner of Archi'bald and Carrari Avenues, submitted by
Friedman Homes
RECO~4ENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions
approving Tract 13316, accepting the subject agreement, security, offer of
dedication, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1
and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. I and 2, and authorizing the
Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement and to cause said map to
record.
ANALySIS/BACKGROUND
Tract 13316, located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Carrari Avenues,
in the Very Low Density Residential District, was approved by the Planning
Commission on March 25, ~987, for the division of 84.5 acres into 123 lots.
During the review process, various property owners to the south of the tract
have voiced their concern regarding the proposed storm drain facility that
extends southerly of the tract boundary approximately 107 feet. This facility
i~ an emergency spillway channel and is part of the debris basin system.
Staff has met extensively with these property owners over the past few years
to listen to their concerns and desires. First, they wanted to underground
the system in a pipe and fill in the canyon to enlarge their backyards. This
is not possible due to the fact that this is part of a debris basin system ahd
must be an open channel with a service road to maintain the outlet'
structure. Their second desire was to terminate the channel at the southerly
boundary of Tract 13316. This also cannot be done because the channel has to
pass under the Community Trail and then be directed towards the existing
natural drainage channel. Their third choice is to extend the channel
southerly of their properties. This is a viable concept and the channel could
be extended approximately 250 feet south, but it is not needed for development
and there is little or no benefit for the abutting properties. Friedman Homes
have met all tile requirements of their tract and state law requires that
administrative action be taken to approve the map. If the channel is to be
U" extended, it will have to be conditioned upon future developments in the area.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT \'.
TRACT 13316 - FRIEDMAlt HOMES
MAY 16, 1990
PAGE 2 ~
The Developer, Friedman Homes, is submitting an agreement and security to
" guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in tile following
amounts:
Street Storm Utility
Improvements Drain Landscaping Undergrounding
Faithful Performance Bond:
$2,100,000 $1,300,000 $380,000 $435,000
Labor and Material Bond:
$1,050,000 $ 650,000 $190,000 $217,000
Copies of the agreement, security and offer of dedication are available in the
City Clerk's Office.
Letters of approval have been received from the high school and elementary
scilool districts. C.C. & R.'s have been approved by the City Attorney. Tile
Consent and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer is on file in
the City Clerk's office.
RespectfUi~ ~ubmitted,
RHM !1_F H:9~A: sjm"
Attachments
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
· - DATE: May 29, 1990
T0: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer
By: · Joe Stofa, Or., Associate Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improve~nent Security,
acceptance of offer of dedication and Ordering the Annexation to
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting
Maintenance District Hos. 1 and 2 for Tract 13315, located at the
northeast corner of Archibald and Carrari Avenues, submitted by
Friedman Homes {Continued from 5-14-90)
RECO~4ENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions
approving Tract 13316, accepting the subject agreement, security, offer of
dedication, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. i
and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. i and 2, and authorizing the
Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement and to cause said map to
record.
ANALYSIS/BACKGROUND
The above referenced project was continued froln the City Council meeting of
May 16, 1990. At that meeting, local residences expressed concern regarding
tile development, particularly the storm drain facilities. Due to the
massiveness of the project, the Council requested additional time to visit the
site and directed staff to provide more detail background analysis.
The Planning Commission unanimously approved Tentative Tract 13316 at the
March 25, 1987 meeting'. Two main issues were brought out by surrounding
property owners. They are: 1) orientation of the Ilomes backing onto Carrari
Street and 2) requirements of local Equestrian trails and keeping of horses'.
No records were found of the property owners voicing any concerns about the
proposed storm drain facilities. Although the tentative map shows the storm
drain going to the east, the Conditions of Approval for the tract specifically
state that the debris basin and tile entire storm drain system shall be
constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and that lots 9 and 10
which are located at tile southerly extension of the main north/south street
and adjacent to the southerly tract boundary sitall contain a flood protection
wall or other overflow protection device to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. Tile conditions combined required the storm drain facility as it is
now designed.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF R[~ ~T
TR 13316
MAY 29, 1990
PAGE 2
At the May 6, 1987 City Council meeting an appeal of Tentative Tract 13316
with regards to Planning Commission's decision of orientations of homes on
Carrari Street along with the requirements of local equestrian trails and
keeping of horses was heard. City Council modified the Planning Com~nissions'
decision relative to Carrari Street to provide increased landscape area and
placement of walls along the top of the slope. The City Council upheld the
General Plan policies and Development Code standards regarding equestrian
trails and keeping of horses. Once again, no conerns were raised with regards
to drainage.
Time Extension for Tentative Tract 13316 went before the Planning Commission
on April 26, 1989. The Planning Division received letters from several
homeowners along London Avenue expressing their concern of the proposed
drainage facilities. The time extension was approved to May 6, 1990, but
Planning Commission discussed the issue of storm drain spillway and requested
that the Planning Department review the storm drain plans to be sure tile
channel was as aesthetically pleasing as possible as it crossed over the
affected properties.
At the June 22, 1989 Design Review meeting, the committee stated that the
Final design of the spillway should be reviewed by the committee for
aesthetics, after the technicial part of the design is tentatively approved.
An access should be provided to the homeowner to get to tile rear of the lot
east of the spillway. Planning requested that Friedman Homes submit revised
plans for additional committee review.
The Design Review Committee on February 8, 1990 recommended at the request of
Engineering that the foot bridge be deleted due to the fact that the foot
bridge is only 40' away from the proposed Community Trail bridge with an
access road on the east side of the bridge which is available to allow access
to the easterly side of the homeowners property. In addition landscaping
surrounding the spillway will require tile final approval of the Design Review
Committee prior to the final approval of the improvement plans by the City
Engineer
RHM:jS:dlw ......
Attachments Staff Report 5-16-90
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 28, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members 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 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.
BACKGROUND: At it's JulY14,1999 meeting, the Planning Commission continued consideration
of the project to the July 28, 1999 meeting to allow the applicant time to provide sufficient
documentation to demonstrate that the project will not adversely impact the environment. The site
is indicated as potential habitat for threatened and endangered species; the California Gnatcatcher,
the San Bemardino Kangaroo Rat, and the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly. The applicant has provided
documentation that the site is not adequate habitat for any of these species, nor are any of the
species present.
The following is a chronology of events that have transpired thus far:
March 25, 1987 Tentative Tract 13316 was approved by the Planning Commission.
June 4, 1990 Final map was recorded to create legal lots on June 4, 1990.
May 24, 1993 Planning Division notified the previous owner, Chino Valley Bank, that the
subject property is within a habitat which may be affected by federelly listed
endangered orthreatened species. The certified letter explained that "taking"
of habitat by "grading, mowing, discing, trenching. and other construction
activities" is subject to stringent regulation by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS). The applicant was encouraged to contact USFWS
for further information.
April 29, 1998 Application submitted by Barratt American for Development Review 98-10.
May 26, 1998 Application deemed incomplete for processing.
June 10, 1998 Due to significance of grading design issues, the Planning Commission
conducted a Pre-Application Review 98-06.
ITEM C
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 98-10
July 28, 1999
Page 2
June 25, 1998 Consultation meeting with applicant and California Dept. of Fish and Game
(USFVVS did not attend).
August 27, 1998 Gnatcatcher Surveys submitted by Tierra Madre Consultants (June 8, 1998).
October 20, 1998 Biological report submitted by Pacific Southwest Biological Services (Oct. 16,
1998).
March 23, 1999 Application deemed complete for processing.
May 13, 1999 Neighborhood meeting.
June 9, 1999 Planning Commission continues item and directs staff to advertize as a
public headng. Continuance was to allow staff and the applicant time to
respond to issues raised regarding the adequacy of the biological studies
relied upon for preparation of the Initial Study. The same week, prior to
Commission meeting, the applicant clears vegetation from westerly half of
site for weed abatement.
June 22, 1999 Staff met with the applicant, the applicant's biologist, and biologists from the
San Bemardino County Museum to discuss the matter. Staff also consulted
with the USFVVS and the California Department of Fish and Game. Staff
indicated that the site is potential San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR) and
that a USFVVS protocol survey is necessary. Staff also determined that a
habitat assessment is necessary to determine if the site is adequate Quino
Checkerspot Butterfly habitat.
July 14, 1999 The Planning Commission continues the item for a second time to allow time
for biological surveys to be completed.
July 19, 1999 Reports submitted by Tierra Madre Consultants regarding protocol trapping
survey for the San Bemardino Kangaroo Rat and by Pacific Southwest
Biological Services regarding a habitat assessment for the Quino
Checkerspot Butterfly.
A copy of the June 9, 1999 Planning Commission Staff Report is attached for reference.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: Since the Tentative Tract Map was approved in
1987, substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project will be
undertaken. Three species have been listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act, two of
which are associated with the coastal sage scrub habitat present on the site. Following is a
summary of the affected species.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 98-10
July 28, 1999
Page 3
A. SAN BERNARDINO KANGAROO RAT (endangered~ species, 1/27/98) -Latest
correspondence from USFWS and County Museum biologist recommend protocol "trapping"
surveys. Although surveys may be done year-round, this is the ideal time of the year. The
applicant has conducted a protocol trapping survey and no San Bernardino Kangaroo Rats
were captured, nor were any other species of Kangaroo Rat.
B. CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER (threatened2 species, 3/30/93) - Protocol surveys were
performed from March 17, 1998 through April 28, 1998. and no Gnatcatchers were found
on the site. Tierra Madre Consultants concluded that only 5 acres of the site is coastal sage
scrub habitat which is located within the ravines. The habitat is identified by the California
Department of Fish and Game as "very threatened communities" which is important to the
long term protection of the species, particularly of value to the Multi-Species Habitat
Conservation Plan effort. A recommended environmental mitigation measure requires
approximately 2.5 acres of coastal sage scrub mitigation on site within the basin and any
remaining mitigation to be accomplished off site within the Alluvial Fan Scrub Mitigation
Bank located in Cajon Wash.
C. QUI NO CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY (endangered species, 1/16/97) - Maps published by
USFWS indicate that the alluvial fans along these foothills are potential habitat areas which
require study. The applicant has provided a habitat assessment for the Butterfly and found
that the site is so disturbed by past activities that neither the Butterfly nor adequate Butterfly
habitat are present. The plants needed to support the Butterfly were not found in surveys
of the site. Staff has forwarded a copy of the report to Fish and Wildlife for their comment.
Pending acceptance by USFWS of the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat protocol trapping survey and
the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly habitat assessment, it is staffs opinion that the applicant has
adequately addressed all outstanding issues relative to potential environmental impacts associated
with the project. It has been demonstrated that the site does not support adequate habitat for
sensitive or endangered species and no such species were detected on site. 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. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance
of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order.
OFF SITE DRAINAGE: A letter was received from Dianna Santini, homeowner at 5207 London
Avenue expressing concern related to off site drainage improvements associated with the project.
~The term "endangered species" means any species which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range other than a species of the Class Insecta
determined by the Secretary to constitute a pest whose protection under the provisions of this Act
would present an overwhelming and overriding risk to man. (Endangered Species Act of 1973)
2The term "threatened species" means any species which is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. (Endangered Species Act of 1973)
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 98-10
July 28, 1999
Page 4
Also, during the Planning Commission meeting on June 9, 1999, Matt Rees, homeowner at 5217
London Avenue expressed similar concern. Tentative Tract 13316 was approved in 1987 with
conditions of approval which included constructing a debris basin, storm drain system. and overflow
protection for lots 9 and 10 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. During the review process for
the design of these drainage facilities, various property owners to the south voiced concerns
regarding the portion of the facility which extends 107 feet south of the south tract boundary, within
a City drainage easement dedicated with Tract 9590. Staff met with these property owners,
discussed several options and concluded that while the outlet channel could be extended further
south, there was little additional benefit and the developer had met all the requirements of the
tentative map. With a time extension in 1989, the Planning Commission directed that the channel
be made as aesthetically pleasing as possible. Design was concluded and the map recorded in
1990.
In a 100-year storm the debris basin will direct about 280 cubic feet per second (cfs) into a storm
drain which will outlet into an open channel between lots 9 and 10. Site flows will bring the total
outflow to about 380 cfs. The channel has been designed with energy dissipaters and a stilling
pond to reduce outlet velocities. The channel extends the entire width of Ms. Santini's property, the
northernmost lot fronting London Avenue, thereby diverting all off site flows which currently reach
her north property line. Even if the storm drain were extended or relocated, a channel is still needed
to accommodate the emergency spillway for the debris basin.
CORRESPONDENC~E: While not required by City Ordinance or State Law, the proper~y was
posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site
notifying them of the July 28, 1999 meeting.
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 debris basin from Very-Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling
units per acre) to Open Space by minute action.
City Planner
BB:BL:Is
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Planning Commission Staff Report from June 9, 1999 Meeting
Exhibit "B" - Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Habitat Assessment dated July 18, 1999
Exhibit "C" - Kangaroo Rat Protocol Survey date July 18, 1999
Exhibit "D" - Resolution of Approval
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 9, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 -
BARPAI'I' 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 Amhibald Avenue, north of Carrad 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.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Site Characteristics: The site slopes from the 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 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 appmved pdor 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"):
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 98-10
June 9,1999
Page 2
1. The site is surrounded to ~he 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 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 affected by the project. Special attention should be paid to
how the project impacts this neighborhood.
B. General: Six home plans ara 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.
VVhile 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 horse 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, Henderson), 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 forthe 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 primary issues included the
drainage outlet south of the tract east of London Avenue, construction phasing, view preservation,
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 Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within
a 300-foot radius of the project site. Staff has received several letters from area residents opposing
the project. The primary issues are increased traffic, why Hidden Farm Road on the east side of
~,rchibald Avenue is approved to be aligned with the existing intersection on the west side, drainage,
~mpacts 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
approved. 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. Impacts to sage scrub and other vegetationNvildlife were addressed by the Initial Study Part
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.
C?
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 debris 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
~:' ............~ ..... TRACT NO 13316 '~ """'~ '
SCALE 1"=40'
- t
®
/
1T
I.IMI1 OF WORK
i~\ ~
SCALE 1'=40"
CARLSBAD CA al200~ ' ......
CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN a ; """ '
FOR
TRACT NO '13316 ' ":'""
!
- j/,_~s, ~ ~ DETAIL 'B'
· . .,. ® ~RAINt~.E COANNEL
~ SECTION G - G
~ ~'~*?~ SECTION H - H SECTram a -
" i~~;~~- DRAINAGE CHANNEL HORSE TRAIL BRIDGE
$~CTI~ E - E
~ ~ ~,,~.. Plan 1
2, 869 sq. ft.
night
BARRATT AMERICAN, INC. Rancho Cucamot~ga
Left
Rear
~ E~,,c.,,fo,o,a.Plan 1
~ I~1 ~ ~ 2, 869 sq. ft.
Ri~t
B~TT ~mC~, ~C. Rancho Cucamonga
2,869 sq. ft.
R~t
B~TT ~~C~, ~C. Rancho C.c3mong3
BARRATT AIVIF, RICAN, INC.Rancho Cucamonga
~'~ ~ . Roof Plan
,.,yc.,,for.,a.Plan 3
3, 14~ sq. ft.
BARRATT AMERICAN, ~NC.Rancho Cucamoz~ga
Left
3, 145 sq. ft.
Right
BARRATT A1VIF~RICAN, ~C.Rancho Cucamonga
Rear <] ~> I
B.og.,owPlan 3
,~,~, 3, 145 sq. ft.
BARRATT AIVIF, RICAN, INC.Rancho Cucamortga
Roof Plan
~ ~ , c..~. Plan 4
.. 3,392 sq. ~.
P,~t
BARRATT ANIERICAN,'INC.Ranclio Cucamo~ga
~1 ~ ~ Ea,,~ ca,i~om,..Plan 4
3,392 sq. ft.
Right
BARRATT AM~.mCAN,'~C.Rancho CuCaraonga.~,. _,
~ ~~ r-:-':-: -' ~Roof Plan
J~ ~ c,,,ro,,,,,,,,hPlan 4
· ~ ']~l 3, 392 sq. ft.
Rig~t
BARRATT AM~.mCAN, ENC.Rancho Cucamonga .-.,. .
· ~ ~ ~ . ,,og,,o,Plan 4
. 3,392 sq. ft.
Right
BARRATT AlVW. RICAN, INC.Rancho Cucarnonga
(~ Rear I <] !~
Roof Plum
_.~T:~~-~~ ~ ~ar~o~ Plan 5
3, 435 sq. ft.
~t
B~TT ~~C~, ~C. Rancho CHcamoHg8 ~,~ ,~~
Lea
/ //~ ~ Roof Plan
.... 3,435 sq. ft.
B~TT ~~C~,'~C. Rancho CuCamo~ga ~,.~,+~.~,
... ' I' 3,435 sq. ~,
~t
B~~ ~mc~,'~c. Rancho Cucamonga ~,_ ,-~
Le~t
I
y~ ~ ~1~ "'~""'~'~" ~,~,,~o~,,~,Plan 6
3, 600 sq. ft.
B~TT ~~C~, ~C. Rancho Cucamonga .-,,~ .~
3, 600 sq. ft.
~t
B~TT ~mC~, ~C. Rancho Cucamonga ~-~,-,.o.-o,
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, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:PRESENT: David Barker, William Bethel, Larry McNiel
ABSENT: Rich Macias, Peter Tolstoy
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buffer, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Brent Le Count.
Associate Planner
NEW BUSINESS
A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 98-06 - BARRATF - 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 Cartad Street - APN: 210-071-14, 37, and 45.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, explained the purpose and goals of the Pre-Application Review process.
David Jacinto, representative from Barratt, 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.
Bad Crandell, project architect, indicated that the pads are wide and flat 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 that 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 flat pads, and add two-story homes. He observed applicant's
justification is that the 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.
J
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. Bullet indicated that surrounding home developments to the west and south have typical mass
graded flat pads with flat land style homes, and to the east the Woods development also has flat
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 histon/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 them 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. Buller 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 impodance 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 propedies, 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. Jacinto 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 projecEwithout 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 vadation in roof lines.
PC Adjourned Minutes -2- June 10, 1998
· .'-- -- - Mr. Buller observed that the Hillside Ordinance requires homes to be designed to fit the terrain. He
:-55:' felt the argument of providing vadety 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 support the two-story proposal. He voiced concerns about two-story
homes without 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 allowing a dangerous precedent for future hillside development.
Commissioner McNiel thought the overall concept is well founded. 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 Commissioners 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
- three-dimensional building envelope volume to maximize view corridor opportunities and minimize
visual impacts. He said two-story high walls, without one-story 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. Buller reminded the Commissioners that when the tract was originally processed,
neighbors living along Carrari Street were very concerned about having two-story homes along the
south project boundary and that the tracl to the south is the most vulnerable to potential visual
impacts from the subject project.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
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 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.
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, 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 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; 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. 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. C (-~ ~
DRC COMMENTS
DR 98-10 - BARRAT[' AMERICAN
April 20, 1999
Page 2
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. 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 Carrari 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 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 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.
c,,_G?
DRC COMMENTS
DR 98-10 - BARRATT AMERICAN
April 20, 1999
Page 3
Design 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.
8. Provide a perspective rendering of a typical trail and surrounding landscaping. Suggest a view
of the southwest comer of the site showing the Community and Local Feeder trails on the north
side of Carrari Street and associated slope landscaping.
RECEIVED
TO: BradBuller "~
City Planner
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga', Ca. 91730 Oi~Y°t~ancboOuca~onga
Dear Mr. Bullet, P~annjngOjWs~
I ~ sending this letter ~er c~cem for the proposed devel-
o~n~ for nhe area at the.north end of ~c~bald avenue on the
east side of ~he street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts
13316, 1S914).. ~is area of R~cho ~camonga, ~o~ as "Alta
~" ~s a ~iet, friendly ~d peaceful area. I am concemed
tha~ ~his. develo~en= threatens the ~ality of life we now enjoy
due to increase traffic, noise levels ~d crib. I am concemed
~out proper drainage do~chibald ~d the fac~ t~t current
studies on these ~tters are not ~ing us~ ~o access i~acts. I
~ also concemed ~ou= the wildlife that is est~lish~ in the
area.
0n the City of Rancho ~camonga W~ Site. it says the
goals of ~he Pla~in~ Co~ssion include; protecting =he natural
enviro~ent and the co.=.~ity identity. ~e develo~ent of this
area will directly oppose these goals. In also says =he review
comttees value p~lic participation and encourages i= by
"aeig~rh~ meetings" to receive input fr~ ~he residents
~s~ing p~lic hearing notices. We have not had any t~e of
"neig~rh~ meeting" for the applic~t to e~lain their pro-
ject. X ~derst~d t~t since this area was appro~d for devel-
o~ent in the early 1980~s, the city is no~ retired to ~il
notices or even post the ~te of a ~lic heating. However, this
area has changed ~as~ically since the e~ly 1980's when this
plan was approved.
In o~er ~o prese~ the ~al~ty of ~r ne~g~rhood, I am
r~esting the city leave this area as 'o~n space." ~ts would
allow it to continue ~o sere as a buffer for ~ise, traffic
~atnage between neig~orho~s, ~d a h~tat for wil~fe. We.
also u~e up ~o date studies on ~raffic, noise, cri~ ~ drain-
age (e~ecially in hi~ rain years, su~as last year,s ~1 Nino).
I re~est =o be no~fi~ of a ~lic hearing, ~d that the
other s~r~ding residents ~ notified as well.
B~ZZ ~n~e=, Hayo~
Oi~e WilliaM, City CO~Cil
Paul Biane. City Co~cil
To: Brad Buller
City Planner JAN ~
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
con~nittees 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 raail
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 Willjams, City Council
James Curatalo, City Council
Bob Dutton, City Council
Paul Biane, City Council
November 23, 1998 R !:: C E I V E D
Mr. Brad BuYer NOV
City Planmet
10500 Civic Center Drive City of Rancho Cucamonga
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Planning Division
I own ~ north of the proposed development ofwacts #13316 and 15914. When I
pro'chased the property three years ago, I was told there is a city ordinance which prohits
building in such a way. to obstruct the view, which is a major part of life in Alta Loma. I
am not against development, but 123 homes on the east side of the end of Archibald
Avenue is not conducivv to this community's icLentity. It is greed. It affects the quail, bob
cats, deer, raRlesnakes, coyotes, owl, mice, posseurns, 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 banam waving.
I have ridden my horse titrough the middle of the field for three years and I hav~ friends
that hav~ ridden there well over se/t~ yeats. Hang gliders land in the field, ckildren scout
prize treasures, and it provid~ a landscape of a peaceful habitat for all residents.
The is so much more that would be b~neficial instead of 123 homes (unbelievable).
Signs posted for horg riders' safety, dower spells on Archibald Avenue, and horse trails
I am requesting nolitication of dates and times of public he~,i,,gs as well as a copy of the
studies and planning for the devvlopm~t of this area to incltule 123 new homes. I would
also like proof that the view will not 1~ obstructed as a result of the development, and the
facts upon which the decision to build 123 structures would be co~ti,,_~n: to this
community and the lifestyle. 123 tract homes simply are not
Thank you for your ;iii,iiediate attention.
4849 Arch'bald Avenue
Alta Loma, CA 91737
(909) 481-7161 Home
(909) 4684203 Work
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 Co~m~ission include; protecting the natural
environment and the coa~unity identity. The development of this
area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review
comittees 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 ~f our,~eighborhood, I am
requesting the city leave this area a~ "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, crima 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 Co..~ission NOV
Bill A/exander, Mayor
Diane Williams, City Council -'
· :. James-Curatalo, City Council
Bob Dutton,~City Council .;
Paul Biane, City Counci~_~
RECEIVED
November 23, 1998
Mr. Brad Bailer NOV ~ 5 1998
City Planner
10500 Civic Center Drive City of Rancho Cucamonga
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Planning Division
Dear Mr. Butler:
I own properly north of the proposed development of tracts #13316 and 15914. When I
purchased the property three years ago. I was lold there kq a city ordinance which prohim
budding in such a way. to obstruct the view, which is a major part of life in Alta Loma. I
am not against development. 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, rafflesnakes, coyotes, owl, mice, posscums, raccoons and an entire m)Tiad of
insects that make this area home..Also, the notice of proposed dex;elopmcnt 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 n~' horse through the middlc of the field for three years and I have frierlds
thal 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 hou.qes (unbelievable).
Signs posted for horse riders' safeB,, 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 dcvclopmenl of this area to include 123 new homes. I would
also like proof that the view will not be obstructed as a result of the development, and the
facts upon which the decision to build 123 structures would be conducive to this
eommuni~' and the lifestyle. 123 tract homes sunply are not.
Thank you for your immediate attention.
Sincer ,
it. and ~ onald D. ennetl
4849 Archibald Avenue
Alta Loma, CA 91737
(909) 481-7161 Home
(909) 468-4203 W~ork
RECEIVIj. D
To: Brent Le Count
Associate Planner APR 0 1999
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 9173~y 04 Ra~cho Cucamo~ ri
Dear Mr. Le Count, pIKmbqgDiViSiOrI p 1 17, 1999
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~ 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
· r tracts of homes. Second, it is likely to result
in a danger 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 Lom" 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 coraing down our
street (Hidden Farm). This a street that is a~, 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 current 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~nnon
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
To: Brad Buller ~
city Planner
10500 Civic Center Drive
Ci~ 0f ~a
Dear Mr. Buller, g~visiOn
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. As a resident, 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.
As a Biology and Environmental Science Professor at Mount San
Antonio College, I am also concerned about the wildlife that is
established in the area. I have witnessed numerous native Cali-
fornia species utilizing this area in a variety of ways. The
larger predators, such as coyotes (which are so important for
balancing an ecosystem) use this area as a corridor and a resi-
dence. I have seen such species as red-tailed hawks, Cooper's
hawks, red-shouldered hawks, American kestrels and great horned
owl hunting and nesting in this habitat. These are just a
fraction of the wildlife using this area. So much of our South-
ern California wildlife is already gone, since this area was
abandoned for development in the early 1980's, it has developed a
diverse and balanced ecosystem worth saving.
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. In my opinion, the
development of this area will directly oppose these goals. It
also says the review con~nittees 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 project. I have been informed by the planning
department that since this area was approved for development in
the early 1980's, the city is not required to raail 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.
Cynthia J annon
9574 Hidden Farm Road
Alta Loma, Ca. 91737
cc: The Planning Co~unission
Bill Alexander, Mayor
Diane Williams, City Council
Jim Curatalo, City Council
Bob Dutton, City Council
Paul Blanc, City Council
To: Brad Bullet
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, kno~rn 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 Con~nission include; protecting the natural
environment and the CO~LUL~Unity identity. The development of this
area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review
con~nittees 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 mil
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.
Diane Williams, City Council CityofRancho Cucamonga
James Curatalo, City Council Planning Division
Bob Dunton, City Council
Paul Biane, City Council
jnDa/r
To: Brad Bullet ~7: KathyHunter
City Planner ~ 9575 Hidden Fa~ Rd
10500 Civic Center Drive Nta L0ma CA 91737-1619
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 Conmlission include; protecting the natural
environment and the coranunity 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 Co~mnission
Bill Alexander, Mayor R E C E | V E O
Diane Williams, City Council
James Curatalo, City Council
Bob Dutton, City Council NOV Z 4~38
paul Biane, city council
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Pianning D~ision
To: Brad Buller
City Planner R E C E | V E D
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 NOV g S ~98
Dear Mr. Buller,
0ityo~RanOh0 Cuoam0nga
I am Sending this letter over concern for the pro~~
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 Con~nission 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.
Sinc~e~~oL_~
Bill Alexander, Mayor
Diane Williams, City Council
James Curatalo, City Council
Bob Dutton, City Council
Paul Biane, City Council
TO: Brad Bullet R E ~ ~ | V ~ ~
City Planner
10500 Civic Center Drive NOV S 5 ~9~
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730
Dear Mr. Buller, C~yotRanCho Cucamonga
planning DMsion
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,
c Alexander.% ; on q 7
Diane Williams, City Council
James Curatalo, City Council
Bob Dutton, City Council
Paul Biane, City Council
RECEIVED
Brad Butler NOV 2 4 1998
City planner
10500 Civic Center Drive City of Rancho Cucamonga
Rancho Cucan~onga, CA 91730 Planning Division
Dear Mr. Buller,
I am sending thi~ 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 siEni~cant amount of sage scrub habitat, a threatened
natural COmmUllity. AS a resident of San Bernardino 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 Bernardino County Politician~
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 Bemardino 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 thk study should include:
A. The ecological status 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 Ne~thag Sites
4. Botanical Comm~mity. 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 COmmisSiOn include protecting the natural environment and the community identity, the
city needs to show the public that they stand behind their statements.
~hmi~
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
Ap.16, 1999
Mr. Brad Bullet City of Rancho Cuca~.~ga
Ci~ P~u P~anning Division
105~ C~c ~t~ ~v~
~o ~ CA 91730
~: File No. DR-98-10 ~ ~ 13316,15914
~ pau~ ~ ~ely ~j~nt to
~e!~ment. We ~e n~er ~n hcl~ ~ ~y ~io~ ~ou~ we ~e ~ ~ ~ 1~4. At
· e ~e d ~,
of~.
We o~ l~
~s~~ono~homc~g. B~dy~offi~W
~. ~n ~ ~e ~ for ~e ~j~.
~- ~g ~ ~ bm -~hle W ~ ~ ~ ~ail~
1 ) l~g
2) elimi~g
3) pmxim~ ~no~
4) ho~ ~ e~g a ~ ~ ~g ~g
5) ~,~wo~f~~now~inM~(~d~ 15
m~)
1 ) flip
2) ~~hiM~to~e~~to~in~dOfWeg~~
3) ~ ~ b~ ~ ~ f~ a ~nim~ of 24" ~ h~Me h~g m ~ no~.
4)
5) ~e~n~~~.
~ of ~ n~ m a~ ~e ~ ~ We, t~, ~ ~ ~ h~ ~on
~ ~ ~ of ~. Ho~, ~ ~ not ~ ~ ~ ~ pw~. We ~ve ~ ~ h ~s
and ~
w~on.
Sm~,
RECEIVED
HERMAN AND GUNVOR VALENTIJN
5237 LONDON AVENUE
ALTA LOMA, CA 91737 JUt 1 ~ ~99
City of Rancho Cucarnonga,
Planning Division
PLANNING DIVISION
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
P.O.BOX 807
RANCHO CUCANONGA, CA 91729
Alta Loma, July 8,1999.
In response to the letter of June 24, 1999,issued by the Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission, we like to express our concerns
regarding the impact of the proposed solution to the runoff from
the 84 acres of new buildings and streets.
We have already reviewed the proposed drainage project at the
City Planning Division and found that water and debris clearly
are channeled through the easement located on the east side of
our house. Aware as the city of Cucemonga is about the erosive
potential of the proposed runoff, the city relies on an
engineering report to make sure that erosion practically is
eliminated.
With this in mind, the undersigned wish to be informed in detail
what kind and how much construction is going to take place on the
easement of their property. The information we need to receive
from you should address itself to several aspects of the
expected impact on above mentioned easement, such as proposed
reinforcement of the present natural gnlley on the easement. More
in particular we want to know what form your construction
activities foresee with respect to the shape and lining of the
runoff channel (U-shaped or large tubing) without impeding our
access to our property to the east of the easement and without
endangering playing children.
In short,please submit in writing a detailed plan concerning the
impact of the project on the specific easement of our property
before August 11,1999.
RECEIVED
TO: Brent Le Count
Associate Planner
10500 Civic Center Drive JUL 12'F399
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730
CityofRanchoCucamonga
1 1999
Pmnning Divisio~u y 1,
Dear Mr. Le Count,
I am sendin9 this letter over concern for the change in the
public hearin~ date concerning the proposed development 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).
Myself and many of my neighbors were at the plannin~ commission
meetin~ on June 9Oh. I presented the plannin~ commission with a
petition signed by 23 residents of the area. MOSt of us marked
our calendar, and rearranged our schedules for the July 14th
hearing date. Now, there are signs posted which chan~e the dace
from the original July 14Oh date to AUS"dSC llth. If the date
must be chan~ed, why not change it to one in September after
school has started and everyone is more likely to be in town?
Many residents would like Co be present for this hearing and ask
for your consideration in this matter.
Thank you for your time.
Si cerely~
~Jhann~n~d~/~--..__
9574 Hidden Farm Road
Alta Loma, Ca. 91737
cc: Brad Buller, City Planner
The Planning Commission
Bill ~-lexander, Mayor
Diane Williams, Mayor Pro-Tem
Jim Curatalo, City COuncil
Bob Dutton, City Council
Paul Biane, City Council
Jack Lam, City Manager
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: Development Review 98-10
2o 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 ofArchibald Avenue, northofCarrariCourt-APN: 1074-061-15 through27, 1074'041-
08through21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074-461-04through 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 Amedcan
David Jacinto
2035 Corte Del Nogal, Suite 160
Carlsbad, 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) and California Department of Fish and Game (also Streambed
AIt.ration) C 7
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-10 Page ?
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 (v') Transportation/Circulation (s/) Public Services
( ) Population and Housing (v') Biological Resources (~') Utilities and Servica Systems
(V') Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (v') Aesthetics
(V') Water (v') Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources
( ) Air Quality (f') 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.
(e/) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an eadier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon
the earlier analysis as descdbed on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed,
( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be 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 eadier EIR, including revisions or
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. ~ND USE AND P~NNING. Would the pmposak
a) Confli~ with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) (~)
b) Confli~ with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the proje~? ( ) ( )
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ( ) ( ) (~)
d) Disrupt or divide the physical a~angement d an
established community? ( ) ( ) (~)
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumufatively 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)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (e/)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the pmposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( ) (V') ( ) ( )
b) Seismic ground shaking? ~_,..,<E~, ~ ( ) (v') ( ) ( )
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-10 Page 4
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) (~') ( ) ( )
d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
f) Erosion, changes in topography. or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) (v') ( )
g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~,)
h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) (v') ( )
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
Comments:
a,b,c) The northern portion of the site falls within the AIquist-Pdolo Special Study Zone of
the Cucamonga Fault. A geologic investigation was conducted during the
processing of Tentative Tract 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 subsurface rupture within the property was present. However,
as an added precautionary measure, the report recommended a 100-foot building
setback from the north property 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 Tentative Tract 13316 requiring the 100- foot building
setback and same shall be included for the subject Development Review. The
project design is in conformance with this requirement. With mitigation the impact
is not considered significant.
f) The project will cause changes in topography because the site is currently vacant.
A soils report will be required pdor to issuance of a grading permit and grading will
be supervised by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer. The impact is not considered
significant.
h) A portion of the site is indicated to have "Tujunga-DelhF soil type per the General
Plan which states that this soil type "may have soil beadng capacities that could limit
some development." A soils report will be required prior to issuance of a grading
permit to ensure soil bearing capacities are adequate to accommodate the project.
The impact is not considered significant.
s~ ~ u.~
s
4. WATER. ~11 the proposal result in: ~ ~ ~
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pa~ems,
or the rate and amount of sudace water runoff? ( ) ( ) (~) ( )
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-10 Page 5
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( ) (v') ( ) ( )
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ) ( ) ( ) (v')
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ) (v') ( ) ( )
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? ( ) ( ) ( (f)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?. ( ) ( ) ( (v')
h) impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( (~')
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Comments:
a) The absorption rate will be altered because of the paving and hard scape proposed.
All runoffwill be conveyed to approved drainage facilities which have been designed
to handle the flows. The impact is not considered significant.
b) 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. Homes along the east tract boundary are 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
boundary are also USGS Blue Line Streams. 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. 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
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.
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle tdps or traffic congestion? ( ) (f) ( )
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)? ( ) ( ) (t/)
g) Rail or air traffic impacts? C.J C~<::~. ( ) ( )
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.
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)? ( ) (v') ( ) (
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees,
eucalyptus windrew, etc.)? ( ) (f) ( ) (
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) (~') ( ) (
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, dparian, and
vernal pool)? ( ) (v') ( ) (
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Comments:
a and d)
The property is located in an area recently identified by the U.S. Department of Fish
and Wildlife Service as potential habitat for endangered or threatened species. Also,
staff received a letter from Gerald Braden, a biologist with the San Bemardino
County Museum, indicating habitat value of the subject site. Habitat assessment
and biological surveys were required to determine potential habitat value and any
potential impacts, particularly to the federally-listed threatened California
Gnatcatcher and the endangered San Bemardino Kangaroo Rat. Habitat
assessment and protocol surveys were conducted by Pacific Southwest Biological
Services, Inc., consulting biologists permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
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 Bemardino 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. ~ C) ~
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-10 Page R
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 ofthe 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 t: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? ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?. ( ) ( ) (~/)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) (v')
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A dsk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ) (~)
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation planE., C~/.~ ) (~') ) ( )
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-10 Page 9
Significant
Irapad Less
c) The creation of any health h~ard or potential
health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
d) Exposure of people to existing sour~s of
potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
e) Increased tim hazard in areas with fiammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( ) (f) ( ) ( )
Commen~:
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 irapad is not considered
significant.
e) The site falls within the "Wildland/Urban Interface" zone and is therefore
subject to fire ha~rd mitigation requiremen~ such as vege~tion
management, specialized home construction methods, and other
requirement. A condition of approval requires compliance with Fire Distrial
requirements. ~th such mitigation, the impa~ is not considered significant
10. NOISE. ~llthepmposalmsultin:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (f) ( )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (f)
Commen~:
a) The projed will increase existing noise levels sin~ the site is cu~ently vacant. The
project is not expected to increase noise levels beyond anticipated limits. The
impact is not considered significant.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
govemment services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( ) (v') ( ) ( )
L
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-10 Page ~10
b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V')
c) Schools?' ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Comments:
a) The site falls within the "Wildland/Urban Interface" zone and is therefore
subject to fire hazard mitigation requirements such as vegetation
management, specialized home construction methods, and other
requirements. A condition of approval requires compliance with Fire Distdct
requirements. With 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? ( ( ) (~')
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( )' ( ) (V')
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/)
e) Storm water drainage? ( ) (V') ( ) ( )
t~ Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V')
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~,)
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 133t6, 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 ,eve,, C:
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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~,)
Comments:
b) The project includes a large retention basin along the nodhem 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 proposak
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V')
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (t/)
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
e) Restdct existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( )
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (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, ~use a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or mstri~ the
range d amm or endangered plant or animal,
or eliminate impo~ant examples of the major
periods of California histo~ or pmhisto~? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
b) Sho~ te~: Does the project have the potential
to achieve sho~-te~, to the disadvantage d
long-term, environmental goals? (A sho~-term
impact on the environment is one which occum
in a relatively brief, definitive period of time.
Long-te= impacts will endure well into the
future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
c) Cumulative: Does the proje~ have impa~s that
am individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effe~s of a proje~
am considerable when viewed in conne~ion
with the effe~s of past proje~s, the effects d
other cu~ent proje~s, and the effe~s of
probable future proje~s.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (f)
d) Subs~ntial adveme: Does the proje~ have
environmental effects which will ~use
substantial adveme effe~s on human beings,
either dim~ly or indim~ly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (f)
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, wdtten 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 beadrig 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, prior 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.
Initial 8tucly for .~lty of Rancho Cucemonga
2. All provisions of the 8an Bemardlno County Fire Se.-~.., eveday pisthc~ shall apply.
A Fuel Modifiaation/Idanegement Plan sr~ll be aul)rritted for Fke Chiet and City
Planner review and approval Frior to the issuance of ~redlng permits.
Aesthetics:
1. Provision of ~art~plng and ~iver ro~kcobDie shall be use¢l to vfsuatly e/'~nce the
spillway at the northern end of Hgntewmxi Plate to the setllfaotion of the Chy
Planner.
EARLIER ANALY6E6
Ester armlysss may be usecl where, pursuant to the heftnB, Ixogrim EtR, or o~ner CEQA process,
erie or more ef~ have been actequately arelyzsd in an leriler EIR or Negative Deaarati~n per
Section 1EO63(6)(3}(D). The effects ~eft6fle~ above for thi~ pn}ject m w~hln the stage d and
eciequate~y anely'4e¢l in Ihe following earfir document(a) pursuant to m opliceble leg=i stenclari~s. and
su~ effects were addmild by mitigation measures baled on the e;Irllr analysis. The following
earlist analy~ea were gtililea In ;ampling titis Inlti Study and are aveIlls f~r review in the City
of RlinG~lo Cucsmonga. Pinning DlvlliOn Offloll,, 10500 Clvio Center Drive (crte~ lill thslt al~ly):
(f) Geneml Plan EIR
(Cel'af~a April 6, 1381)
(t/)Miater Elwlronmentel Assessment forffie 1989 GeNeral Ran Up;late
(SCH f88020115. cartiRed ,tenue'y 4o 1
(v') Negative DeQteratj~ for Tentative Trlct 13316, Adopted by the Pinning
Commission on March 25, 1987
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I ceffify that I am the applicant. for th$ proJe4~ delcribe¢l in this Inlti; Slucly. I acknowledge that I
hive reed thll Intttel Study lind the propaled miligiltgn mauures. Further, I have revised the
preject plane or t~---"~ are]/or hamby lii~ree to ~ l:~:~pc~ed mjUiNl~¢~ rnee~l~ree to ~ the
efte~ts or mlzigm lhe ef~ to · point where etearly n~ slgnfficlnt environmental effects waula
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-10 Page ! ~.
2. All provisions of the San Bemardino County Fire Safety Overlay District shall apply.
A Fuel Modification/Management Plan shall be submitted for Fire Chief and City
Planner review and approval pdor 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 EIR, or other CEQA process,
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following
earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply):
(~/) General Plan EIR
(Certified April 6, 1981)
(V')Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
(~/) 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 clearly no significant environmental effects would
OCCUr.
Signature: Date:
Print Name and Title:
2000 feet. Dh-~ ~oads cross i~e project sims at various local~s~ and access is open 6'ore most
sides.
SURVEY M~rHO!}8
The habitat assessment survey consi~ of walking slowly over the project sites,
searching, identLcTinS, recording and mapleS, i~ present. habitat eomponents,(~S. larval food
done in conjunction with th~ ~ assessment ro~ oth~_ sensitive plant ta~ i.e. Plummer's
Madposa (Calochom~ plmmm, ra~). The survey was gcnezagy pea'formed in ~ with
sn6cipatcd pmt~_! met_.hodology.
On 6 May 1998, Pacific Southwest's se~ior bioloaist, R. I~ Beauchamp, cond~
~efocuml botanical~eld review ofth~proje~t~c~ Mr. Beauchamp is familiar with the Quino
Checkerspot BuRcrfiy, its habitat requirements and food p]antt The 199si leDarm one of
oPthnalralnfall andinodm'arcasofthere$ionhos~plamBr~wtoop~malsize, suggcstingthat
had the hog plam been prcscnt oa tlm site, ffieywouldlavelmmmvidma.
LIMITATIONS AN*D DF-X~a-taONS
Survey Limitatltms
Dhpausc i~ a state of s~_~ aui~,~-n. Drouaht or low wlntm,~ rminf. di nay ~ the arowth
Vegetation Communities
Vegetation habitat or comm~mtties on the site have been mbjcctod to past distmtMu~ by
prior use ofthe sites as orchards.
Succeuional Sage Serub
Successional Sage Scrub commm~cs amount to ~.04 acrgs of the hrSer site. Tho habitat
C~fornla SaShbrush (~trtem/~ c~05,n/m). nat-top Bu~-wh~t (F-.-/oSm~fag/m/mm),
BhckSaSe(Xa/~meH~.P, ra)andWhitoSage(Xdmam/mM). Tt~oMamwitlantt~Sa~
Annual Grassland
AnmlgCraulaNl~-_d_Rsideralkeasarecharactealzedbyad~ms~toaparsecoverof
annual Srasses °r simPlY barc areas due t° vehld~ activitY or Past th*e ab~ practices, This
habitat, totallln8 8896 acres ofboffi pa_~ is a dL~'op..nce-_,zl~L-! .~,-~+~ ,,,.,,, o.4~ec t,,....~
hold fields, or opo~___inSs in native scttrb habitat' No(~hJinoJm~aifoodmmeb~in
~0 39j~d ~ ~r~{311 LI~9~PBL6e~ 6~:0~
07/i~/i9~ 0~;5& ~09~45&47 Ti~ ~ PAC~_ 02
r~mm Mad~e C,~,'~u,'tants,
Environmental Anotysls and Resource Planning
Endangered Spedes Surveys · M~figa~on Design · Ecological Services
1159 Iowa Ave.. Suffe D · RiverslOe. CA tF2,507 · (q09) 684-7081 · (FAX) 784-5647
ernall: tlerron~dre~oo~.corn · W~A~V: membe's ooI.com/flerramdre
18 July 19~9
Ms'. BnmtLeCaum
Pzetu
10500 Civic Cemer Drive
PostOtceBozS07
Rm',cho O,'ca~0e~s, CA 91727
P,e: San Bamudino Fa~oo l~t ~svey, Tentative Tract 13316
F. ndanSm~ San Bemarao Ka~_-~o P,.~ (D.'~,..~_.,-./-. ...~.-~f.:_--..j ~-.-_,-) on
Tract ]3316, ncar the nollh end of Axch'bald Avetree.
The U.S. Fish and W'ddfife Service accepted survey protocol for this F, ndan~ered subspecies
involves · live m,ppin8 study conducted t-r five ~ome~tivc ni~%~. TMC bepn m: smo~ on
Monday, 12 3ut~. No SmBennudino KanMsroo l~s(SUKK)w~e capmr~dm~thef,,s-
Trapping wa~ djrmed by Stepbee 3. Myers, who holds Federal Fish and W'ddlLfe Perufit No.
804203-2~ He was assisted by other TMC employees. Trapping w~_.s _conducted accordS_ to
protocols esublished for the SgKR. which call for five consecutive hiShis oftrappin8, between
dude and dawn. A total of lS0 12' Sh~-~an ilve tttps were set mtd baited with a combjnmion of
mlled-oafm and bird seed. The traps we~ set at _d,.~_e~ checked ax midnight and chccked and close
1. Northbetwamthetwodrahmgesconsisffimgof60t~apstomi.
2. Djroctiy~thetwo~~of 50traps.
3. Northemedgeoftheea.terndr~uageconsls~ngof20trap&
4. F~,.~of#3oomistingof20mtps.
· S~themofthemstdzuin~comistinSof2Ot~ap
J. s.
07/~97i99~ 08:5~ 9097845~4~ Ti~ ~ PA,:~, 03
The results ofth~ trap_ _Vi~_ sun~_ m shown in Tables I and 2 below,
Table 1. Tentative Tra~ 13316 (P,s~ho Cucamon~a): Small mamm, I tn ,J~in~ sur~.,r variables.
12-13 July {UM. ldV/. WN l~O 74 66 ~0 20 l~w
13-14 ~dy I SIM. WS 180 67 ~6 <10 0 New
14-15 .tul
lt-16+dy B.Hd, DF, W~
Key, to BiOlN~_**tdField
MW: Miahmd D, WrdCeX DF = David Fldtner
ws = TO =
BD - n-".l Deppe
Table 2. Tentative Trm 13316 ~ Cucamonga): Small matured trapping teadis.
~'s ~ ! I
~'m~ 2 2
~~o~ I 3 2 4 2
~ ~ 7 5 X2 12 ~
~~'~-~ 14 13 17 18 ~ 89
~V~ - 2 2 I 1 6
2
87/19/1999 88:56 9097845647 TIERRA MADRE PAGE 04
~q~mBer~ardin~ka~a~n~swseca~msred~n~rether~cap~ures~fanyspecies~fkanF~ar~r~t~ Bssed
ontl~se rcsutts, tbe endaaSe~d rodentsazejudSed tobe absent fromthls locatiorL
If you have any questic,.~s, p|6ase cc.?~act me or R. l~tchel Beaudip at 619 477-S333.
zI~d~MADP, H COIv'SULTANTS, ]lfC.
3
City of Rancho Cucamonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for pubtic review in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 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: Barratt Amedcan
Project Location (also see attached map): 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.
ProjectDescription: Thedesignreviewofdetailedsiteplanandbuildingelevationsforpreviouslyrecorded
Tract 13316, consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Venj 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 clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required.
Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all
related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at
10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847.
NOTICE
The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period.
Ju,v 28, 1999
Date of DeterminationAdopted
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. Hereinaf~er in this Resolution, the subject
Design Review request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 14th day of July 1999, and continued to the 28th day of July 1999, the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider 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 meeting on July 28, 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 includes three communities, successional sage scrub, annual
grassland/ruderal areas, and Eucalyptus woodland. There is a cluster of three mature eucalyptus
trees and one mature oak tree (on Lot 44); and
b. The property 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-10 BARRATT
July 28, 1999
Page 2
vacant and developed with single family homes, and the property to the west is developed with
single family homes; and
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; and
f. The project site is potential habitat for threatened or endangered species (i.e.,
California Gnatcatcher and San Bernardino Merriam 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; and
g. The project site is potential habitat for an endangered species, the Quino
Checkerspot Butterfly, and a habitat assessment was conducted and determined that due to lack
of host plants and past disturbances from agricultural use, the site does not support adequate
habitat and the species is not present; and
h. The project has a valid Nationwide Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
in compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and applicant has obtained Streambed
Alteration Agreement No. 5-070-98 from the California Department of Fish and Game; and
i. The project site is located within the '~ildland/U rban Interface" zone and San
Bernardino County Fire Safety Overlay District.
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 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General
Plan; and
b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development
Code and the purposes of the 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
d. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will
not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment
for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-10 BARRATT
July 28, 1999
Page 3
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 during 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.
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.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-10 BARRATT
July 28, 1999
Page 4
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 interior
yard areas not visible from surrounding streets.
9) Provide terraced retaining walls in comer 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.
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
ra-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) Provide at least a 5ofoot landscape stdp between the back of sidewalk
and any wall.
19) Provide 15-foot deep useable rear yard areas either through grading
or decks and patios.
20) The spillway at the south end of the tract shall be designed to have a
more natural appearance.
21) The retaining walls along the sides of the basin spillway at Lot A and
screen walls forthe drainage channel between Lots 9 and 10 shall be
split faced block subject to City Planner and City Engineer review and
approval.
22) Provide river rock treatment for the concrete basin spillway at Lot A for
native aesthetics and to preve~__,~th~%~.~lway from being used as a
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-10 BARRATT
July 28, 1999
Page 5
skateboard ramp, subject to City Planner and City Engineer review and
approval.
23) Provide low maintenance landscaping, such as but not limited to
drought/heat tolerant trees, shrubs, ground cover, and rip-rap on the
inside and outside slopes of the debds basin subject to review and
approval by the City Planner and City Engineer. Debris basin fencing
shall be decorative rather than chain link.
24) Provide a standard handicapped ramp at curb at end of local trail at the
northeast corner of Lot 31 and a stepthrough rather than a vehicle
gate.
25) Stepped footpaths shall be provided for all slopes in excess of 3: 1.
26) The front, visible edge of terrace drains shall be naturalized cobble.
27) Incorporate boulders found on-site during grading into design.
28) Notify the property owners for Lots 13 and 14 of Tract 9590 prior to
commencement of any work for the drainage channel and spillway.
Submit a copy of the notice to the City Planner pdor to commencement
of work.
29) The Construction Contractor shall select the construction equipment
used onsite based on low emission factors and high energy efficiency.
The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading
plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned
and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
30) The Construction Contractor shall utilize electdc or diesel-powered
equipment in lieu of gasoline-powered engines where feasible.
31) The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading
plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when
not in use. Dudng smog season (May through October), the overall
length of the construction period should be extended, thereby
decreasing the size of the area prepared each day, to minimize
vehicles and equipment operating at the same time.
32) The Construction Contractor shall support and encourage rideshating
and transit incentives for the construction crew.
33) Dust generated by the development activities shall be retained on site
and kept to a minimum by following the dust control measures listed
below.
a. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or
transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-10 BARRATT
July 28, 1999
Page 6
systems shall be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and
to create a crust after each day's activities cease.
b. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be
used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to
prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would
include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after
work is completed for the day, and whenever wind exceeds 15
miles per hour.
c, After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed,
the entire area of disturbed soil shall be treated immediately by
pickup of the soil until the area is paved or otherwise developed
so that dust generation will not occur.
d. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept
moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation.
e. Trucks transporting soil. sand, cut or fill materials and/or
construction debris to or from the site shall be tarped from the
point of odgin.
34) The Construction Contractor shall utilize as much as possible pre-
coated natural colored building matedais, water-based or Iow-VOC
coating, and coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer
efficiency, such as high volume low pressure (HVLP) spray method, or
manual coatings application such as paint brush, hand roller, trowel,
spatula, dauber, rag or sponge.
35) The developer shall make a good faith effort to notify and obtain
permission from adjacent property owners for all off site cleadng of
vegetation for fire protection/wildland interface requirements pdor to
issuance of building permits to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
En ineerin 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 Carrari Street to the first pole south of the
north tract boundary, prior 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 (telecommunicetions and electrical) on the
opposite side of Almond Street shall be paid to the City prior to the
-PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-10 BARRATI'
July 28, 1999
Page 7
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 prior 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.
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 private
lots) on the north side of Carrad Street on the Landscape
Maintenance District plans.
5) Improvement Phasing:
a) The debris basin and all related storm drainage improvements,
including Huntswood Place street improvements, shall be
installed prior 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 ddve approaches and provide vehicle gates with side
access, per Standard Drawing 1006-A, for Lot C at Carraft Street
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-10 BARRA'I'I'
July 28, 1999
Page 8
and Birdsong Place and for Lot B at Almond Street and Birdsong
Place. At the Carrari Street trail entrance the drive approach
shall be located far enough south that a 12-foot DG path can be
maintained.
b) The equestrian bridge 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
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) VVhere trail gradients exceed 4 percent, drainage diversion
devices shall be installed tothe 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 non-
skid 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 Carrad Street and replace
with concrete curb/mow strip.
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 drive approach ramp
and the on site driveway shall not exceed 14 percent on any lot.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-10 BARRA'I'r
July 28, 1999
Page 9
10) Aesthetictreatmentofstormdrainspillwaysshallbetothesatisfaction
of the City Engineer and City Planner.
11 ) All off site easements necessary for the installation of storm drainage
facilities and slopes adjacent to street or public trail improvements shall
be recorded pdor 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 private
property or the 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 Bernardino County
Flood Control District 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) TheexpandedCommunityTraileasementoffsitesouthofLot15shall
be recorded prior to grading permit issuance.
13) IftheimprovementagreementandbondsforTract13316donotre~ect
the current owner/developer, bond substitutions shall be completed
pdor to the issuance of building permits.
14) D.eveloper shall obtain a 404 Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers
prior 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 read 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.
17) Provide a minimum 3-foot clearance for flow line between
building/chimneys and property line walls.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-10 BARRATT
July 28, 1999
Page 10
Environmental Mitiqation 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, written notice of the
Cucamonga 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 prior to issuance of grading permits.
5) The developer shall comply with the terms and conditions of their
Nationwide Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in
compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Streambed
Alteration Agreement No. 5-070-98 from 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) Tree Removal Permit 98-26 is approved subject to replacement of
trees at a one to one ratio. All non-fruit beadng 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, prior 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-10 BARRA'Fr
July 28, 1999
Page 11
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) AII Provisions ofthe San Bernardino County Fire Safety Oveday 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.
13) Provision of landscaping and dver rock cobble shall be used to visually
enhance the spillway at the nodhem 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 28TH DAY OF JULY 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATI'EST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regu ady 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 28th day of July 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
¥
CITY O1: RANC[ IO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 28, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Brent Le Count. Associate Planner
Darice Sebring, Planning Aide
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE
TRACT 14162 - FAN - A request for an extension of a previously a pproved tentative
tract map including design review for the development of 17 single family lots on 4.7
acres of land in the Low Residential District (24 dwelling units per acre), located on
the south side of 19th Street at the western city limit - APN: 202-021-37.
BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract 14162 was initially approved by the Planning Commission on
August 26, 1992. Since that time. the State granted automatic extensions for several years during
the recession. This extended the expiration of the subject Tentative Tract to August 26, 1998. On
September 9, 1998, a time extension for the Tentative Tract was approved by the Planning
Commission. This extended the Tentative Tract's expiration date for one-year to August 26, 1999.
TRACT TIME EXTENSION: In 1998, the City Council amended the City's Subdivision Ordinance
to provide for the maximum time extensions allowable under the State Subdivision Map Act. The
City may extend tentative tract maps for up to 11 years from the original approval date. Extensions
are granted in 12 month increments. There are four more 12- month extensions available that may
be granted by the City (up to the year 2003).
Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension and compared the proposal with current
development criteria outlined in the Development Code. The City's requirements have not changed
and the project conforms to all standards.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Pad I of the Initial Study has been prepared by the applicant.
Staff has completed Parl II of the Environmental Checklist and found that conditions in the area
have not changed appreciably since the Tentative Tract was originally approved August 26, 1992.
The only significant change is that the Route 30 Freeway construction has begun, however, the
project site is two blocks away and the freeway construction is anticipated to reduce traffic volume
on 19th Street.
ITE~ D
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 Planning Commission grant a one-year time
extension for subdivision map and design review for Tentative Tract Map 14162 by the adoption of
the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:DA~Is
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "B" - Tentative Tract
Exhibit "C" - Detailed Site Plan
Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Landscape Plan
Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Grading Plan
Exhibit "F" - Building Elevations
Exhibit "G~ - Floor Plans
Exhibit "H" - Written Request from Applicant
Exhibit "1" - Initial Study Part II
Exhibit "J" - Letter from homeowner
Resolution of Approval for Time Extension for 'IF 14162
Resolution of Approval for Design Review for 'l'F 14162
OF RANC~,-CUCAlV[ONGA
P~NING~ DI~SION TITLE: J~.':~,. t/-~. t, ~ .~'.~-
EXHIBIT: 'rA ,', SCALE:
:ITY OF RANCHO _
. -~ :~UCA1VIONGA
PLANNING- DMSION TITLE: ~ ~ .,..~:/~...~ ~N --=
LOT SUMMARy
;~.
PLAN BUMMARy
LEGEND
OF
· ~ '~ AMONGA
PLANMNG- DI~SION IlLLIE: ~n~-,/~=J .r~,J,: ,C/~,~ N '-
EXHIBiT:/'C'~ SCALE: / --
~:~' '~l
®, . , ,,' ® ® ®
,,,~
E~:"~"" SCALE:
SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION
Co~ P~+c~ .... " "'
SIDE ELEVATION ~ROHT ELEVA11OH;
SIDE ELEVATION t hEAR ELEVATION
SIDE ELEVATION . __ I FRONT ELEVATION
ITEM:
q'TFLE: ~. /,J...~ z" : / .?'1
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA EXHIBIT:
PLANNING DMSION
SIDE ELEVATION
REAR ELEVATION
SIDE ELEVATION
FRONT EL.EVATION
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA T/TLE:
PLANNING DMSION EXHIBIT:'F~' SCALE:/
RRST R.O~R Pt.A~. I ~ECOND R,(X)~ P~AN
1T~M: ~T
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING DMSION ExHmrr:"G~' SCALE:
FIRST FLOOR PLAN ,I .... SECOND FLOOR PLAN
rrEM:
CrTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE:
PLANNING DMSION EXHIBIT:~'~-~'~ SCALE:/'
ITEM: *"F
TITLe: FI~, ~_.~
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING DMSION ExHmrr:"'_C--~" SCALE:
ATDITECH AeSeSOCIATI e5 INC.
Subdivision, Survey * Engineering Design
135 N. San Gabriel 81vd., # 100, San Gabriel, CA 91775 · Tel: (626) 570-1918
June 16, 1999
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department
10500 Civic Center Drive
Ranch Cucamonga, Ca 91729
Re: Tract #14162
19th and Saphire
To whom it may concern,
Due to economical hardship we are requesting
a time extension on the above referrenced tract map.
Tentative map has been approved. Should you have any
questions please feel free to contact my office at
(626) 570-1918.
Si~ erl
~n ao
· v ' er/Land Surveyor
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: Time Extension for Tentative Tract 14162
2. Related Files:
3. Description of Project: A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative
tract map, including design review, forthe development of 17 single family lots on 4.7 acres
of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side
of 19th Street at the western City limit - APN: 202-021-37.
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Tanya Fan
3223 E. Garvey North
West Covina, CA 91791
5. General Plan Designation: Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
6. Zoning: Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Existing single family detached dwellings to the
north (noah of 19th Street), east and south within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Also,
within Rancho Cucamonga there is a water storage facility of the Cucamonga County Water
District to the west and single family detached dwellings within the City of Upland.
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, Associate Planner
(909) 477-2750
10. Other agencies whose approval is required:
None
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
TT 14162 - Fan Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. involving at
least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
( ) Land Use and Planning (x) Transportation/Circulation (x) Public Services
( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources (x) Utilities and Service Systems
( ) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics
(x) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources
( ) Air Quality (x) Noise (x) 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 mi' ted pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigatio sures that a osed upon the proposed project.
Principal Planner
July 6, 1999
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
TT 14162 - Fan Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation
is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to
mitigate the significant effects identified.
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( (x)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? ( ) ( ) ( (x)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( (x)
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposah
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( ) - ( ) ( (x)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( (x)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( ) ( ) ( (x)
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
1'I' 14162 - Fan Page 4
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ) (x)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ) (x)
d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) (x)
f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) (x)
g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) (x)
h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
4. WATER. Will lhe proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (x) ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ) ( ) ( ) (x)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ) ( ) ( ) (x)
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations, or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) (x) ( )
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
TT 14162 - Fan Page 5
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater othe~ise available for public water
supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
Comments:
a) The project will increase runoff because the site is currently vacant and the project
will add imperious surfaces such as street improvements, driveways, and roo~ops.
The approved Tentative Tract Map includes conditions of approval requiring ce~ain
storm drain system and ground surface conveyance improvements that will handle
the increased flows. The impact is not considered significant.
g) Because of the tract improvements listed above it is expected that some reduction
in rainwater percolation to the ground water may result.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal.'
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) (x)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) (x)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ( ) (x)
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ' ( ) (x)
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (x) ( )
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
1'I' 14162 - Fan Page 6
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 will increase the number of traffic trips in the area since it entails adding
17 new homes. The approved Tentative Tract Map has conditions of approval
requiring certain public improvements to handle the increased traffic. The impact is
not considered significant.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) _ ( ) (x)
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees,
eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and
vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
'FF 14162 - Fan Page 7
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the '
proposah
a) Conflict with adopted energy consedation
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 ragion 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 flammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (x) ( )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
TI' 14162 - Fan Page 8
Comments:
a) The acoustical analysis prepared on August 6, 1990, indicated the project design,
which includes a minimum 6-foot high wall along 19th Street and the northwestern
frontage, will adequately mitigate current and future noise.
11, PUBLIC SERVICES, Would the proposal have an
effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
government sen/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? ( ( ) ( ) ( )
e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
Comments:
a & c) The project will increase the demand on public services since it entails adding 17
new homes. The approved Tentative Tract Map has conditions of approval requiring
the developer to participate in a Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts for the
necessary construction and maintenance of fire protection and school facilities. The
impact is not considered significant.
12, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS, Would the
proposal resuff in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial a~erations to the fo~owing 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)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
'IF 14162 - Fan Page 9
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
Comments:
a, b, d) The project will produce a need for water supplies, waste disposal, gas and electric
service since it entails adding 17 new homes. The approved Tentative Tract Map
has conditions of approval req uiring the developer to provide separate utility services
to each parcel including sanitary sewer system, water, gas, electric power,
telephone, and cable t.v. The cost of these improvements will be borne by the
developer. The impact is not considered significant.
e) The project will increase runoff because the site is currently vacant and the project
will add impervious surfaces such as street improvements, driveways, and roo~ops.
A drainage study was completed which determined that existing and proposed
streets and storm drains are sufficient to handle the increased surface runoff. The
approved Tentative Tract Map includes conditions of approval requiring certain
storm drain system and ground surface conveyance improvements that will handle
the increased flows. The cost of these improvements will be borne by the developer.
The impact is not considered significant.
13. AESTHETICS, Would the proposal,'
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ' ( ) (x)
c) Create light or 91are? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.'
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
TT 14162 - Fan Page 10
,.,..,, ,_..., .....: s:=., ,,,":',; ':;="' ,;
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) (x) ( )
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( } (x)
Comments:
a) The proiect will increase the demand on parks in the area because it involves adding
17 new homes. The developer will be responsible for payment of park fees at the
time of building permits 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)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
TT 14162 - Fan Page 11
b) Short term: Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term '
impact on the environment is one which occurs
in a relatively brief, definitive period of time.
Long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("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 earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable lega. I standards, and
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis, The following
earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply):
(x) General Plan EIR
(Certified April 6, 1981)
(x)Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
() Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract 14162. approved by the Planning
Commission on August 26, 1992.
Dg7
City of Rancho Cucamonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The fo~owing Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the
Ca~fornla Environmental Qua~ty Act Section 21091 and 2f092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: Time Extension for Tentative Tract 14162
Public Review Period Closes: July 28, 1999
Project Name: Project Applicant: Tanya Fan
Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the south side of 19th Street at the western
City limit - APN: 202-021-37.
Project Description: TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14162 - FAN - A request for an
extension of a previously approved tentative tract map, including design review. for the development of
17 single family lots on 4.7 acres of land in the Low Residential Distdct (2-4 dwelling units per acre).
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted
an Initial Study to deteRnine 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.
July 28, 1999
Date of Determination Adopted By
J
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST
FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN
REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14162 FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 4.7 ACRES OF
LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS
PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 19TH STREET AT
THE WESTERN CITY LIMIT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 202-021-37.
A. Recitals.
1. Tanya Fan has filed an application for the extension of the approval of the Design
Review for Tentative Tract 14162, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this
Resolution, the subject time extension request is referred to as "the application."
2. On August 26, 1992, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 92-112, thereby
approving the application subject to specific conditions and time limits.
3. On the July 28, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting on July 28. 1999. including written and oral staff reports. this Commission
hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The previously approved Design Review is in substantial compliance with the
City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans. codes and policies; and
b. The extension of the Design Review approval will not cause significant
inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans. ordinances. plans, codes and policies;
and
c. The extension of the Design Review approval is not likely to cause public health
and safety problems; and
d. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local
ordinance.
'PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TE FOR DR TT 14162 - FAN
July 28, 1999
Page 2
3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this
Commission hereby grants a time extension for:
Desiqn Review Applicant Expiration
TT 14162 Tanya Fan August 26, 2000
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby modifies the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 92-112 and the
Standard Conditions, and incorporated herein by this reference, to add the following:
Planninq Division
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, padicipate,
at its own expense, in the defense of any such action but such
participation shall not relieve the applicant of his obligations under this
condition.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall cedify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28'" DAY OF JULY 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI'P( 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
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 28th day of July 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TE FOR DR 'i'i' 14162 - FAN
July 28, 1999
Page 3
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR
THE EXTENSION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 14162, AND MODIFYING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
THEREOF, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 17 UNITS ON 4.7 ACRES OF
LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER
ACRE), LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 19TH STREET AT THE
WESTERN CITY LIMIT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
- APN: 202-021-37.
A. Recitals.
1. Tanya Fan has filed an application for the extension of the approval of Tentative Tract
Map No. 14162, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Tentative Tract Map Time Extension request is referred to as "the application."
2. On August 26, 1992, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 92-112, thereby
approving the application subject to specific conditions and time limits.
3. On July 28, 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.
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 fodh in the Recitals,
Pad A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on July 28, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The previously approved Tentative Tract Map is in substantial compliance with the
City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances. plans, codes, and policies; and
b. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map approval will not cause significant
inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and
policies; and
c. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map approval is not likely to cause public
health and safety problems; and
d. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local
ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TE FOR TT MAP 14162 - FAN
July 28, 1999
Page 2
3. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration,
together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the
application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon
the findings as follows:
a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated
thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the
independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed
and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the
application.
b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into
the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5c of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project
will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife
depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff
reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public
hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in
Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby grants a time extension for:
Tentative Tract Applicant Expiration
Tentative Tract 14162 Tanya Fan August 26, 2000
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3 and 4 above,
this Commission hereby modifies the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 92-112
and the Standard Conditions, and incorporated herein by this reference, to add the following:
Planninq Division
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TE FOR TT MAP 14162 - FAN
July 28, 1999
Page 3
such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his obligations
under this condition.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF JULY 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
A'FrEST:
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 28th day of July 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF P, ANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 28, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Donald Granger, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 99-03 CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA - A request to require wireless communication providers to
install facilities that would not interfere with the City's 800 MHz public safety
radio communications system.
BACKGROUND: The City of Rancho Cucamonga is a partner in an 800 MHz radio system
operated by the West End Communications Authority (WECA). The system is vital to
provide communications during or after emergencies or natural disasters. The City is in
receipt of a letter from Thomas Beltram, Execulive Director for WECA, describing a recent
breakdown of the 800 MHz public safety communication system due to interference from a
wireless communication facility. The Fire Protection District also contacted staff in support
of this amendment.
ANALYSIS: Certain wireless communications facilities, including, but not limited to, paging
systems and cellular and digital telecommunications, operate at frequencies in close
proximity to the 800 MHz utilized by the public safety communications system. WECA has
requested participating cities to incorporate language into the permitting process to ensure
that communication providers are aware of the 800 MHz public safety system and that
networks built within the City would not interfere with the WECA system.
Staff has drafted a Resolution that would add a performance standard to Section 17.26 of
the Development Code (Regulations for Wireless Communications) that would require any
wireless communication facility to not interfere with the public communications system,
including, but not limited to, the 800 MHz trunking system.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The amendment is exempt from the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines
promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3).
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley
Daily Bulletin newspaper.
ITEM E
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DCA 99-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
July 28, 1999
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached
Resolution Recommending Approval of the Development Code Amendment 99-03 to the
City Council.
City Planner
BB:DG:taa
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter dated May 17, 1999, from West End Communication
Authority Executive Director, Thomas W. Beltram
Exhibit "B" - Resolution Recommending Approval of DCA 99-03
END COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY
9330 Baseline Road · Suite 203 o Rancho Cucarnonga 91730
Office Phone: (909) 466-7210 · FAX: (909) 466-7213
MAY 2 6 R
May 17, 1999 U ,', JUN 0 8 1999
City of Rancho CucamOnga
TO: MR. LEE MC DOUGAL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR, CITY OF MONTCI..~/I~,rtnillg Division
MR. G. MICHAEL MILHISER, CITY MANAGER, CITY OF UPLAND, MR. GLEN
ROJAS, CITY MANAGER, CITY OF CHINe, MR. JACK I. AM, CITY MANAGER,
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
SUBJECT: NEXTEL INTERFERENCE
We recently experienced an inlerference problem on our 800 MHz backbone system I'rom a radio
site owned and operated by Nextel, Inc. The problem, which occurred in the City of Ontario
effectively, eliminaled perlabia radio coverage within a radius of about 1/2 mile around the Nextel
site. The problem was reported to Nextel whose technical staff quickly resolved the issue.
Portable coverage in the area was restored on the WECA backbone.
A similar problem was reported on a public safety system in Washington County near Portland.
Oregon. I conlacled the Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency QNCCCA} Io
discuss the mailer and to compare notes. The WCCCA system is similar in size Io San
Bernardino County's. They reporl Ihat due to design problems Ihelr system had portable
coverage problems. Nextel was licensed to two hundred twenty nine (229) of the six hundred
(600) available frequencies in the area. The Nextel licenses included an 800 MHz frequency
range which was close enough to those of the public safety system to potentially cause
interference. After the Nextel system was installed, public safety coverage problems became
much worse. The lechnicol staff of WCCCA reports that it has been working toward a solution
with Motorola and with Nextel for the past four months wiltl mixed results.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Is the agency charged with th;
responsibility for resolving Interference problems. Despite the public safety Implications
of this Issue and since Nextel had legal licenses to provide service In the area, the FCC
recently ruled It would not Intervene In the matter.
I want to emphasize that to date we have experienced only one such problem and it was solved
quickly 1o our salisi'action. In light of the aforementioned FCC decision. I believe it is prudent to
prolecl the backbone system whenever possible. I am Iherefore requesting that language be
added to each City's permitting process to ensure that communications companies are aware
the 800 MHz public satiety system and they agree that any network built within the City will not
inlerfere with the WECA system.
"Serving theWest End Public Safety Agencies"
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 99-03, REGARDING WIRELESS
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for Development Code
Amendment No. 99o03, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution,
the subject Development Code Amendment is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 28th day of July, 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 28th day of July, 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.
c. The City of Rancho Cucamonga utilizes an 800 MHz trunking system for its public
safety radio communications. This backbone system is critical for providing communications during
or after emergencies and disasters. The proposed amendment is necessary to assure that there
is no interference with the public safety radio communications system.
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 I and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan
and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan
and with related development; and
b. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code;
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DCA 99-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
July 28, 1999
Page 2
d. That the subject application is consistent with the objectives the Development
Code; and
e. That 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 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 15308.
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. 99-03 to add
a new section as follows:
"17.26.075 - Performance Standards
No wireless communication facility shall interfere with the public safety radio
communications system, including, but not limited to, the 800 MHz trunking system."
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF JULY 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
A'FI'EST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 28th day of July 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 28, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Rebecca Van Buren, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAl
USE PERMIT 97-13 - FOOTHILL PROPERTIES, LL¢, - A request for a time
extension of a previously approved master plan for a retail shopping center
consisting of design review for 116,394 square feet of leasable space on 11.75
acres of land under the Community Commercial designation of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan (Subarea 7), located between Spruce and Elm Avenues on the south
side of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-352-63 through 69. Related File: Tentative
Parcel Map 15044.
BACKGROUND: Conditional Use Permit 97-13 was approved by the Planning Commission on
August 27, 1997. The approval will expire on August 27, 1999. Foothill Properties, LLC recently
purchased the site and is requesting an extension of time to commence the project.
ANALYSIS: As of December 1998, Conditional Use Permits are approved for five years with no
provisions for extension. The subject Conditional Use Permit was approved prior to adoption of this
provision. In this situation, the Commission has the authority to issue a time extension for up to
three years for an overall lifetime approval of five years.
Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension and compared the proposal with current
development criteria outlined in the Development Code and Industrial Area Specific Plan. The
development standards have not changed in the Community Commercial designation of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 7). Based on this review, the project meets the applicable
development standards.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The applicant prepared Part I of the Initial Study, which
included a habitat suitability and soils evaluation for the Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly (Thomas
Olsen Associates, December 22, 1997). The report indicates the site is vegetated almost
exclusively by non-native species and the soil conditions are not suitable habitat forthe Delhi Sands
Flower Loving Fly. No impacts to the Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly or its habitat are expected to
occur as a result of proposed development. Staff completed Part II of the Initial Study and found
that conditions in the area have not changed appreciably since the Conditional Use Permit received
approval in 1997. Staff feels that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the
environment and recommends the Planning Commission adopt a Negative Declaration, consistent
with the Negative Declaration adopted for the original project approval.
ITEM F
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 97-13- FOOTHILL PROPERTIES, LLC
July 28, 1999
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve a three year time
extension request, the maximum allowable, through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval
and the issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Bullet
City Planner
BB:RVB:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's Letter
Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "C" - Site Plan
Exhibit "D" - Phasing Plan
Exhibit "E" - Elevations
Exhibit "F" - Initial Study
Resolution of Approval with Conditions for Time Extension for Conditional Use
Permit 97-13
FOOTHILL PROPERTIES, LLC
May 27, 1999
Planning Division
City of Rancho Cucamonga H E e: E i V E D
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0807 dlJbl I ~
Gentlemen: CRy of Rancho Cucamong'a
pmnning Division
SUBJECT: Time Extension Request
Resolution No. 97-50 CUP 97-13
Resolution No. 97-51 Tentative Parcel Map 15044
The above stated resolutions v,'crc issued in August 27, 1997. However, the property was sold to
us last April 1998 and the project has not commenced. We, therefore, respectfully request
extension of time.
Wc have attached herewith the documents and fcc payment required for tim,' extension request.
Your favorable response would be most appreciated. Should you have questions, please fccl frcc
to call us at 310/820-8838.
Sincerely,
P.O. llox 49931, Los/lngeles, CA 90049 Tel 310/820-8838 Fax 310/820-8070
Wohl
Wohl
Wohl
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: Conditional Use Permit 97-13 Time Extension
Tentative Parcel Map 15044 Time Extension
2. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit 97-13: A request to develop a master plan for a
retail shopping center consisting of design review for 116,394 square feet of leasable space
on 11.75 acres of land under the Community Commercial designation of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan (Subarea 7), located between Spruce and Elm Avenues on the south side of
Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-352-63 through 69. A Negative Declaration was adopted for
this project in August of 1997.
Tentative Parcel Map 15044: A subdivision of 11.75 acres of land into 8 parcels in the
Community Commercial designation of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 7),
located between Spruce and Elm Avenues on the south side of Foothill Boulevard -
APN: 208-352-63 through 69. A Negative Declaration was adopted for this project in August
of 1997.
3. Description of Project: A request to provide an additional 3-year time period to implement
a previously approved Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map.
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Foothill Properties, LLC.
P.O. Box 49931
Los Angeles, CA 90049
5. General Plan Designation: Community Commercial
6. Zoning: Community Commercial
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project is surrounded by a developed retail
center to the north, a hotel and vacant land to the south, a developed industrial park and
vacant land to the east, and a developed restaurant to the west.
8. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
9. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Rebecca Van Buren
/ Associate Planner
(909) 477-2750
rr
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
CUP 97-13 & TPM 15044 Page 2
10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Caltrans
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is '"Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
( ) Land Use and Planning (X) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services
( ) Population and Housing (X) 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 eadier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Poter~tially Significant
Impact" or "'Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Rel~ecca Van Buren
Associate Planner
June 17, 1999
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
CUP 97-13 & TPM 15044 Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation
is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to
mitigate the significant effects identified.
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.'
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community? ( } ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) The project is consistent with the General Plan and the Industrial Area Specific Plan
and the design is compatible with existing and planned land uses in the vicinity.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal.'
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( ) ( } (X)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) The site is planned for Community Commercial use and is vacant.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
CUP 97-13 & TPM 15044 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)
f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) (X)
g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) (X)
h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) (X)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
Grading will be inspected by the Building and Safety Division for consistency with the
Uniform Building Code.
h) Consistent with the Uniform Building Code, a soils report is required by the Building
and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading permits.
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)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
CUP 97-13 & TPM 15044 Page 5
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations, or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? ) ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ) ( ) ( ) (X)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ) ( ) ( ) (X)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater othersvise available for public water
supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
g) The drainage easement that crosses the site from north to south has been identified
and incorporated into the plan of development.
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)
Comments:
a) An air quality study was completed in conjunction with the Environmental
Assessment for General Plan Amendment 96-01A and concluded there are no
negative impacts.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
CUP 97-13 & TPM 15044 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)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies suppoding
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( ) ) ( ) (X)
g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) Analysis for General Plan Amendment 96-01A indicated there would be no
significant increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion as a result of retail
development on this site.
d) Parking is not allowed off-site on any public streets abutting the project, The
Development Code requires adequate on-site parking as a condition of approval.
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)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
CUP 97-13 & TPM 15044 Page 7
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and
vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) A habitat suitability and soils evaluation for the Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly was
conducted by Thomas Olsen Associates, dated December 22, 1997. The repod
indicates the site is vegetated almost exclusively by non-native species with a
70-90 percent vegetative cover. The surface soil evaluation states "The near
surface soils at this site do not meet the criteria of the Delhi sand. The soils at this
site are considered compacted fills and alluvial soils." The repo~ finds that suitable
habitat for the Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly does not occur on-site. No impacts
to the Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly or its habitat are expected to occur as a result
of proposed development due to the existing soil and vegetative conditions and
adjacent commercial and industrial development.
The site was rough graded for development at the time infrastructure improvements
were made for the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park. Furlher, pad of the site was
covered with vineyards. The development of this site would have no impact to
wildlife.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposah
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) The project will be consistent with adopted energy conservation ordinances and the
requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
CUP 97-13 & TPM 15044 Page 8
9. H8RDS. 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 wi~h fiammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) No hazardous materials are expected to be sold or stored in the proposed retail
center.
10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) ncreases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( (X)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ' ( (X)
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon or resu/l in a need for new or a/tered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( (X)
b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( (X)
c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( (X)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
CUP 97-13 & TPM 15044 Page 9
e) Other governmental se~ices? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a-e) As stated in the Environmental Assessment for General Plan Amendment 96-01A,
the area is urbanized and public se~ices are existing.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations to the following utibTies:
a) Power or natural gas? (X)
b) Communistion systems? (X)
c) Lo~l or regional water treatment or dis(ribution
facilities? (X)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ) (X)
e) Storm water drainage? ) (X)
0 Solid waste disposal? ) (X)
g) Lo~l or regional water supplies? ) (X)
Comments:
a-g) The area is urbanized and infrastructure is in place for development.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposah
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) (X)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
(X) ( )
c) Create light or glare? (X) ( )
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
CUP 97-13 & TPM 15044 Page 10
Comments:
b) Development will be designed and/or conditioned to be compatible with surrounding
existing uses, including the adjoining hotel and planned development on the south
side of Eucalyptus Street.
c) Exterior lighting for the site will be consistent with requirements of the Development
Code.
14. CULTU~L RESOURCES. Would the proposah
a) Disturb paleontologi~l resources? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Disturb archaeologi~l resources? ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Affect histori~l or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Have the potential to ~use a physi~l change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
As s~ated in the Environmental Assessment for General Plan Amendment 96-01A, the site
is pad of the Rancho Cu~monga Business Park Master Plan of Development. The site has
been rough graded and street improvements, including public utilities, have been installed.
No known cultural resources exist on the site.
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal.'
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a-b) Commercial recreation is a permitted use on the site; therefore. recreational
opportunities could be increased as a result oi' commercial development.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
CUP 97-13 & TPM 15044 Page 11
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have
the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal,
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Short term: Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one which occurs
in a relatively brief, definitive period of time.
Long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("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 earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis, The following
earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply):
(X) General Plan EIR
(Certified April 6, 1981 )
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
CUP 97-13 & TPM 15044 Page 12
(X) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
(X)Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR
(Certified September 19, 1981)
(X) Environmental Assessment for General Plan Amendment 96-01A, determined
May 1, 1996.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the
California Environmental Qua~ty Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Pubtic Resources Code.
Project File No.: Time Extension for Conditional Use Permit 97-13 and Parcel Map 15044
Public Review Period Closes: July 28, 1999
Project Name: Project Applicant: Foothill Properties, LLC
Project Location (also see attached map): Located between Spruce and Elm Avenues on the south
side of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-352-63 through 69.
Project Description: A request for a previously approved Parcel Map for the subdivision of 11.75acres
of land into 8 parcels and a previously approved master plan for a retail shopping center consisting of
design review for 116,394 square feet of leasable space in the Community Commercial designation of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 7).
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 ap~icant before this
proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avokJ the effects or
mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be
required, Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project
file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847.
NOTICE
The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period.
July 28, 1999
Date of Determination Adopted By
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST
FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-13, A MASTER PLAN FOR A RETAIL
SHOPPING CENTER CONSISTING OF DESIGN REVIEW FOR
116,394 SQUARE FEET OF LEASABLE SPACE ON 11.75 ACRES OF
LAND UNDER THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION OF
THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (SUBAREA 7), LOCATED
BETWEEN SPRUCE AND ELM AVENUES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF o APN: 208-352-63 THROUGH 69.
A. Recitals.
1. Foothill Properties, LLC has filed an application for the extension of the approval of
Conditional Use Permit 97-13, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject time extension request is referred to as "the application."
2. On August 27, 1997, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 97-50, thereby
approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Conditional Use Permit 97-13.
3. On July 28, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting on July 28, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission
hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The previously approved Conditional Use Permit is in substantial compliance with
the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes and policies; and
b. The extension of the Conditional Use Permit approval will not cause significant
inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes and policies;
and
c. The extension of the design review approval is not likely to cause public health
and safety problems; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TE FOR CUP 97-13
July 28, 1999
Page 2
d. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local
ordinance.
e. The project was granted an initial approval period of two years. Subsequently,
the City Council adopted its Ordinance No. 596, which established an approval period of five years
with no further time extensions allowed; hence, the project may be extended for up to three years.
3. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration,
together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the
application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration, based upon the
findings as follows:
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. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole,
the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed
project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which
wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Negative
Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission
during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse
effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 ah.d 2 above, this
Commission hereby grants a time extension for:
Project Applicant Expiration
CUP 97-13 Foothill Properties, LLC August 27, 2002
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 above,
this Commission hereby modifies the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 97-50 and
the Standard Conditions, and incorporated herein by this reference, to add the following:
Planninq Division
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,
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TE FOR CUP 97-13
July 28, 1999
Page 3
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 the applicant of his obligations under this
condition.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF JULY 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 duty 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 28th day of July 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
DATE: July 28, 1999STAFF REPORT
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer
BY: Maria E. Pcrez, Assistant Engineer
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP 15044 - FOOTHILL PROPERTIES, LLC - A request for a time
extension for a previously approved Parcel Map for the subdivision of 11.75 acres of land
into 11 parcels in the Community Commercial designation of the Industrial Area Specific
Plan (Subarea 7), located between Spruce and Elm Avenues on the south side of Foothill
Boulevard - APN: 208-352-63 through 69. A Negative Declaration was adopted for this
project in August 1997. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impacts for consideration. Related File: Conditional Use Permit 97-13.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
Tentative Parcel Map 15044 was approved by the Planning Commission on August 27, 1997. Prior to
expiration, the applicant filed the current time extension request. A parcel map can receive a total of three
years time extension. This first request for an extension is for the maximum of two years. A one-year
extension can still be granted upon a future request. Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension and
compared the proposal with current development criteria outlined in the Industrial Area Spcci~c Plan. Based
on this review, the Tentative Parcel Map meets the development standards of the General Industrial District.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The applicant completed Part I ofthe Initial Study. Part 11 ofthe Initial Study was completed in conjunction
with related file CUP 97-13. Staff feels that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the
environment and recommends the Planning Commission adopt a Negative Declaration~ consistent with the
Negative Declaration adopted for the original project approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the P lann ing Commission approve a two-year ti me extension for Tentative Parcel Map
15044 through adoption or the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Respectfully submitted,
Dan James
Senior Civil Engineer
Attachments: Vicinity Map (Exhibit "A")
Tentative Map (Exhibit "B")
Resolution
ITEM G
CITY OF ITEM: Vicinity Map
RANCH0 CUCAMONGA TITLE: TPM 15044
EN{~INEERING DIVISION EXIIIBIT:"A"
.... I . ' ""~. ..... _'--.----~_ "'~' .,... ,=-'-"". -'~:; ......,~.,_--~,.~,~_.-~.. ::.-~T_TS_I-~'Z .......
...... ~ .....~{..--r_= .......I '~ ........ .......~; ' .. ' ..... "
· ~....- ~ ' ~ ....... ,,,~,.,~..
, '=]...-' ""~' .- .'
I" '~ ~t · :~ ....
el ' '- """., -~
"""=".' ' ..-. ';;_..-::.~-~:.'~ ~'~RC~ ~. ~ ~."='..-i"-/
- ;, ..'i'
- ~ ~'- ..... .
PARCEL 2 ..Oh'._ .-'--. ..... PARCEL 3:
.... · ' PARCEL 8
~ ~t'. _. ._. .-;',.;: ....
..... ~'.."'" 'i
.. -,_ ~
CITY OF /~
RANCHO CUCAMONGA ITEM: Tentative Map
ENGINEERING DIVISION TITLE: TPM 15044
' EXHIBIT: "B"
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15044, A SUBDIVISION OF 11.75
ACRES INTO 11 PARCELS IN THE COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION OF SUBAREA 7 OF THE
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD BETWEEN
SPRUCE AVENUE AND ELM AVENUE - APN: 208-352-63
THROUGH 69
A. Recitals
1. Foothill Properties, LLC has filed an application for the extension of the approval
of Tentative Parcel Map 15044, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject time extension request is referred to as "the application."
2, On August 27, 1997, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 9%51, thereby
approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Tentative Parcel Map 15044.
3. On May 28, 1999, the applicant filed a request for a time extension.
4. On July 28, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date.
5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts bet forth in the
Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting on July 28, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission
hereby specifically finds as follows.
a. The previously approved Tentative Parcel Map is in substantial
compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes and
policies; and
b. The extension of the Tentative Parcel Map approval will not cause
significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes
and policies; and
c. The extension of the Tentative Parcel Map approval is not likely to cause
public health and safety problems; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TIME EXTENSION FOR CUP 97-13
July 28, 1999
Page 2
d. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local
ordinance.
e. The project was granted an initial approval period of two years.
Subsequently, the City Council adopted its Ordinance No. 596, which established an approval
period of five years; hence, the project may be extended for up to three years through a two-year
extension and one subsequent one-year extension;
3. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative
Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment
for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration,
based upon the findings as follows:
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. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California
Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a
whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the
proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat
upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the
Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning
Commission during the public hearing, tttc Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption
of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California code of
Regulations.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs'l and 2 above,
this Commission hereby grants a time extension for:
Project Applicant Expiration
TPM 15044 Foothill Properties, LLC August 27, 200 I
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TIME EXTENSION FOR CUP 97-13
July 28, 1999
Page 3
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 2gTM DAY OF JULY 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 28t~ day of July 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
RECEIVED
Ranning Division
RECEIVED
JUL 2 l 1999
C~ty of ~ancho CucamOr, c,, ~
Ranning Division
Ruth Margot Kerr
8651 Foothill Blvd, Space 88
Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730
~Tuly 28. 1999
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chamber
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Gentlemen: Subject: LEFT EXIT on to Foothill
Blvd from Case Volerite
Mobile Home Park
I have been a resident of the Case Volante Mobile Home Park since 1978.
At that time, it was o breeze to exit from the park, make a left hand turn,
and continue in a westerly direction. As the city of Rancho Cucamonga grew,
traffic increased on Foothill Blvd. And during this time, it became
increasingly difficult to exit the park.
After a number of traffic accidents in this area, and after repeated
requests to the City Engineers to alleviate this hazardous condition, a
traffic signal was erected at the corner of Baker and Foothill. This
controlled the traffic pattern and made it, once again, possible to carry on
our daily routines with greater ease, i.e., shopping, doctor appointments,
hospital tests (San Antonio Community Hospital), etc.
I received A Notice of Public Hearing that just east of the Case Voleate
Mobile Home Park on Foothill Blvd., o new Bated community for some 159
homes is being planned. This new project will have both right and left lane
exits.
What about the left lane exits for the 200 families in the mobile home
pork? We a/so have o need for a left hand lane when exiting the pork to
travel in o westerly direction, as well as using this lane to make o left
turn entering the pork when coming from east.
The Case Volante Mobile Home Park of Rancho Cucamonga, is a senior park,
having 203 spaces, and has been a planned community for some 40 years.
]Zt is urgently requested that you give consideration to grant, the residents
of the Case Volante Mobile Home Park, the right to have access to o left
lane exiting the park to travel west, as well as using this lane to enter
the pork from the east.
Re,__~ssp cffull ,~.~.~
Ruth Margot Ker'r
July 28, 1999
Planning Commission,
Let me tell you who I am;
Catherine Wolf
8651 Foothill # 68
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca.
I own a home in Casa Volante MI-[P. I moved here in1989 and since August 1992 have
along with my husband worked as Park Managers for the park owner, Brad Downey.
This letter is in response to the Notice of Public Hearing regarding the Variance 99-06 -
Fu Mai limited Partnership is requesting.
While I have no objections to the variances requested, I am concerned with the future
aspects of two fair size communities ( 203 units in CVMHP and 159 units in the Fu-Mai
project) exiting on to Foothill Blvd. Ill understand correctly, Casa Volante will have only
a fight turn exit from the community, while the Fu-Mai homes will have the ability to exit
left or right on to Foothill. Many of the residents in Casa Volante, an over age 55
community use the medical facilities in the San Antonio Hospital area. A left turn would
allow us to easily reach these facilities.
Due to length of time Casa Volante has been located on Foothill Blvd., ~he closer
proximity of the projected Fu Mal exit to Vineyard Ave. and the above mentioned item I
feel mor¢~ consideration should be given to the future entrance and egress of Casa
Volante Park. Many times traffic at the Vineyard and Foothill interseclion does not flow
smoothly. It is often backed up to Baker St.
I will appreciate your consideration of my concerns in regards to this matter.
Sincerely,
Catherine Wolf
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 28, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-27 - FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - A design
review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved
Tentative Tract Map 15540 consisting 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, 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 files: Variance 99-06,
Tentative Tract 15540, and Tree Removal Application 93-04.
VARIANCE 99-06 - FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - A request to reduce the
minimum building separations from 15 to 10 feet, the minimum building-to-curb
setbacks from 15 to 8 feet, and the required common open space area percentage
from 35 percent to approximately 10 percent of the total project area for the
proposed residential subdivision 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, 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 files: Tentative Tract
15540, Development Review 99-27, and Tree Removal Application 93-04.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq:
North Existing Art Studio and Traffic School; Office
South - Existing apartments and single family homes; Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling
units per acre)
East Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel
West Existing mobile home park, apartments, market, and vacant land
B. Site Characteristics: The narrow, long, basically rectangular site extends from Foothill
Boulevard to Arrow Route and is immediately west of the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control
Channel The site contains several building foundations near the center of the site. These
ITEMS H & I
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 99-27 & VAR 99-06 - FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
July 28, 1999
Page 2
foundations remain from the barrack 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 worthy of preservation, as recommended by the arborist. Curb and gutter
exist along the site"s Arrow Route frontage. The site slopes generally north to south at an
average of 3 percent.
ANALYSIS:
A. Backqround: Tentative Tract Map 15540, consisting of a 159 lot subdivision, was approved
in conjunction with the Design Review and Variance by the Planning Commission on June '
23, 1993. The Design Review and Variance applications expired on June 23, 1998. Since
the approved Variance and Design Review have expired, the current Tentative Tract Map is
not in compliance with the development standards for the Medium Residential District.
Without the Variance, the Tentative Tract does not meet the minimum 35 percent common
open space requirement for the Medium Residential District. The Applicant has requested
a time extension for the Tentative Tract Map, which will be presented to the Planning
Commission at the August 11, 1999. meeting. However, before a time extension can be
granted, a new Design Review and Variance application must be approved and accompany
the time extension request. Therefore, the applicant has resubmitted the exact same Design
Review and Variance applications that were previously appreved by the Planning
Commission.
B. General: The project is identical to the previously approved project. The applicant is
proposing to subdivide the project site for the development of 159 single family detached
homes. Even though the property is zoned Medium Residential, the applicant is proposing
detached single family homes. Three common open space areas, each containing a
minimum of three amenities, are provided on-site and are equally distributed within the
project. Two paseo connections from the north and south common open space areas are
provided for access to the future regional trail along Cucamonga Creek Channel.
The site is proposed to be served by private streets with gated entrances along Foothill
Boulevard and Arrow Route frontages. The private streets are designed to meet the City's
minimum width requirements for local residential streets, but have reduced parkway width
behind the curb line. The Foothill Boulevard vehicular access also provides ingress and
egress to the Casa Volante Mobile Home Park, immediately west of the site. Ultimately, the
existing mobile home park access is planned to be 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 Specific Plan.
Four flour plans with three elevations each (not including reverse plans) are proposed. The
four floor plans range in size from 1,202 square feet 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 spine to break up the potentially repetitive street scape.
C. Desiqn Review Committee: The Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Fong} reviewed the project on
July 6, 1999, and recommended that the additional architectural elements be added to the
proposed elevations and brought back for further review. The Committee (McNiel, Stewart
Fong) reviewed the revised elevations on July 20, 1999, and recommended approval. See
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 99-27 & VAR 99-06 - FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
July 28, 1999
Page 3
D. G radinq and Technical Review CommitteeS: The Committees have reviewed the project and
recommend approval subject to the conditions outlined in the attached Resolution of
Approval.
E. Environmental Assessment: The Environmental Assessment accompanied the Tentative
Tract time extension request, that was presented to the Planning Commission on June 9,
1999. The item was continued at the request of the applicant until the August 11, 1999
Planning Commission Meeting. The Design Review and Tentative Tract time extension
request, 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 on May 20, 1999.
VARIANCE ANALYSIS:
The proposed Variance is identical to the previously approved variance for this project. The
applicant has submitted an 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 purpose of a Variance is to provide flexibility from the strict application of
development standards when special circumstances pertaining to the property such as size, shape,
topography, location, or unusual characteristics would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed
by other properties in the vicinity and the same district.
FACTS FOR FINDINGS: In considering any request for a Variance, there are a series of findings
under State Law that must be substantiated by facts in order to approve the request. Generally,
these findings center around the uniqueness or special circumstances of a particular property or
the use of the designation.
A. Buildinq 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. The
Development Code standards requires a 15-foot minimum building separation for multiple
family development, The intent behind a 15-foot building separation requirement is to create
a propodionally sufficient open space between larger, more massive multiple unit buildings
in attached residential projects. The multiple family development standards apply to this
project since the property 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 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 zones, the Planning Commission has
expressed that the side yard should be increased on a large percentage of lots to allow for
recreational vehicle (RV) storage visually screened 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 of a project typical to the Low- Medium Residential
District and the applicant is addressing the RV storage issue, staff feels that the granting of
the Variance would be inconsistent with the objectives of developing small lot, single family
detached subdivisions within the City. Therefore, staff feels this portion of the Variance
should be granted.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 99-27 & VAR 99-06 - FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
July 28, 1999
Page 4
B, Building-to-Curb Separation: The application proposes to reduce the minimum building-to-
curb setback, from 15 feet to a minimum of 8 feet, for 26 lots. The request is for the front
yard setback, where the larger, two-story units are plotted on internal cul-de-sac lots. The
intent behind the 15-foot building-to-curb separation is 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.
C. Common Open Space: The applicant is proposing to reduce the common open space area
from 35 to approximately 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 projects
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 approximately 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 amenities (5) required for a 159 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
standards 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 common open space area. Therefore, this portion of the Variance
should be supported.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inla~d 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 approve Development
Review 99-27 and Variance 99-06 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with
Conditions.
Brad Buller
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 99-27 & VAR 99-06 - FU MA1 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
July 28, 1999
Page 5
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "B" - Detailed Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Conceptual Landscape Plan
Exhibit "D" - Recreation Area and Amities
Exhibit "E" - Floor Plans
Exhibit "F" - Elevations
Exhibit "G" - Design Review Committee Action Comments dated July 6,
and July 20.1999
Resolution Approving Development Review 99-27 with Conditions
Resolution Approving Variance 99-06
TENTAT l VE TRACT NO. t 55~r0
~*" :~ ...... ~t ..... " '~ :~',
:,: .... ._,..-~..,..,.~
/
,,j
:
DEIAILED SII[ PLAN
TENTAT I VE TRACT NO, 15540 ., .
" "" "..z"'., .:.:...=.t..: ... ....: :.~ ..~'..' ...'.A. ;", :.s. ..'.'.. .'..':.,. .',~, .'. /:' .'.. .' .
" ' -~ TYPICAL FRONT YARD LANDSCAPING
RECREATION AREA
IUI]~IlfilIIIlIltlI~ ::~Z "' "' .......
~EVA~ ~EVATION
, u _ . ,_ . . RECREA~N AREA 'C' ~.~
ELEVATION
Enlarged Site AmenRies
DiiAi.i.O
I-IARI{IN(TrON
................. L-2
~ ~, ~ Main Recreation Area Enlargement~ ~
'~2.,'~ FU MAI LTD. ~3XO~L!L/~O~Y ~]@ ~flOI~L~ ' ,~ZX,~-,~
It0~,lt~c FIARMNG~rON
................. L*3
· FU M.41 LIMITED P~RTNERSHIP ·
· FU MAI L/M/TED PARTNERSHIP ·
PlAN 3
· FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ·
PL4N 4
· FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ·
· FU M/~I LIMITED PARTNERSHIp ·
· FU MAI LIMIII:u PARTNERSHIP ·
DESIGN REVIEW/COMMENTS
9:00 p.m. Rudy Zeledon July 6, 1999
,.. DEVELOPMENT REVIEVV 99-27- FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - A design review of building
elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved Tentative Tract Map 15540 consisting 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 Cede 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 files: Variance 99-01, Tree Removal Application 93-04.
Backqround: When Tentative Map 15540 was approved by the Planning Commission on June 23,
1993, it was approved in conjunction with the Design Review of house products and Variance. The
Variance was approved for the reduction in the minimum side yard building separations from 15 to 8
feet, the minimum building to curb setback from 15 to 10 feet, and the minimum percentage of
common open space from 35 percent to approximately 10 percent. The approved Variance and the
approved design of house products are essential to and an integral part of the Tentative Map. A
request to extend the Tentative Map must include the Design Review and Variance. Unfortunately,
the approval for the Design Review and the Vadance have lapset while the Tentative Map was
extended to June 23, 1999. Therefore, the applicant agreed to submit a new Design Review,
Variance, and Tree Removal application for the project and agreed to continue the heating for the time
extension request to the August 11, 1999, Planning Commission meeting.
~arameters: The narrow, long, basically rectangular site ex~ends from Foothill Boulevard to
Arrow Route and is immediately west of the Cucamonga Creek Rood Control Channel. The Case
Volante Mobile Home Park is directly west of the northerly two-thirds of the site. The site contains 222
mature trees 69 of which are worthy of preservation as recommended by the arbodst. Two paseo
connections ~re planned on-site to connect the proj~;'~ to the future Regional Multiple Purpose Trail
along Cucamonga Creek. The proposed Foothill Boulevard vehicular access is proposed to be shared
with the mobile home park on-site, consistent with the access and median break location shown on
the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (the current mobile home park vehicular access will be
eliminated). The Arrow Route access lines up with the driveway for the apartments on the south side
of the street. The site generally slopes from norlh to south at slightly less than 3 percent.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion:
The applicant has resubmitted the same project as previously approved by the Commission on June
23, 1993. Staff has reviewed the development plans, compared it with the odginal ones and
determined that the conditions of approval placed by the Design Review Committee (Vallette, Melcher,
Coleman) on May 4, 1993, are still valid. They are as follows:
1. 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 comers to the side
return walls.
2. The chimney caps should be painted to match the chimney stack color.
3. Adequate lighting for the common open space areas should be provided to improve
functionality and safety, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division and Rancho Cucamonga
Police Department.
4. The design of the on- and off-site visitor parking areas should be reviewed and approved by
the Planning Division, prior to the issuance of building permits.
.. ,,
G
DRC COMMENTS ..
DR 99-27 - PU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIp
July 6, 1999
Page 2
5. The curved planter walls, along the street scape frontages, should be exlended further in
both directions, which will take on the appearance of walls gradually blending into the
undulating berming. 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 recreational areas
to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. ·
7. The final Grading Plan should be revised to indicate a lower combination block/retaining wall
and lower building pads for Lots 1 through 8.
8. Individual flag lot driveways should be "necked down" to a maximum width of 12 feet at the
driveway approach and include decorative pavement banding to the satisfaction of the
Planning Division.
9. Seretonal roll-up garage doors and automatic garage door openers should be provided on
all models.
10. Retaining walls should be composed of decorative masonry materials and be limited to a
maxjmum height of 4 feet.
11. 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 the comer side yard
walls and sidewalks along the spine street.
13. The visitor parking area outside the Foothill Boulevard entrance gate should be screened
from public view of the major artedal through the use of herruing, dense landscaping, low
walls or any combination thereof, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division.
14. Wood fencing should be treated with a water sealant.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the projed.
Attachments: Development Plans
Desion Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pare Stewart, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Rudy Zeledon
The Committee recommended that items 1 through 5, 7, and 9 through 14 shall be placed as condition
of approval. The Committee recommended that the applicant address the following design concerns
and submit for further Committee review under Consent Calendar ageride:
t. The units on 131, and 132 should be set back further from the recreational areas, to the
satisfaction of the Planning Division. Lot 34 should be provided with dense landscaping to the
satisfaction of City Planner,
'DRC COMMENTS
DR 99-27 - FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
July 6.1999
Page 3
2. Individual flag lot driveways should be 'necked down' to a maximum width of 12 feet at the
driveway approach. Decorative pavement such as scored and patterned concrete, brick
..~ banding or a combination thereof be provided, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division.
- ' 3. Architectural enhancement be provided to Plan 2.
.:
4. Provide window treatment for all sectional garage doors.
CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Rudy Zeledon July 20, 1999
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-27- FU MAI LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP - A design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously
approved Tentative Tract Map 15540 consisting 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
files: Variance 99-06 and Tree Removal Application 93-04.
This item was continued from the last meeting to allow the applicant to revise exterior elements on
the proposed elevations, The applicant has revised the elevations and resubmitted in time for
normal distribution. Staff recommends approval and will present the plans at the time of the
meeting.
Desiqn Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pare StewarL Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Rudy Zeledon
The Committee reviewed the revised elevations that showed architectural enhancement for Plan
2 and window treatment for all garage doors. The Committee stated that the revised elevations
were acceptable with a condition that light fixtures be added to Plan 4. The Committee then
recommended approval of the project with the condition as listed above and the ones listed in the
July 6, Design Review Committee Action.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW NO. 99-27 FOR TRACT 15540, THE DESIGN REVIEW OF
DETAILED SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS FOR 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.
A. Recitals.
1. Fui Mat Limited Partnership has filed an application for the approval of Development
Review No. 99-27, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 28th day of July 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting on July 28, 1999, including written and oral staff.reports, this Commission
hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to properly located between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow
Route, west of the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel with a Foothill Boulevard street
frontage of 378.49 feet, an Arrow Route frontage of 558.21 feet and a lot depth of 2,474.03 feet
and is presently improved with curb and gutter along Arrow Route, several building foundations
located toward the center of the site, and 222 mature trees scattered throughout the site; and
b. The properties to the north of the site consist of an existing art studio and traffic
school, the property to the south is developed with apartments and single family residences, the
property to the east is the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel, and property to the west
contains the Casa Volante Mobile Home Park, apartments, market, and vacant land; and
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above,
this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan;
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 99-27 FOR TT15540 FUI MAILIMITED PARTNERSHIP
JULY 28,1999
Page 2
b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code
and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and the purposes of the district in which the site is located;
and
c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of
the Development Code; and
d. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below
and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Planninq Division
1} Architectural enhancement shall be provided to Plan 2. Plan 2
elevations should be modified to include a combination of a patterned
center tile on a recessed niche with wood trim or recessed pot shelf
with wood corbels, instead of false window/shutter elements.
2) Provide light fixtures on Plan 4 (side entry condition elevation), such
as a coach light, on each side of the center window to enhance blank
wall.
3) The chimney caps should be painted to match the chimney stack
color.
4) Adequate lighting for the common open space areas should be
provided to improve functionality and safety, to the satisfaction of the
Planning Division and Rancho Cucamonga Police Department.
5) The design of the on- and off-site visitor parking areas should'be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Division, prior to the issuance
of building permits.
6) The curved planter walls, along the street scape frontages, should be
extended further in both directions, which will take on the appearance
of walls gradually blending into the undulating betruing. The specific
design should be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division,
prior to the issuance of grading permits.
7) The units on Lots 131, and 132 should be set back further from the
recreational areas, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. Lot 34
should be provided with dense landscaping, to the satisfaction of the
City Planner.
8) The final Grading Plan should be revised to indicate a lower
combination block/retaining wall and lower building pads for Lots 1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 99-27 FOR TT15540 FUI MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
JULY 28, 1999
Page 3
9) Individual flag lot driveways should be "necked down" to a maximum
width of 12 feet at the driveway approach. Decorative pavement such
as scored and patterned concrete, brick banding or a combination
thereof be provided, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division.
10) Sectional roll-up garage doors and automatic garage door openers
should be provided on all models. Provide window treatment for all
sectional garage doors.
11 ) Retaining walls should be composed of decorative masonry materials
and be limited to a maximum height of 4 feet.
12) Decorative paving materials, such as interlocking concrete pavers.
should be utilized at alt 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.
13) A minimum 5-foot wide landscape area should be provided between
the corner side yard walls and sidewalks along the spine street.
14) The visitor parking area outside the Foothill Boulevard entrance gate
should be screened from public 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.
15) Wood fencing should be treated with a water sealant.
Enqineerinq Division
1 ) All conditions from Planning Commission Resolution 93-46, approving
Tentative Tract 15540 shall apply.
2) A class III Bike Route shall be installed on Foothill Boulevard.
3) A Class II Bike Lane shall be installed on Arrow Route.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF JULY 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
'PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 99-27 FOR TT15540 FUI MAILIMITED PARTNERSHIP
JULY 28,1999
Page 4
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 CucamQnga. at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 28th day of July 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: Development Review 99-27 ~ Tentative Tract 15540
SUBJECT: 159 sin.qle lot subdivision
APPLICANT: Fu Mai Limited Partnership
LOCATION: Between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route west of Cucamonga Creek
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750. FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
General Requirements Completion Date
1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City. its __ __/__
agents. officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative,
to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or
employees. for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers. or
employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole
discretion. participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation
shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
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 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 Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan.
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.
Projed NO. DR 99°27
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 approved
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. 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.
6. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided. all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with
all receptacles shielded from public view.
7. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and
the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits.
8. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be
located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete
or masonry walls, betruing. and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single
family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults.
9. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the
adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map.
10. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner,
including proper illumination.
11. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) and Adicles of Incorporation of the
Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions
and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provid.ed to the
City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the
name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever
said information changes.
12. 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.
13. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or dwelling
unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of a solar energy
system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for the subdivision
which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the final map or issuance of permits,
whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of shadows by vegetation,
structures, fixtures, or any other object, except for utility wires and similar objects, pursuant to
Development Code Section 17.08.060-G-2.
Proiect NO DR 99-27
Completion Date
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each /
support post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two ¼-inch lag bolts. to withstand high winds.
Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall extend at
least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade.
17. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain. paint, or water sealant. /
18. On corner side yards. provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. /
19. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. __/__ __
20. For residential development, recreation area/facility shall be provided as required by the __/____
Development Code.
21. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured
products.
D. Buildin9 Design
1. An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units and
for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other alternative energy systems are demonstrated
to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. All swimming pools installed at the time of initial
development shall be supplemented with solar heating. Details shall be included in the buildin9
plans and shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of
building permits.
2, All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment,
detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
3.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.
4. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or
projections, 'shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated
with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner, Details shall be
included in building plans.
E, Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans)
Projec~ NO DR 99-27
Completion Date
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 .__J...~/
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. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 feet in depth .~/ /
from back of sidewalk.
6. Multiple car garage driveways shall be tapered down to a standard two-car width at street. ._._/ /
7. On flag lots, use a 12-foot driveway within flag to maximize landscape area. .~/ /
8. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles _.._J /
on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation tor the owner and prohibit
parking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas.
9. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho /__J
Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
For residential development, private gated entrances shall provide adequate turn-around space
in front of the gate and a separate visitor lane with call box to avoid cars stacking into the public
right-of-way.
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 architecl and
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior
final map approval in the case or a custom lot subdivision.
2. 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.
3. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but I~ss 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.
4. 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.
5. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously _.~/.__/
maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold
and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be
conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satislactory condition.
Sc-6/14/99 4
Pmiect No DR 99,27
Completion Date
6. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the / /___
Development Code,
7. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering /.__/
sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along Foothill
Boulevard and Arrow Route.
8. 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,
9. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas __/ /
the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division,
10. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of / /___
Xedscape 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 pa'd 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 ol any signs.
H, Environmental
1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special ._._J /
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.
2, A final acoustical repod 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 it
appropriate, verify the adequacy ol the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked
for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report.
3. 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 certiticate 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 ~ighting. 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.
Projed NO DR 99-27
Completion Dale
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
J. General Requirements
1. Submit four complete sets of plans including the following:
a. Site/Plot Plan;
b. Foundation Plan;
c. Floor Plan;
d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan;
e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch. number and size
of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams;
f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and
waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units. gas piping, and heating and
air conditioning; and
g. Planning Division Project Number (i.e., TT #, CUP #, DR #, etc.) clearly identified on the
outside of all plans.
2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils rapon. /_.__/
Architect's/Engineers stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal.
3. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or wails. /___/
4. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage
to the City prior to permit issuance.
5. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the ....J /
Building and Safety Division.
K, Site Development
1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be .J /.__
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 permit application. Please contact the Building and
Safety Division for availability 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,
Transpodation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. Applicant
shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit
issuance.
3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation / /
and prior to issuance of building permits.
Projed NO OR 99-27
Completion Date
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 or holidays.
L. New Structures
1. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. /.__/
2. Roofing materials shall be Class "A." / /
3. Exterior wails shall be constructed of the required fire rating in accordance with UBC Table 5-A / /
4. Openings in exterior walls shall be protected in accordance with UBC Table 5-A. / /
M. Grading
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City / /
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial c0nformance with the approved grading plan.
2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to / /
perform such work,
3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the /_.._/
time of application for grading plan check.
4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. / /.__
5. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for / /.__
existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more
of combined cut and fill. The Grading Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a
California Registered Civil Engineer.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
N. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. The developer ._J /
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 ot the final map occurs.
2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,500 gallons per minute. ..../ /
a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department J /
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 prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing
materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnesse...~_.d by fire depailment personnel.
sc,e, q4~s 7
Pr0jed N~ DR 99-27
Complelion Date
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 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 suppiy 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: for recreation building only. / /
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.
8. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: /_._.J
X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. /J
X Other: see attached Ordinance for entry gate requirements for each gate. /_._/
9. 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.
10. Gated/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire .__/ /
Safety Division for specific details and ordering information.
11. $132.00 Fire District fee(s), and a $1 per 'plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho .__J /
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 oe plans,
12. Ptans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, .__/ /_._
UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO.
99-06 A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM BUILDING
SEPARATIONS FROM 15 TO 10 FEET, THE MINIMUM BUILDING-TO-
CURB SETBACKS FROM 15 TO 8 FEET, AND THE REQUIRED COMMON
OPEN SPACE AREA PERCENTAGE FROM 35 PERCENT TO
APPROXIMATELY 10 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL PROJECT AREA FOR
A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION 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, LOCATED
BETWEEN FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ARROW ROUTE, WEST OF
THE CUCAMONGA CREEK CONTROL CHANNEL. AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-211-01, 18 THROUGH
21,31, 32, AND 34.
A. Recitals.
1. Fu Mai Limited Partnership has filed an application for the issuance of Variance No. 99-06
as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance
request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 28th day of July 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 July 28, 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 between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow
Route, west of the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel with a Foothill Boulevard street
frontage of 378.49 feet, an Arrow Route frontage of 558.21 feet and a lot depth of 2,474.03 feet and
is presently improved with curb and gutter along Arrow Route, several building foundations located
toward the center of the site, and 222 mature trees scattered throughout the site; and
b. The property to the north of the site consist of an existing art studio and traffic
school. the property to the south is developed with apartments and single family residences, the
property to the east is the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel, and property to the west
contains the Casa Volante Mobile Home Park, apartments, market, and vacant land; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VAR 99-06 - FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
July 28, 1999
Page 2
c. The application contemplates the development of 159 single family detached
homes at a density of 6.5 dwelling units per acre, and three common open space areas within the
project boundaries; and
d. The Variance request to reduce the minimum building separation of 15 feet to 10
feet is needed to allow side building separations to be a minimum of 10 feet in 86 situations
throughout the project; and
e. The Development Code requirement for a 15-foot minimum in building separation
is intended for more massive multiple unit development where breaking up large building masses
is more critical; and
f. The proposed 10-foot building separation is permitted in lower density single family
residential zones governed by the Development Code, typical of the proposed density; and
g. The Variance request to reduce the minimum building-to-curb setback of 15 feet
to 8 feet is needed to allow homes to be as close as 8 feet from the front curb for 26 lots within the
project; and
h. The minimum 15-foot building-to-curb setback requirement also stems from the
multiple family development standards. The intent of this standard is to allow for a landscape
setback area of sufficient size to grow large trees to soften the appearance of the larger, more bulky
multiple unit residential buildings: and
I. Front yard landscaping is required and conceptually shown in the plan package
to aid so~ening the appearance of the less massive detached homes from view of the private
streets; and
j. The variance for the reduction in common open space from 35 to 10 percent is
needed to construct an individual lot single family detached subdivision on the property; and
k. The Development Code Table 17.08.040(c) requires 35 percent common open
space, 40 percent total open space (private and common) for development.in the Medium
Residential Development District, Optional Development Standards; and
I. The application contemplates only 10 percent common open space area, but 50
percent of the net lot area as private open space for a total open space percentage of 60 percent,
well in excess of the 40 percent total open space required by the Development Code; and
m. The application includes the minimum Development Code requirement of 5
common open space amenities.
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 I and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations
would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessan/physical hardship inconsistent with the
objectives of the Development Code.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VAR 99-06 - FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
July 28, 1999
Page 3
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.
c. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district.
d. That 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.
e. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below:
Planninq Division
1 ) Variance approval shall expire if building permits are not issued within
5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JULY 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel. Chairman
ATT'EST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller. Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced. passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 28th day of July 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: