HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/12/08 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 8, 1999 7:00 PM
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chamber
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Chairman McNiel __ Vice Chairman Macias __
Com. Mannedno __ Corn, Stewart ~ Com. Tolstoy ~
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
October 27, 1999
November 10, 1999
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following Consent Calendar items as expected to be routine and non-
controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without
discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for
discussion.
A. VACATION OF A PORTION OF STREET CALLED TERRA VISTA
PARKWAY EAST FOR TERRA VISTA PARK USF - A request to
vacate an excess portion of Terra Vista Parkway East for Terra Vista
Park #6, located on the north side of Terra Vista Parkway East,
eaasterly of Terra Vista Elementary School.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice
their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman
and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions
shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. P/ease sign in after
speaking.
B. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA 99-05 - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Development Code
regarding thrift stores, second-hand stores, antique shops, and pawn
shops.
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-58 - MENNONITE CENTRAL
COMMITTEE - A request to operate a thrift store in an existing lease
space in the Sunrise Center shopping center in the Neighborhood
Commercial District, located at 8673A Base Line Road - APN: 207-
022-41.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND TENTATIVE TRACT 16021 -
RBF ASSOCIATES - A residential subdivision of 16 single family lots
on 7.53 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units
per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the northwest
comer of East Avenue and the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way -
APN: 227-121-30 and 43. Related File: Tree Removal Permit 99-23.
Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts
for consideration.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
14872 - HUITT-ZOLLARS - A subdivision of 20.8 acres of land into 12
parcels, 11 in the General Industrial Development District (Subarea 3)
of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and 1 in the Low Medium
Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the south
side of Eighth Street between Cucamonga Creek Channel and
Hellman Avenue - APN: 209-151-27, 209-151-37, and 209-161-24.
Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts
for consideration.
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15477 - MATREYEK TRUST - A
request for an extension of a previously approved residential
subdivision for condominium purposes and design review for the
development of 153 detached condominium units on 20.15 acres of
land in the Medium and Medium-High Residential Districts (8-14
andl~-24 dwelling units per acre, respectively), located at the
northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue -
APN: 227-691-01. Related File: Variance94-05. Staffhas prepared
a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
Page 2
G. TIME EXTENSION FOR VARIANCE 94-05 - MATREYEK TRUST - A
request for extension of a previously approved variance to reduce the
required minimum building separation from 15 feet to 8 feet and to
increase the distance for the closest visitor parking space from a
dwelling unit from a maximum of 150 feet to 240 feet for a proposed
153-unit detached condominium project on 20.15 acres of land in the
Medium and Medium-High Residential Districts (8-14 and14-24
dwelling units per acre, respectively), located at the northeast corner
of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-691-01. Related
File: Vesting Tentative Tract 15477.
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT
NO. 15993 - WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING-A residential subdivision
of 94 single family lots on 18 acres of land in the Low-Medium
Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria
Community Plan, located on the northwest corner of Base Line Road
and Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 227-091-21 through 24. Related
File: Development Review 99-45. Staff has prepared a Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
99-45 - WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING - The design review of building
elevations and detailed site plan for Tentative Tract map 15993,
consisting of 94 single family lots on 18 acres of land in the Low-
Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria
Community Plan, located on the northwest corner of Base Line Road
and Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 227-091-21 through 24. Related
File: Tentative Tract 15993. Staff has prepared a Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place forthe general public to address the Commission. Items
to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda.
VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS
J. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROGRESS - Oral report
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an
f f :OO p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only
with the consent of the Commission.
Page 3
THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ADJOURN TO A
WORKSHOP IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING IN THE RAINS
ROOM TO DISCUSS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH
WEST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVENUE AND SIXTH STREET
- JPI.
I, Gait Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the
foregoing agenda was posted on December 2, 1999, at least 72 hours prfor to
the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center
Drive, Rancho Cucamonga.
Page 4
VICINITY MAP
CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
THE CITY OF
]~ANCIIO CUCANONCA
DATE: December 8, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer
BY: Henry Mumkoshi, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT: VACATION OF A PORTION OF STREET CALLED TERRA VISTA
PARKWAY EAST FOR TERRA VISTA PARK USE. A request to vacate an
excess portion of Term Vista Parkway East for Terra Vista Park #.6. located
on the north side of Terra Vista Parkway East, easterly of Term Vista
Elementary School
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Tentative Tract Map No. 15072. generally located at the southwest corner of Rochester
Avenue and Base Line Road. was approved by the Planning Commission on the 24m day of
June, 1998, for a residential subdivision of 545 single family lots on 9 acres of land in the
Low Medium Residential Designation within the Tetra Vista Community Plan. The
construction of the 5-acre park site is one of the conditions of the map approval.
The Developer, Kaufman and Broad has requested the vacation of a portion of street for
park related use.
The vacation is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code because it isin
excess of our standard street right-of-way.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the finding through minute action
that the proposed vacation is in conformance with the General Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Senior Civil Engineer
DJ:HM:dlw
Attachments: Vicinit Map
Le al E)escde. tion (Exhibit "A")
PI'~[ (Exhibit B")
Item A
BASE UN[ ROAD ,
CITY OF BANClIO CUCAMONGA
':"!:'~:~ ~COUNTY OF SAN UEFINABDINO
· STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STREET VACATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
BEING THAT PORTION OF TERRA VISTA PARKWAY, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AS SHOWN ON MAP
OF TRACT NO. 13303-2, FILED IN BOOK 240, PAGES 40 THROUGH 43, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS,
IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COM1VIENCING AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID TRACT NO. 13303-2; THENCE
ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT, NORTH 35~'14'48" WEST 114.00 FEET
TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 35° i4'48" W~.ST 174.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 54°45'12" EAST 10.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 35°14'48" EAST 174.00 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 54°45' 12N WEST 10.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 1740 SQUARE FEET OF LAND.
PREPARED BY MADOLE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. OF THE INLAND EMPIRE
WILLIAM ROARO JASS'0" /, ,-- r1,~. 415a
P.L.S. 4756 EXP: 9/30105 [~q~ 9.35.0.~ '
,.N. 120-1260
VECE ER lo. lm
STREET VACATION
EXHIBIT "B"
PLAT
~: ~""; "' ~"" 'I'P,,. fi@. "O~072 \
\ ' .
,~ ~, BEING VACATED
No. 4?56
sxp:
J~ ~ %'\ ,,.*.,=.~ ,o.oo.
u · T.P,O.B.
~DO~ ~ ASSOC~TES, INC. // ~
OF THE IN~D EMPIRE /
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 8, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 99-05 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
- A request to amend the Development Code regarding thrift stores, second-hand
stores, antique shops, and pawn shops.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-58 - MENNONITE CENTRAL COMMI'I'rEE - A
request to operate a thrift store in an existing lease space in the Sunrise Center
shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial District located at 8673A Base
Line Road, APN: 207-022-41,
BACKGROUND: On October27, 1999, the Planning Commission considered Use Determination
~)9-04 to determine whether thrift stores fit within the definition of general retail in the Neighborhood
Commercial District. The Commission felt that thrift stores were unique and were not general retail.
The Commission directed staff to prepare an amendment to the Development Code adding
definitions to distinguish thrift stores from second-hand stores. The Commission also directed staff
to add thrift stores as a conditionally permitted use in the Development Code. In an effort to
streamline the review process, a Conditional Use Permit is being concurrently processed with the
proposed amendments.
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT: Thrift stores do not appear as permitted or conditionally
permitted uses in any of the commercial districts (Exhibit "D"). Antique shops are currently permitted
in the General Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial Districts and second-hand stores and
pawn shops are currently permitted in the General Commercial District per the Development Code.
The nature of thrift store operations is unique enough to warrant a separate use type and use
definition. Of particular concern to the Planning Commission were potential outdoor memhandising,
how used memhandise would be dropped off/exchanged, and how the merchandise is displayed.
The amendment would add thrift stores as a conditionally permitted use to allow the City to review
a proposed operation to ensure that it will not impair other surrounding uses. The Commission was
also concerned with outdoor collection. The Development Code requires that "all businesses shall
be conducted completely within an enclosed building."
Currently, the Development Code includes second-hand stores and pawn shops in the same use
category. Staff believes that there is an important difference. A pawn broker provides a financial
sen/ice by accepting merchandise as security for a loan; whereas, a second-hand store is a retailer
of used goods. Antique stores are distinct from thrift stores, second-hand stores, and pawn shops
by virtue of the type and age of merchandise sold. Antique stores offer goods from a different period,
including fumitura, art, jewelry, clothing, and collectibles. Therefore, it is suggested that definitions
for each be established. The following are proposed definitions:
Item B & C
I~LANNING COMMISS!ON STAFF REPORT
DCA 99-05 AND CUP 99-58
December 8, 1999
Page 2
Thdft Store - A retail store offering used clothing, furniture, household appliances, and
similar merchandise which is in good repair, provided: (1) all clothes are displayed on racks,
folded on shelves or tables, or in some organized fashion, as distinguished from being
displayed in heaps or piles; (2) no merchandise shall be accepted on consignment; and (3)
merchandise requires no cleaning, repair, assembly, or refurbishment before it can be wom
or put to normal use. Memhandise may be donated; however, all collection and storage
shall be conducted inside the building.
Second-hand Store - A retail store or resaler offering used clothes, furniture, household
appliances, and similar memhandise, provided; (1) clothes may be displayed in heaps or
piles, as distinguished from racks or folded on shelves or tables; (2) memhandise may be
accepted on sale for consignment; and (3) offers used materials or goods for sale that
requires cleaning, repair, assembly or refurbishment before it can be worn or put to normal
use. Merchandise may be donated; however, all collection and storage shall be conducted
inside the building.
Antique Shop o A retail store offering antique clothes, jewelry, furniture, household
appliances, pdnted materials, art, and similar merchandise, provided not more than 10
percent of the merchandise or 10 percent of the floor area is devoted to the sale of
collectibles, new merchandise, or simulated antiques. "Antique" shall mean anything very
old, or the like, made at a much earlier period than the present, generally more than 50
years ago, and which, because of age, radty, or historical significance, has a monetary value
greater than the original value.
Pawn Shop - A pawnbroker or other shop engaged in the business of receiving tangible
personal property, new or used, in pledge as secudty for a loan. Tangible personal property
does not include coins, monetized bullion, or commercial ingots of precious metals.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: After direction from the Planning Commission, the Mennonite Central
Committee applied for a Conditional Use Permit to lease 3,500 square feet in the Sunrise Center.
The center is currently in a Neighborhood Commercial District, which does not allow thrift stores.
A Conditional Use Permit is necessary, which requires approval of the Development Code
Amendment. Compatible uses exist such as a paper supply store, hair salon, stamp store, fabdc
store and pet shop. The activ'~ies associated with the proposed thdft store should not cause conflict
with any neighboring businesses.
The Sunrise Center tenants include a paper supply company, fabric store, card shop, beauty salons,
etc., which are compatible with the Mennonite Central Committee Thdft Store. Previous parking
calculations show ample parking for the center. The required parking consists of 428 spaces.
Sunrise Center has a total of 498 spaces, which was last calculated in 1994 (See Exhibit "A').
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The Development Code Amendment is exempt per Section
15061 (b)(3), and the Conditional Use Permit application is exempt per Section 15303, of the
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
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.
I~LANNING COMMISS!ON STAFF REPORT
DCA 99-05 AND CUP 99-58
December 8, 1999
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Development Code Amendment 99-05 to the City Council and approve Conditional Use Permit
99-58 through adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval,
Respectfully submitted,
City Planner
BB:EWVna
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Plan
Exhibit "B" - List of Tenants within the complex
Exhibit "C" - Applicanrs Letter
Exhibit "D" - Current Zoning Regulations
Exhibit 'E" - Proposed Amendment
Resolution of Approval - Development Code Amendment 99-05
Resolution of Approval - Conditional Use Permit 99-58
Address l'e~amt Sq
~611-13-15 Ba,~line Road ~m~ma~xc
~ ~el~ Ro~
~607 B~li~ Road i
' ~5 B~i~c Road Cue~ga '~ 1600
S6Oi B~linc Ro~ ~ol~ ~ W~h ~a
~OI ~ B~e]in~ .Ko~
g679 ~el~ Ko~ S~ Liq~" 1560
~675 ~eline ~a Sm~ & F~ .... 12780
8673 ~ B~eli~ ~o~
8671 B~l~e Road FiT~ ~ya~
~657 B~linc ~ad
~625 b~cl~e RoM'" B I~ ~pcr C0-
76~ Cnel~ Fei/f~s P~ila { 2~0
3~b3 % Baseli~ Roll Houston
bit
STAN LONG, CHAIRMAN
TEL (909) 982-9646
FAX (909) 987-8994
OCT 18 1999,
October 15, 1999
City ofRancho Cucamonga City ot Rancho Cucamonc~
~' qning Division
To whom it may concern:
Conceming the Thrift Store using the facility at 8673A, Sunrize Center,
Rancho Cucamonga
I am Stan Long, Chahman of the Planning Committee for the Thrift Store.
The Thrift Store is an extension of the Southern California Festival and Sale,
Incorporated. The Sale is held each May at the Pacific Christian Center in
Upland. The function of the two activities is to raise money for Word
Hunger and Relief, through the Mennonite Central Committee whose main
office is in Akron, PA and also an office in Reedly, CA. There are 50 Thrift
Stores throughout United States and Canada (see enclosed insert).
As owner of Long's Christian Bookstore, we can guarantee that the Thrift
Store will be a First Class Store. A couple has been employed to serve as
supervisors.
There will be a good mix of product. Much of the clothing will have the
original tags from the manufacturer. There will be new music tapes, small
items of fumiture, gifts and plants.
We feel strongly that the Thrift Store will be an asset to the Sunrize Center
and to Rancho Cucamonga and will contribute revenue to the City of Rancho
Cucamonga.
For more information, call Stan Long, (909)987-0406.
Franchise number 33-0868761
\\C II Board of Equalization # SR EH 97-604057 .....
St L Chairman
an Ong,
Thrift Store Planning Committee
Mennonite SPONSORED BY
Central BRETHREN IN CHRIST AND MENNONITE CHURCHES
PACIFIC CHRISTIAN CENTER
Committee 800 wEST ARROW HIGHWAY. UPLAND, CALIFORNIA 91786
C;
CURRENT DEVELOPMENT CODE USE REGULATION SUMMARY
Use Office Neighborhood General
Professional Commercial Commercial
Zone Zone Zone
Antique Shop Permitted Permitted
Second-hand Permitted
Stores and Pawn
Shops
Thrift Store Not listed Not listed Not listed
I1~ II
tb.+ c 7
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 99-05
Section 17. 02. 140 - Definitions, should be amended to add the following land use definitions:
Thrift Store - A retail store offedng used clothing, furniture, household appliances, and
similar merchandise which is in good repair. provided: (1) all clothes are displayed on
racks, folded on shelves or tables, or in some organized fashion, as distinguished from
being displayed in heaps or piles; (2) no merchandise shall be accepted on
consignment; and (3) merchandise requires no cleaning, repair, assembly, or
refurbishment before it can be worn or put to normal use. Merchandise may be donated;
however. all collection and storage shall be conducted inside the building.
Second-hand Store - A retail store or resaler offering used clothes. furniture, household
appliances, and similar merchandise, provided; (1) clothes may be displayed in heaps or
piles, as distinguished from racks or folded on shelves or tables; (2) merchandise may
be accepted on sale for consignment; and (3) offers used matedais or goods for sale
that requires cleaning, repair. assembly or mfurbishment before it can be worn or put to
normal use. Merchandise may be donated; however, all collection and storage shall be
conducted inside the building.
Antique Shop - A retail store offering antique clothes, jewelry, furniture. household
appliances, pdnted materials, art, and similar merchandise. provided not more than 10
percent of the merchandise or 10 percent of the floor area is devoted to the sale of
collectibles, new merchandise, or simulated antiques. "Antique" shall mean anything
very old, or the like, made at a much eadier period than the present, generally more than
50 years ago. and which, because of age. rarity, or historical significance, has a
monetary value greater than the original value.
Pawn Shop - A pawnbroker or other shop engaged in the business of receiving tangible
personal property, new or used, in pledge as security for a loan. Tangible personal
property does not include coins, monetized bullion. or commercial ingots of precious
metals.
Section ] 7. I O. 030 - Use Regulations, Table i 7. l O. 030 Use Regulations for Commercial/Office
Districts, shouM be amended as follows:
Use Office Neighborhood General
Professional Zone Commercial Zone Commercial Zone
Antique Shop Permitted Permitted
Pawn Shops CUP
Second-hand Store CUP CUP
Thrift Store CUP CUP
EXHIBIT "E"
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 99-05, REGARDING THRIFT
STORES, SECOND-HAND STORES, ANTIQUE SHOPS, AND PAWN
SHOPS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for Development Code
Amendment 99-05, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Development Code Amendment is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 8th day of December, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said hearing
on that date.
.t,
3. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption ~f this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public headng on the 8th day of December, 1999, including wdtten and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located within the City; and
b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the
environment; and
c. The proposed amendment will clarify regulations for thrift stores, second-hand
stores, antique shops, and pawn shops.
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. 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 99-05
December 8, 1999
Page 2
d. The subject application is consistent with the objectives of the Development Code;
and
e. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan.
4. This Commission hereby finds that the. project has been prepared and reviewed in
compliance with the Califomia Environment 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 15061 (b)(3).
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3. and 4 above,
this Commission hereby recommends approval of Development Code Amendment 99-05 as shown
in Exhibit "E" of the staff report.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adopti~n of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Bullet, Secretary
I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 8th day of December 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-58, A REQUEST TO OPERATE A
THRIFT STORE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 8673A BASE LINE ROAD, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF o APN: 207-022-41
A. Recitals.
1. Mennonite Central Committee has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use
Permit 99-58, as descibed in the title of this Resolution. Herainafter in this Resolution, the subject
Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 8th day of December 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. The Planning 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 the Planning Commission duing the
above-referenced public hearing on December 8, 1999, including written and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony, the Planning Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to the property located at 8673A Base Line Road, with a
street frontage of 180 feet, and lot depth of approximately 161 feet, and is presently improved with
curb, gutter, landscaping, and a neighborhood commercial center, and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is Low Residential single-family homes,
the property to the south is Medium Residential single-family homes, the property to the east is
Office Professional, and the property to the west is a flood control channel; and
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing, and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1
and 2 above, the Planning Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the
Development Code, and the purposes of the distict in which the site is located; and
b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 99-58
December 8, 1999
Page 2
c. The application, which contemplates operation of the proposed use, complies with each of
the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Neighborhood Commercial District.
4. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the project identified in this Resolution
is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as
amended. and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder', pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA
Guidelines.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in parsgraphs 1,2.3, and 4 above, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the application, subject to each and every condition set forth below:.
~ivision
1) Approval shall expire if the approved use has not commenced within five years
~ of this date. ,~.
; 2) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan, State Fire Marshal's regulations, Uniform Building
Code, or any other City Ordinances.
3) If operation of the facility causes adverse effects upon adjacent businesses or
operations, the Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the Planning
Commission for consideration and possible termination of the use.
4) Any signs proposed for the facility shall be designed in conformance with the
City's Sign Ordinance and the Uniform Sign Program for the complex and shall
require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to
installation.
5) This approval is granted subject to the approval of Development Code
Amendment 99-05.
6) All clothes shall be displayed on racks, folded on shelves or tables, or in some
organized fashion.
7) No merchandise shall be accepted on consignment.
8) No merchandise shall be accepted in pledge ap secudty for a loan.
9) No merchandise shall be sold which requires cleaning, repair, assembly, or
refurbishment before it can be worn or put to normal use.
10) All collection and storage shall be conducted inside of the building.
6. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 99-58
December 8, 1999
Page 3
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1999.
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Bullet, Secretary
I, Brad Bullet, Secretary to the Planning Division for 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 C,tfr.,amonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of
December 1999.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 8, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner
BY: Emily Wimer
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16021- RBF
ASSOCIATES - A residential subdivision of 16 single-family lots on 7.53 acres of
land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda
Specific Plan, located at the northwest corner of East Avenue and Southern Pacific
Railroad right-of-way - APN: 227-121-30 and 43. Related File: Tree Removal
Permit 99-23.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Proiect Density:
The project density site is 2.8 dwelling units per acre
B. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq:
North - Single-Family and vacant land
South o Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, (tracks are not being used)
East Newly appreved Single-Family Residential
West Single-Family Residential and Historical Hibbard Ranch
C. General Plan Desiqnations:
Project Site - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
North - Low-Medium and Medium Residential (4-8 and 8-14 dwelling units per acre)
South - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre)
East Low and Medium Residential (2-4 and 8-14 dwelling units per acre)
West Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
D. Site Characteristics: The project site is on the west side of East Avenue, north of the
abandoned railread. Eucalyptus windrows are located on the north boundary and on adjoining
properties. The site is undeveloped land with non-native grasses and other ruderal plant
species. The site slopes approximately 2 percent from north to south.
ITEM D
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT 16021 - RBF ASSOCIATES
December 8, 1999
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
A. General: The project density is 2.8 dwelling units per acre which is at the lower end of the
Low-Density Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) designation of the Etiwanda
Spedtic Plan (ESP). The project is being proposed under the "Basic Development Standards"
of the ESP. The proposed 13,003 square foot minimum lot size is almost one-third larger than
the required 10,000 square foot minimum. The project is a subdivision map only with no
house plans being proposed at this time. The applicant intends to sell the lots to a builder.
The project has been designed to be consistent with the East Avenue decorative wall and
special landscape treatment required by the ESP.
B. Neighborhood Meeting: The developer conducted a neighborhood meeting at City Hall on
September 29, 1999. Residents in attendance were concerned about the effect of the new
development on adjoining property. Continuous contact with the properly owners has been
a priority.
C. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on
September 14, 1999 and November 2, 1999, and was generally satisfied with the subdivision
layout and recommended approval.
D. Tree Removal Permit 99-23: The project proposes removal of on-site trees that were stated
by the arbodst's report as in poor health and harboring infestation. Most of the trees surveyed
by the arborist are located off-site. To save the Eucalyptus windrow located on the
neighboring properb/to the west, it is recommended that no block walls be constructed at the
west property line; the developer is proposing wrought iron fence (per Section D-D on
Grading Plan Exhibit "C"). As a condition of approval, replacement windrows of 15-gallon
Eucalyptus maculata (spotted gum) planted 8 foot on center shall be required to mitigate the
loss of the mature windrows to be removed.
E. Technical Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Technical Review Committee
on November 3, 1999. The Committee noted that special conditions will be required to link
approval of this project to the proposed off-site detention basin. Also, fire sprinklers are
required because there is no secondary emergency access.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESMENT: Staff completed the Initial Study, Part II, and determined that,
with these mitigation measures, there will not be a significant adverse impact upon the environment
as a result of this project. Staff recommends issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (see
Initial Study Part II). The site is impacted by various drainage, traffic, and noise issues. This project
relies upon the construction of an interim water detention basin located outside of the project
boundaries. The basin is proposed on the southwest corner of East Avenue and the railroad dght-
of-way in the companion applications, Tentative Tract 15912 and Tentative Tract 15911. The
construction of the off-site basin is a condition of approval.
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. A letter was received from an adjoining property owne~: (see
Exhibit "F") prior to the neighborhood meeting. A copy of staffs response is attached.
15LANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT 16021 - RBF ASSOCIATES
December 8, 1999
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Tract
· 16021 and Tree Removal Permit 99-23 through the adoption ofthe attached Resolution of Approval
with conditions and the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Respectfully submitted,
City Planner
BB:EW\ma
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization
Exhibit "B" - Tentative Tract Map
Exhibit "C" - Grading Plan
Exhibit "D" - Tree and Wall Location
Exhibit "E" - Design Review Committee Action Comments
Exhibit "F" - James Banks letter dated September 9, 1999
Exhibit "G" - Community Development Department letter dated November 15, 1999
Exhibit "H" - Initial Study
Exhibit "1" - Arborist Report
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
/ ~ q~l .~.' .'
.;,, .,. ,.,. ; .
... . ~,. :.
· ,.~
/
....... · . I~ I
' "'
.-, ~ ~ .,,'~.',,
,- /
,. ,-,,..,
~ ,. ..... ,.,
,., /: .,/ ,,. .....
' ' ~ NOT ~PART
~ " ...... / '., 'X "
,
~ ' ' " ...... ' ?"~' · spL~:~.,r/w.-.-:~,.. - .; -- ..... ""
· 7~ ~.,," .............. - ..... :..-' .- / ..... ::: ~, '~,. ,
~ t WA~ LOCA~ON
T~ATIVE ~ NO,
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
:-..
7:40 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren November 2, 1999
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16021 - RBF ASSOCIATES - A
residential subdivision of 16 single family lots on 7.53 acres of land in the Low Residential District
(2.4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the northwest corner of East
Avenue and Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way - APN: 227-121-30 and 43. Related File: Tree
Removal Permit 99-23.
Backqround: This project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on September 14, 1999
(comments attached). At that time, there was a remnant land area between two existing residences
on East Avene that needed to be addressed and written objections to the proposed master plan from
James Banks, owner of adjoining property. The Committee continued the item to a date uncertain
to allow the street layout, master plan, and the remnant land issues to be resolved.
Desiqn Parameters: The project consists of a subdivision map only; no house plans are proposed.
The project site is located on the west side of East Avenue, with the abandoned railroad right-of-way
along its southern boundary. The site wraps around three "out parcels" on East Avenue, which are
under separate ownership outside of the project boundaries. These out parcels contain existing
single family residences, the southernmost residence is on the Historical Site List as a potential local
landmark.
There are 114 trees on or near the subject site. In general, the trees form 5 windrows located on
the nodh, west, and east boundary lines. The windrows to the west and in the northeast corner are
outside of the project boundaries and should not be damaged by this development. An arborist's
report recommends removal and replacement of the on-site windrows.
The project will provide the East Avenue theme wail as the tract boundary wall (stone pilasters with
stucco walls and river rock planters).
In the revised plans, the developer has shifted the street connection to eliminate the remnant land
area and provided the three "out parcels" on East Avenue with access to the new proposed streets.
The developer has also revised the master plan to eliminate street system on the historica!~y
significant Hibbard Ranch to the west, which is of adequate size to provide its own circulation
system. A stub out is still provided to allow :~ sireet connection if there is ever a need.
Staff Cor! ".~ents: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Secondan( Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
I. A minor exception has been submitted for the southern boundary wall, which ranges in
height from 6 to 8 feet due to a retaining situation. The lots are elevated to drain to the
street to avoid draining onto the railroad.
2. Replacement windrows are required by the Etiwanda Specific Plan and Tree preservation
Ordinance. Replacement windrows should be planted along the nodh bounden/.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project.
Attachment
Desiqn Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren
The Committee. reviewed the subdivision design and recommended approval,
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren September 14, 1999
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16021 - RBF ASSOCIATES: A
residential subdivision of 16 single family lots on 7.53 acres of land in the Low Residential Distdct
(2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan located at the nodhwest comer of East
Avenue and Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way-APN: 227-121-30 and 43. Related File: Tree
Removal Permit 99-23.
Desi nParameters: The project consists of a subdivision map only; no house plans are proposed.
The project site is located on the west side of East Avenue, with the abandoned railroad right-of-
way along its southern boundary. The site wraps around three "out parcels" on East Avenue,
which are under separate ownership outside of the project boundaries. These out parcels contain
existing single family residences - the southernmost residence is on the Historical Site List as a
potential local landmark. The project contains an awkward strip of land between two southerly out
parcels. This remnant land area is shown as tentacle-like projections of Lot 16. The applicant is
attempting to transfer the remnant land to the adjoining out parcels.
The Etiwanda Specific Plan restricts access on East Avenue, which leads to the single access
design. The applicant lined up the proposed entrance to this tract with the street approved for the
tract across the street. A future street stub-out is provided in the southwestern podion of the tract
to provide secondary access upon development of property to the west. Lots range in size from
13,003 to 25,507 square feet, with an lot average lot size of 15,188 square feet.
There are 114 trees on or near the subjecf site. In general, the trees form 5 windrows located on
the nodh, west, and east boundary lines. 'The windrows to the west and in the nodheast comer are
outside of the project boundaries and should not be damaged by this development. An arbodst's
report recommends removal and replacement of the on-site windrows.
The project will provide the East Avenue theme wall as the tract boundary wall (stone pilasters with
stucco walls and river rock planters).
Staff Comments._.. _ _.s: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Maior Issues_: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
~egarding this project:
1. The remnant land area should be reserved for a lot line adjustment with the adjoining out
parcels such that the out parcels may acquire the land and have access and frontage to the
new local streets. The Technical Review Committee will review appropriate mechanisms;
i.e., easement or lettered lot as an interim condition.
2. In order to preserve the notable windrows, wrought iron fencing should be used along the
western boundary and the northeastern corner of the tract.
~: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. A minor exception has been submitted for the southern boundary wall, which ranges !n
height from 6 to 8 feet due to a retaining situation. The lots are elevated to drain to the
street to avoid draining onto the rallroad.
Replacement windrows are required by the Etiwanda Specific Ran and Tree preservation
2.
Ordinance. Replacement windrows should be planted along the north boundary.
-.
:
bRC COMMENTS
TI' 16021 - RBF ASSOCIATES
September 14, 1999
Page 2
Staff Recommendation:
· Staff recommends approval of the project.
Deslqn Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pare Stewart, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner:. Rebecca Van Buren
The Committee concurred with staff that the remnant land area needs to be resolved and indicated
wrought iron fencing along the west property line to preserve healthy windrow is acceptable. The
Committee continued the item to a date uncertain to allow the street layout, master plan, and the
remnant land issues to be resolved.
September 9, 1999
Rebecca Van Buren, Planner
Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart,
Nancy Fong, Peter Tolstoy,
Rich Macias, John Mannerino
Design Review Committee Members
City ofRancho Cucamonga
Post Office Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
lIE: 14-September-1999 agenda, 7:00 P.M. item
Tentative Tract No. 16021 by RBF Associates
Dear Planning Staff and Committee Members:
My wife and I own the land directly west of the proposed tract and we live
in our house which is roughly 150' northwest of the proposed tract. We have
some questions and concerns about the proposal which we would like you to
consider.
1. MASTER CIRCULATION PLAN
While I have been informed by several people that the circulation plan of the
tract map is not binding, it is nevertheless important to all the adjoining
parcels that they not be forced into an unworkable plan by the first comer to
be developed. While I understand the other side of this issue - that each
developer is concerned about how his or her project "pencils" and tries to
pick a circulation plan which maximizes his or her return own investment --
I submit that in the long run the City should be more concerned with the
workability of future circulation of the entire neighborhood and not with
maximizing the lots on the tentative tract map.
F .. I711
(
Design Review.Committee Members
September 9, 1999
Page 2
The Master Circulation Plan shows three streets passing through our
property. I can appreciate the necessity for the street which is parallel to the
railroad right of way and about 150' north of it, but I have some doubts about
whether it is in the best place. I am suggesting you consider placing this
street directly adjacent to the rail road right of way. While this may not
allow maximization of lots and per lot minimization of street costs for the
developer, it is the alignment best suited to accommodate any future use of
the railroad right of way. If it becomes a railroad again, the street will
provide some distance ~'om the noise and danger. If it becomes a "linear
park", the sweet will provide access.
The north-south street shown through the middle of our vineyard does not
seem to be well thought out. Why should it be there? Why not put it along
tile boundary with the school which needs all the circulation it can get? Of
course there will always be an issue of who pays for the street, but there can
be no question that the school desperately needs this sort of circulation.
Anyone who doubts it should visit the neighborhood when the schools are
opening or closing for the day.
But I save my strongest objection for the east-west street which cuts through
tile northern half of our property to exit onto East Avenue between the
Bermudez and Kubeja parcels. This was apparently drawn by someone who
has little or no familiarity with what is on the land and it doesn't even appear
to be to scale. Such a street would destroy our home which is a City Historic
Landmark and which we work hard to maintain and preserve. If such a
street were maintained on the Master Circulation Plan it would compromise
the safety of our home.
It is difficult for m~- to see how the person who drew this street could do so
with any understanding of what is in its path, but it is even more
incomprehensible that this person chose not to connect the tentative ~act's
north extending cul-de-sacs. I will comment more on this in the category if
internal streets.
It is our hope to preserve the "Hippard Ranch" as long as we possibly can.
While it is certainly possible that a calamity could strike our family and we
('
Desig~ Review Committee Members
September 9, 1999
Page 3
would be forced to sell, we want everyone to know that we do not plan to
sell. If we ever sell anything voluntarily, it will certainly not be the quarter
of the parcel occupied by our home. If they are interested, one or both or
our children may continue to own the property. So, the person who drew
this circulation plan has left the City with a headache. It is a circulation plan
which won't work in the foreseeable future.
The more realistic way to approach the circulation plan is to divide it into
three areas, assess them separately, then see how the three areas can fit
together. The largest area is our 18 acres. The next largest area is north of
the rail road depot which must be about 9 acres. The smallest area is the
Kubeja piece which must be 2 or 3 acres and is directly north of the
proposed tract. If Mr. Kubeja or his successor wants to develop, what sort of
circulation plan will they need? I don't think Tract 16021 has taken this into
consideration at all. When the area north of the rail road station develops,
what sort of circulation plan will 'they need? That is largely dependent on
the school's needs and the use to which the rail station is ultimately
dedicated. The road parslie! to the tracks does not necessarily address these
questions but may be committing all of us to the parallel street.
My comments about the street parallel to the railroad tracks also applies to
the area covered by the tentative map. That is, file lots along the right of
way may increase the number of lots in the tract, but does not necessarily
serve the neighborhood best.
Fm-ther, in my opinion, provisions should be made for all three "out parcels"
to have driveway access to the interior streets of the proposed tract. When
East Avenue is widened to its full planned width, these people are going to
be hazards to themselves and others going in and out of driveways on East
Avenue.
Next, I again raise the issue of the two cul-de-sacs which stop short of the
Kubeja property. In my uneducated opinion, the Kubeja property needs to
be planned to more carefully to coordinate with the proposed Tract. Instead
of two cul-de-sacs, there should be one which aligns with the area between
Kubeja's lot and the Trost home. This area appears to be designed for a
street and would allow the Kubeja properties access to the streets in the
:
~ (.
Design Review Committee Members
September 9, 1999
Page 4
proposed Tract. It would give the proposed Tract a second outlet at a much
sooner point in time than any other street projected on the circulation plan.
2. DENSITY
When the Etiwanda Specific Plan was created, the concept which was
advanced was that in a range of allowed dwelling units per acre, the
developer would be held to the fewest number per acre unless the developer
took a variety of ameliorative steps which are enumerated in the Etiwanda
Specific Plan. In this development there are planned 16 dwelling units on
7.53 gross acres. Adjusting this slightly for the division of the appendage
between the two out lots, the density is exceeds 2 per acre. Has the staff and
the committees'checked the list of requirements in the Etiwanda Specific Plan
to be sure that the developer is meeting the required number.9 Frankly I
hope you are able to give the developer some breaks in exchange for cutting
his lots fi'om 16 to no more than 14 and realigning his streets for the good of
the entire neighborhood.
3. SOUTH BOUNDARY
The engineer who prepared the Tract Map was not given all the information
necessary. to deal with the south boundary of the tract. The lot of the
Etiwanda Colony Lands which is being re-mapped goes all the way to Tract
15912. The proposed south boundary of proposed lots 13, 14, 15, and 16
does not coincide with the existing south boundary of the existing lot of the
Etiwanda Colony Lands. This leaves an 80' strip which is a "no man's land".
The 1913 and 1914 deeds from the owners of Etiwanda property to the
Pacific Electric Railway were deeds of a "railroad right of way" which is a
specialized easement. The title to the underlying land remained with the
owner who deeded out the easement and was or should have been granted or
distributed to the-'- successors in interest. The proposed lots- !3 - 16,
inclusive, shouk: ,e shown as extending all the way to Tract 15912, subject
to a railroad easement over the south eighty feet more or less.
Design Review Committee Members
September 9, 19'99
Page 5
4. WEST WALL
Why is it necessary to put any walls on East Avenue. I am concerned that
such walls will chop up the vista from East Avenue and make the existing
houses appear to be islands in a sea of newer homes. I'd give the developer
relief from wall requirements in exchange for a greater effort to integrate the
"out parcels" so ~ey don't look like out parcels. The land between Craig
· . and Mendoza needs a lot more attention than it has gotten. I hope the idea of
integration will help the developer and the City come up with some better
ways to handle this problem area.
I hope you will receive this letter in the spirit it is offered. The spirit which
you can hopefully see here is to stimulate more thought and discussion
before committing to these plans. The purpose is not to complain, but to say
we can and should do better. Please give this the attention which is due to it
and please think creatively.
JBJ/tlm
C I T Y O F
RANCHO CUCAMONG:A
November 15, 1999
James Banks, Jr.
· CNic Center Law Offices
10788 Civic Center Drive
Ran~ho Cucamonga, CA 91730-3805
SLIBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 1.6021
Dear Mr. Banks:
Thank you for your letter of September 9, 1999 regarding the proposed tract located east of your
property. I would like to take this opportunity to briefly review the processing of this application.
Subsequent to your letter, the developer filed a revised tract map in response to staff comments (see
attached). The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee, Technical Review Committee,
and Grading Committee in September and November. All Committees have recommended approval to
the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission public hearing has been set for December 8,
1999.
Regarding your questions and concerns, the following comments are numbered according to your letter.
1. Master Circulation Plan - The master plan is simply a sketch of one of many possibilities and is
not intended to be cast in stone. Indeed, the master plan deals with land that is not a part of the
proposed subdivision. Staff believes that your historically significant, 18-acre properly is
sufficiently large to provide its own circulation system if development was ever contemplated.
Nevertheless, a stub street connection is still proposed near the southwest corner of Tentative
Tract 16021 which provides public access for your property if you choose to subdivide in the
future. Mr. Kubeja indicated to staff that he does not want the two cul-de-sacs extended to his
property. Mr. Kubeja already has access to East Avenue; therefore, does not need access
through the proposed tract. All three "out parcels" have driveway access potential to the interior
..~'eets of the proposed tract.
2. Density - The ~Droject density is 2.8 dwelling units per acre which is at the lower end of the Low-
Density Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) designation of the Etiwanda Specific Plan
(ESP). The project is being proposed under the "Basic Development Standards" of the ESP
which permits densities generally at the lower end of the density range. The project meets all
requirements of the ESP; particularly, the proposed 13,003 square-foot minimum lot size is
almost one-third larger than the required 10,000 square-foot. minimum.
3. South Boundary - We understand your opinion regarding ownership of the old Pacific Electric
Railway corridor; however, it is our understanding that your lawsuit to reclaim the railway corridor
into your property was rejected on appeal by the Supreme Court and that ownership remains with
the Southern California Rail Authority (San Bernardino Associated Governments).
~'~11 Mayor William J. Alexander ~ Councilmember Paul Bione
Mayor Pro-Tern Diane Williotas Councilmember Bob Dutton
i Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager Councilmember James V. Curotolo
10500 Civic Center Driv~ * P.O. Box 807 * Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 · (909) 477-2700 · FAX (909) 477*2849
®
,,,-
Jarne~ Banks, Jr.
TT 16021
November 15, 1999
Page 2
4. East Avenue Wall - The Etiwanda Specific Plan, Figure 5-28 and 5-28A (see attached), requires
a decorative wall and special landscape treatment along East Avenue because of its importance
as the major north-south street in the Etiwanda community, This design was adopted by City
Council Ordinance No. 369 on September 8, 1988. The land between the Craig and Maciel
properties is proposed for a public street connection to East Avenue.
We are encouraging the applicant to continue discussions with surrounding property owners. If you
should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call the project planner, Emily Wimer, or myself at
(909) 477-2750, Monday through Thursday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Sincerely,
COM EVELOPM EPARTMENT
Dan Coleman
Principal Planner
DC:EVV~ma
Attachment: Tentative Tract 16021
cc: Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner
Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner
TRAC~T "'
· .
TENTATIVE "'
:
r~o. ~602~ TENTA'
MASTE
e E R T ACIVIL ENGINEERS
~,.c~,.,.,,-,s (909) 686-1070
~ ~.,.
ETIWANDA AVENU~
· Ho~ of Summit
FIG. 5-2 7
WALL
88' LANDSCAPE
'EASEMENT
EAST AVENUE
FIG. 5-28
.-" REVISED 411192
'-.' .:.-...--...:.-~-~'~.i!~ iTi'!i:i~..'.:~!:.!~:..-i :- :':-~"~
· ..-....~:.-..
· . · .:....;. . .:.
· .. j.' ~' .".... -. ~. .. .~ ....".-'
PLAN .VIEW "~.,. /S1CtqE PILASIERS WI SI1.X3CO WALLS N,8 RIV~RilOCK PtANIERS ~
EAST AVENUE PARKWAY
FIG 5-28A
REVISEr' ql7188
NOV-Zg-98 It:04 FRO~'-FRIEDMAN & SOLOI/~LLP +31~553N5~ ~-474 ~-g~/lo r-u=~
WIND ROW / TREE EVALUATION OF
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16021,
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:
Mr. Jon Friedman
RBF Associates, Inc.
2049 Century Park East, Suite 790
': Los Angeles, CA 90067-3109
{31'0) 553-2434
Submitted by:
Thomas Olsen Associates, Inc.
Environmental & Biological Consultants
2829 South State Street
Hemet, CA 92543
(909) 766-4655
July 9, 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .......................... I
fi~rP, ODUCTION ......................................... 2
METHODS~A~D PERSONNEL ........................... - .... ~ ....5
SITE DESCI~d]~TION .................................. 4
RESULTS ........................................ 4
IMPACTS AND REGbMMENDATIONS ........................ 8
REFERENCES CITED ......................... 10
: !': INDEX OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. PROJECT VICINITY MAP ......................... 1
FIGlYRE 2. PROJECT LOCATION MAP ........................... 12
FIGURE 3. SITE MAP AND WIND ROW Z TRFF LOCATIONS ................ 13
FIGLYRE 4. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS .........................
TOA Project # 99-J298 - July 9. 1999 Page
ti0V'Zg'9~ II:O5 FROM'F~IEDI/Nt i SOLOI,BN LLP t31(]55~NSa ~-~l~. r.u=~, r-u,,
RSF Assoelgtes, la~. '
lrmd Row / Tree Evaluazion tat Tentative Ttaa No. J602l
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Thomas Olsen Associates, Inc. (Olsen Associates) conducted an evaluation ofuee wind rows on or
near 7. 53-acre Tentative Tract No. 16021 in the City ofRancho Cucamonga, San Bernardinn County,
California, to assess the trees' health and provide recommendations r~garding the future of the
existing trees on the proposed sites.
A total of 114 trees were included in this survey. Of these, 43 eucalyptus trees (wind row G, row
]', one tree in row H, half of row B, and one of"K";)~-one large blue elderberry bush. and one walnut
tree that appear to be physically on Tentative Tract No. 16021 (T T 16021). An additional nine
eucalyptus trees, ]ocatCCi~.al.ong the site's fi'onrage to East Avenue in Row H and approximately four
1o seven eucalyptus trees off-site in Row D may be affected by the proposed project. These trees do
not individually provide significant biological function or value. None are identified as "historic" as
per the Etiwanda Specific Plan All of the other:trees evaluated in this report are located offof the
proposed project site (rows A, "C," D, E, F and I)
Of the th'ee mature eucalyptus wind rows on or near the tract, only one, the western wind row (D),
matches the expected characteristics of a healthy mature eucalyptus wind row. The other two major
mature wind rows (G.and H) have suffered losses due to fire, insects, and from other sources
Neither Row G or H has a realistic probability of recover~ Neither of the minor eucalyptus tree
groups evaluated (B an(i ~) provide significant habitat value, aesthetic value. or.wind-control/barrier
value. The trees have been damaged by fire, wind. drought, insect predation~ and general human
impacts. Since the Irees in these wind rows show signs ofinfestation lmd poor health, they will also
be increasingly susceptible to wind damage.
It is the reconunendation of OIsen Associates that any preservation efforts be focused on Wind Row
D, immediately west of the tract This wind row is the healthiest and has the greatest aesthetic,
historical and biological value of any of the wind rows on or near T.T 16021. None of the
eucalyptus trees within the project site's boundaries (Rows B, G, H, 3 and K) offer significant
aesthetic, wind-control or habitat value. Wind row D, plus the numerous other mature trees in the
surrounding area, will provide habitat for any bird or other species displaced by removal of trees on
the property.
In the placemenu of buildings. pavement or solid-construction fences. a minimum set back of 16 feet
from the centerline of trees in Row D is recommended to avoid adverse effects to the trees' root
systems This set back Would also apply for excavation and trenching Ground-disturbing activities
of minimal depth (les~ than one foot) should not disturb the trees. If open fencing with a footing that
does not require continuous trenching is used, a set back of 5-6 feet should be sufficient for
protecting the trees.
TOA Project ~ 99-1298 - Jtdy 9. 1999 Page I
NOV'Zg-gg 1|:05 FROM-FRiEDMAN i SOLOMON LLP t~uo03Z45= ,'-'- ~;' '~ r-,.
RBF Aaoaates. ln~
iqrmd Row / Tree Evaluation lot Tentalivq,Ttuct No. 16021 Thomas Ohen Ayatriates, Inc.
INTRODUCTION
Thonm Olsea A~ociates, Inc. was retained by RBF Associates. Inc to conduct an evaluation of tree
wind rows on or near 7.53-acre Tentative Tract No. 16021 in the City ofRancho Cucamonga, San
Bernardtoo County. California. The proposed project for the tract is a single family detached
residential development at ve~ low density (2-4 uniz~ per acre) The site is bordered by East Avenue
and undeveloped land to the east, the abandoned Southern Pacific Railroad (SPKP,) right-of-way and
a vacated residence on 10 acres to the south, a cltrus grove to the west, and large residential lots with
fallow land to ~he north. Th.~ projetl site is located in Section 3.3, Township IN, Range 6W of USGS
7.5' Cucamonga Peak quadrangle. Figures 1 and 2 provide maps of the project vicinity and project
site location.
This tree wind row evaluation was conducted to alexermine the number, location, and condition or
cxi3tlnB trees on or nrdu die I, ta~;t, as'~css their ccologlca~ va~uc, aug provldc recommendations
regarding the removal or prescrvatlon ofthe trees in rclatin;; ,~o the propo's[ project
The majority of the trees occurring on or near the tract are species of Eucalyptus Eucalyptus trees
arc one of the most widely planted non-native trees in California. The Bxst eucalyptus trees in
southern California Were imported ~'om Austvalia beginning around 1S56. From 1870 on, these
broadleaf evergreen trees were widely plan~ed to provide windbreaks, firewood and shadc. More
recently they have also .beeone. popular for their aesthetic beauty, relative hardinus and fast grouah
rate In addition, cucaJyptus, trees are useful in erosion control, as noise and headlight buffcn, and
as screens to block unsighdy views or to provide privacy. The flowers of most Eucalyptus species
produce copious amounts of pollen and can provide nourishment for a wide variety or insect~ birds,
and even mammals Ald~ough'there are over 550 recognized species and 150 varieties oreucalypms
(Hepting 1970), the predominant species in southern California is E, calypntsglol~uhts, the bluegum
eucalyptus. The Tasmanian b]uc gum (eucalyptus) t-~ the prcdominam tree speclcs on [he tract.
The Tasmanian blu~ gum generally does not form a taproot. lnstead, it produces roots throughout
the soil profile, rooting shallowly or up to several fee~ deep where soils will allow (Burns and Honkala
1990) The eucalypmsis generally wind-resi,sT~ant by the ~mc it reaches sapling size, with adults being
quite wind fu-m However, because eucalyptus roots are fairly s]ow-growingo seedlings can bc very
vulnerable to wind upset The sapling stage is also when the eucalyptus is most vulnerable to frost,
drought-stress, and insect infcsta:ion The Tasmanian bluc gum is fast-growing, with an average
annual growth in height of approxima=ely ,t,5 feet per year under favorable conditions (Burns and
Honkaha 1990) and can reach 150 to 200 feet in height m teararity.
The other common species Qfet~calypms present on the tract, ~co/yptnspo~yanthemos (silver dollar
gum) is also fast-growing but generally only reaches a height of 20 to 60 feet Also, one Specimen
offloodcdgum(E~,calyp~zagrandts) occurs on the site. This species of eucalyptus can reach up to
200 feet in height in areas of high-rainfalL This hexght is unlikely in Southern California, unless
supplemental irrigation !s provided
..;:
TOA Project ~ 99-1298 -. :..July O' 1999 Page 2
NQV-Z9-99 11:06 FROI/rFRIEDIAAN & SOLOM~ LLP +31~3Z4~ 'l-~i~ r.ullio r-u.~
RBF Assoc/utts,
Wind Rmv I Tree Ew.4,-,~on /or Ten:alive Tlaa No. 16021 Thomas OSsen Associat~, Inc.
Eucalyptus species reproduce readily through seed dissemination and may also form thickets via
stump regrovah. Often eucalyptus will form dense stands that are nearly devoid of understory
vegetation. This may be in pan duc to a water-soluble phl~otoz-in produced in e,,calyptus leaves that
inhibits growth in many herbaceous plants (Burns and Honkala 1990). The thick leaf liner that
commonly accumulates around some species of eucalyptus may also play a role in ground cover
suppression by acting as a mulch.
Eucalyptus was essentially a pest-free tree unlll 1984, when the eucalyptus longhorned borer beetle
(t~,oracanlha semipuactara), one of the trcc's native a~ackers in Australia, was introduced into
southern California (first detected in Orange County. California) Without its native predators to
keep it in check, the borer beetle has become a serious pest. The borer beetle is particularly attracted
tO eucalyptus trees suffering from water stress The borer beetle is generally inactive during
December and January with ad,,h beetles emerging in late spring (from April to as late as July)
Volatile chemicals emlt~ed from fallen or damaged wood and susceptible trees attracts female borer
beetles who lay their eggs under loose bark or in crevices in the bark. Adult beetles can live for as
long a~ 90 days under favorable conditions, with the female laying several batches of up to 40 eggs
each, from May to as !ate as October (Paine et al 1995). Within three to five days, the eggs hazch
and the larvae travel .finder the bark and begin to mine at the inner bark-cambium-x~Jiem interface
(between the living wood and heartwood layers of the tree) forming galleries packed wlzh woody
focal material. When. larvae feed extensively in this region. they may girdle the tree, culling off the
nutrien[ transportation,System bonycon the'roots and the crown of the tree. Because of their narrow
girth. saplings are particularly susceptible to this 'kind of damage. Signs of infestation include
weeping oval holes made by the beedes, branches dying with leaves mill attached, wilting. dry or bare
crowns, and cracked .b. ark ~v!th packed larval excrement visible Although a number of eucalyptus
species have been found to be relatively resistant to the borer beetle. several species. including E.
glabtdus. are highly susceptible to borer infestorion (paine e~ al 1995)
~.' .METHODS AND PERSONNEL
An cvaluafion of the trees on or near the projec~ site. including all mature Euca/y/.,n~s trees, was
performed on.lane 22, 1999, y Cindy A. Thielman, staffbiologist for Thomas Olsen Associates. lnc.
Trees were assessedfor, or ,.c
proclarion. disease, damage, and general health. Trees were
examined for signs orraptor use including white wash, owl pcllcts. and nests. Notes on wind row
functionality, tree conditions and trec inhabitaacy were made during the survey. Binoculars ('Txq0)
were used to aid in the identification of birds and potential nesting evidence.
70.4 Ptoject ~ ~-~298 - July ~. 1999 Page 3
NOV-Zg-gB 11:06 FROitrFRIEDi4AN i SOLOMON LLP +3i~553745~ ~-474
RBFAxsec/~es, lnc~
Flared Row / Tree Epoluesion far Tvk~atlve Tra~ N~ 1d021 Thomas Olse~
SITE DESCRIPTION
The project site is ~c,:afed in the vicinity of Interstate 15 and proposed Highway 30 (see Figure 1 )
Tentative Tract No. 16021 is situated west of East Avenue, immediately north of the abandoned
Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) line right-of-way. Figure 2 shows the exact tract location The
site occupies 752 acres of land zoned for low density residential (2-4 dwelling units/acre) per the
Etlwanda Specific Pla~ (Ranc. ho Cucamong~ :'~eneralPlan, Ray. 1988). ~'::~ wact is comprised of
undeveloped land predominandy vegetated w'~ ~. non-native grasses and otb. ec ruderal plant species.
The site is bordered by East Avenue and undeveloped land to the east, the abandoned Southern
Pacific Railrt~d_ fight-of-way (SPRK row) and a vacated residence on 10 acres to the south. a citrus
grove to the west, anti hrge!residential lots with fallow land to the north. The project site is located
in Section 33. Township IN, Range 6W of USGS 7!5' series Cucamonga 'Peak quadrangle Figures
I and 2 provide maps of the projec~ vicinity and pr6ject site location.
Three residences are '~ located in the same block as the tract' 7016, 7078, and 7082 l~ast Avenue.
These three residences are not a pan of the proposed project.
The wind row trees on the lx-.ta consists predonxh'mn~y ~fTasmanian blue gum (Eucalypnts g/obu/us)
with some silver dollar gum (Eucalyptuspolyanthemos} and one -qooded gum (Eucalypn~s
present as well. None of the trees on or neat the site arc designated "historic" in the Edwanda
Specific Plan. The trees .were pardtioned imo groups and each m~_n_,re tree was individually evaluated
for health and signs ofinfesxa~ion. To aid discussion of the trees on the tract, each distinct wind row
or trec groupLug was.as.signed a leUer designation. Figure 3 shows the locations of the designated
wind rows evaluated in the;s~u~ey..
A previous survey of. trees,on properties to the south and east of Tentative Tract No. 16021 was
performed by Thomas, 01sen A~sociates. lnc ::~pon dared May 15, 1998). Notations a~e made
indicating where tre. e~ evaluated for this proj~'~ a~e discussed in the pre~,ious report, or are
contiguous with previously descfil~'d rows
RESULTS
The weather was warm, d~ and calm with light clearing haze and clear skies during the survey
performed on I~ne 22,-1999. The temperature ranged from the mid-70's to mid-80's
Fach distins wLud roW'6r tr~ grouping on or near the site was assigned a letter designation Figure
3 shows uhe locations and designations of the wind rows/trees evaluated in the sun, ey. Trees on or
near the site can be gr0upedinto three categories: the "major" eucalyptus wind rows (Rows D, G,
and H). the 'minor'r ~ucat.'vptus wind rows (Rows B and J), incense cedar row (Row I). and
ornamental row (Row I), and; other scattered trees not associated with particular rows (labeled C
and K) The major ~'~nd rows consist of mature (up to 50 or mot,' years old) well-established
TOA Project# 99-1298 ~ ~ July ,9.. lPPP Page 4
eucalyptus trees and ~e all conti~ous wi~h off-site rows The "minor" eucalyptus wind rows each
contain less than l0 trees and are not contiguous with other rows. The ornamental row of incense
cedars and the "row" consisting of ornamental jumper and oleander shrubs are also deemed "minor"
These minor rows appear to be associated with the three residences adjacent to the site and are
generally younger than the major wind rows Also associated with the residences are several other
individual trees of other species.
General findings and a description of each of the wind rows on or near the tract are provided below·
Refer to Figure 3 for i!diagram showing the locations of the rows and their letter designations
General ,~.~i
The eucalyptus wind rows are markc~ in general by a f.airly thick layer of le~ litter and trec d~bris,
typical of the somewhat messy habit of the Tasmanian blue gtan, Et,~lypn~s globnlus. Overall health
of the eucalyptus trees evaluated is very good Of a total of 112 eucalyptus trees examined, only 6
(5%) show signs of probable eucalyptus long-horned borer beetle infestslion (weeping wounds,
crown wilting or dead, dead limbs). None of the trees show obvious signs of root rot, fungal
infection or termite infestati¢~n. None of the trees show obvious or significant signs of'damage due
ro human activities, such as nailing signs to trees or using them as fence posts (especially for barbed
wire). Tree "C" and one in Row B contain rudimentary tree house structures but do not seem to be
suffering as a resolC:.'; In g~neral, any damage to the outer surface ofthe tree (including severe
trimming) increases a tree's susceptibility to infestations, particularly damage occurring during peak
borer egg-laying season (February through May).
....
Raptor use of.the trees.in the area is known to occur. A female Cooper' s hawk appears to be nesting
in the upper reaches of a tree in Row D. Clog inspection of the individual large eucalyptus trees was
hampered by the dense secondary growth in the lower reaches of many of the trees None of the
other trees inspeeted showed signs of active aptor use (i.e, white wash or owl pellets) Transient
use of the wind rows.by migrant rapton and other bird species is likely. The rodent population
associated with the undeveloped rodoral areas in the imerior of the tract likely provides foraging for
rapton in the area WOodpeckers, scrub jays, bush tits and humnungbirds have also been observed
foraging on or in the eucalyptus trees. There arc numerous suitable mature trees in areas outside of
the project site that, because of their relative isolation, may be more likely to attract raptors
Row A is comprised of nine incense cedar (Calocedrus decortens) trees of uniform height
spacing These trees Re located on the south side the residence at 7082 East Avenue and are not on
the project site (Figure 4. photos 1 and 6) This row is labeled "C" in the Olsen Associates report
dated May 15. 1998. As these trees are on private propony and outside of the proposed project's
potential area of effect; this wind row was not individually evaluated.
TO.4 Project t~ 99-1298 ~ J~ly 9. 1999 Pagr
·
NOV'Zg-g9 11:06 FROI/rFRIEDkWt & SOLOAi:~ LLP ~3i~b55/4=~ &-~q r.&~,.
RBF Auociazu, lnr-. ' '
I'Y'md Row / Tree Evaluation for Tentative :Tracl ~o. 16#21
Rm~, B
Row B is comprised of six Tasmanian blue gum (Eucalyptus globzdtts) trees or' more or less uniform
height and spaci~-3 (Figure 4. photo 1}. This row was labeled "C" in the Olscn Associates report
dated May 15. 1998 These tr~es are lo:~ted along the southwestern comer ofthe property at 7082
East Avenue Three trees and two s~.-a~ occur along the west side of comer and three trees are on
lhe south side. [Note- the provided site plans incorrectly show these trees as contiguous with trees
to the south on Tentative Trac~ No 15912.] The middle tree on the wes~ side contains tree house
materials The general health of these trees is good There were no sign~ of raptor use in these trees
Proximity to the residence is likely a discouraging factor. The trees do not offer significant habitat
value. Kernoval of eny Or ~ of the trees in this row will not significantly degrade the habiutt value
of the area. If the trees (on the west side. in particular) are left in place, a minimum set back of 16
feet thr structures. pavement or trenching is recommended.
Tree C is a single large eucalyptus tree (F_ globul.~~' ,,,~ed along the SPRi~ fight-of-way {Figure
4, photo 2). It is labeled "X" in the previous Olsen ! .-~.:.ates report. The tree is well-established
and in good health, ,despite the renmatus of a tree ~ouse in it. It does not appear to receive
supplemental irrigation, :$ke plans show this tree as being located approximately 15 feet south of the
prOiect site. If thls is cOrreCt. the tree should be left intact. The proposed project should not have
an adverse effect on this tree.
Row D is the largest ,and m.o.st complete of the wind rows on or near the site. This row consists of
43 mostly large. rnatu3'.e:Tasmanian blue gum trees with only one aead stump in the row (four of the
trees have regrown from cut stumps). The row runs north-south along the western side of the
property and continues north .beyond the property boundary (Figure 4. photos 2 and 3}. The center-
line of the tow appears t~ be outside ofT. T. 16021, appro~dmately 4-5 feet west of the chain-link
fence presumably marking the western border of the property A single eucalyptus tree is located
several reel east of the chain-link fence One medium-sized blue elderberry bush (Samln~t'us
mexicana) occurs on the property at the southern end,of Row D. Off-site to the west of Row D is
citrus grove. Intersecting Row D are two eucalyptus v~nd rows (Rows E and F) that run west from
the row. These rows are off-site and outside the scope of this evaluation
A n.,mber of the trees in Row D have sections of heavy regtovah along the trunk and larger limbs
This type of growth is~qffen an indicator of tree stress Fire, freezing, water stress. insect infcstation
and trauma to the tree bark can all cause this type of growth. T~ee of the trees {two mature and one
young regrown sapling) show obwous signs of eucalyptus long-horned borer beetle infcstation (dying
or dead crowns or sections). The rest of the trees appear to be ia relatively good health, with no
signs of active infestafion or.water st~ss. The stressing agemrs) do not seem to bc seriously affecting
the trees at this timc.i'~ Cooper's hawk appears to be nesting in one of the trees in this row. This
TO.4 Project # 99-1298 .?.;.,.Iuly 9, 1999 ,Page 6
NOV'Zi'gg 11:08 FROM'FRtEDI,4AN & SOLOI/ION LLP ~'3~05;,;i0,~ 1-.,,., r,,,,o
P,~/lssoc/ares,/no.
FFmd Rosy / Tree Ev~ms lot rantalivg Tract Na~ 16021 Thomas Oh'~t As~ociare~,
row likely has slgnificam habital value for bh'ds, especially those drawn to the area by the citrus grove
off'-~te to the west Of the ~rec major wind rows near the site. Row D offers the greatest biological
function and value A set back of 16 feet should be used to prevent adverse effects to the row.
Removal of(four to seven) individual trees, if necessary for the construction of "C Drive'' as shown
in the site plans, would not significantly degrade the quality of the wind row.
Row G
This wind row was originally comprised of 45 eucalyptus trees, however only 30 are cmrently slili
standing (including eiSht located on the noah side of the residence at 7016 East Avenue). This row
runs east-west along.the north border of the property The center-line of the trees in the row lies
approximately 4-5 feet south of the chain-link fence tha! (presumably) marks the northern property
border. There are numerous gaps in the row due to lost trees. The resident to the north of this row
reported that a fire damaged the row in the 1960's In addition to numerous stumps, the trees in this
row have particularly dense rcgrowth along thei: trunks and lower limbs. This is likely to bc in large
part a result of fire damage. Other siressos, as described earlier, are also likely factors Two of the
trees in Row G cxhibit obvious signs of borcr beetle infestarion (dead/dying crown or sections)
(Figure 4, Photos 3 and 7). The overall health and vigor of these eucalyptus trees is vcry poor and
the aesthetic value of this wind row is low. Preservarion efforts for this row would likely be
ineffective due to the long-term damage suffered The dense regrowth on the trees also limits their
usefulness for b~ds and increases the risk bffalling branches. Loss of the 22 trees of Row G on the
property would' not significantly degrade the habitat in the overall area.
Row H runs north-sot~h aloz~g the wes~ side of East Avenue (Figure 4, photo 6) end is the northern
continuation of the roy< designated 'E" in she previous report. The row continues north beyond the
site Much of this row(60%) lies on frontage of the three residences, outside the project sitc. Of the
27 trees in the row, Qne.-third (9) occur on the projec~ si~e's frontage.
This row alrcndy has l'o~ ove~ one-third of its original trees None of the trees appear to have borer
infcstaxion. However, the overall health of these trees is generally only fair, except where residents
have supplied suppleretina] i~galion. The location of these ~rees along East Avenue necessitates
keeping the fn'st 20 feet ofthcse trees' trunks pruned bare of all branches for road safc~y. Although
necessary, this type ofsevcre pruning greatly incrcascs cucalyptus' susceptibility zo borer infeszation
and causes water stress. Also. the nearby pavement of East Avenue may advcrscly affect the function
of the trees' root systerns. In general, the presence of East Avenue along side Row D is detrimental
to the health of these trees and makes their recovery and preservation uncertain Construction of the
proposed project would result dirc~ly in the loss of the n~ne trees Iocatcd between 7016 and 7078
East Avenue. ~There are no trees along the frontage between 7078 and 7082 East Avenue. In
gcncral, loss of these trees would not s~gni~cantly degrade the biological resources of the area
TO_4 ptojects ~9~12~8 ,-~:;Jt,/y g, ~9~9 Page 7
NOV-ZB'B9 II:Og FROk{"FRIEDI,Wt i SOLOklOh LLP t~i~3;;Iq;= ~-~ r,,, ,~ r-.,
8.BF Assoc~, inc. '
W'md Ro~, / Tree Evaluation lot Tentat~v~ Tract No. 16021 Tkomas Olsen A~odat~s, In.'.
Row J
Row J lies on the projec~ site, approximately 2 feet~h of the chain-link fence along the northern
edge of 7082 hat Avenue (Figure 4. photo 5) The row origioally consisted of 11 eucalyptus trees,
currently only four remain standing. The trees are of'moderate size. but appear spooled and in poor
health. These trees do not appea~ to offer signi~cant biological fi~nction or value. Loss of these trees
would not significantly degrade the environment
Rows I and K
None of the trees in these "rows" form wind rows Row I is actually a hedge of ornaments.! ~ hruhs
(oleander and juniper) located on the south and western edges of 7016 East Avenue. The ro~,, '~ not
on the project site and will not be affected by project development. In Figure 3, "K" indic:tes the
locminn ofa ve.~y healthy medium-sized walnut tree {Jugla,,s sp }. To the east of the walnut tree is
one s.-na!!ish silver dollar gum tree (Eucalypntspolyamhemos) and a large fruit ~ree that is growing
through the fence from the 7078 Eas~ Avenue proper~ (Figure 4. photo 4). Removal of any of these
three trees would not signiSeandy effect the area. . :.wever, the resident at 7078 East Avenue has
indicated that he would like to see the walnut tree pre~.~r~ed. Walnut trees do not produce fluit until
reaching maturity at around 12 years of age Thus, a healthy fruitlog walnut nee is an attractive
feature not easily replaced.
IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A total of 114 trees were included in this survey. OFthese, 43 eucalyptus trees (wind row G, row
J. one tree in row H. half of row B, and one of"K"), one large blue elderberry bush, and one walnut
~ree that appear to he physieaBy on Tentative Tract No. 16021. An additional nine eucalyptus trees,
located along the site's frontage to East Avenue in Row H, and approximately four to seven
eucalyptus trees in Row D may be affected by the proposed project None of these individual tree5
provide significant biological ~anction or value. None are identified as "historic" as per the v:tiwanda
Specific Plan. All ofthe other trees evaluated in this report (rows A, 'C.' D. E. F and I) are located
offof the proposed project site.
Of the three mature eucalyptus wind rows on the tract, only one, the western wind cow (D), matches
the expected characteristics of a healthy mature eucalyptus wind row The other two major mature
wind rows (G and H} have suffered losses due to fire. inscos. and from other sources. Neither of
these two wind rows has a realistic probability of recovery. Neither of the minor eucalyptus tree
groups evaluated (B and J) provide significant habitat value, aesthetic value, or wir~.comrolfoarrier
value. The trees have been damaged by fire, wind. drought, insect predation. and general human
impacts Sincc the trees in ffiese windrows show signs ofinlhstation and poor health, they will also
be increasingly susceptible w wind damage
TOA Prolea ~ 99-1298 -... July 9. 1999 Page 8
NOV-Zg-99 |1:09 FROI/t-FRIEDI4AN& SOLOM(~ LLP +310553~45~ T-414 k,i~/~ ~-~.~
RBF Aaocia~
Tree ~aluatfon for Tvnta~ive ~ lqo. 26021 Tkomas O&en Ascot. lares, ln~
It is the recommendation ofOlsen Assodates that any preservation efforts be focused on Row Doff-
she, immediately west of the tract This win~rr~w is the healLh~est and has the greatest aesthetic,
h~storica~ and biologyeel value of any of the wind row~ near Tentative Tract No. 16021. None of the
eucalyptus trees within the projec[ site's boundaries (Rows B, G, H, J and K) offer significant
aesthetic, wind-control or habitat value Wind row D, plus the numerous other mature trees in the
surrounding area, will provide habitat for any bird or other species displaced by removal of'trees on
the property.
In the placement Qfbu~lding~, pavement or solid-cons~tuction fences, a minimum set back of 16 feet
from the ceatedine of the trees in Row D is recommended to avoid adverse effeas to the ~rees' root
systems. This s~t back woald also apply for excavazion and trenching Ground-disl~'bing aaivhies
ofminm~ depth (less lhan one foo0 should not disr~b the trees If open fcnelng with a footing that
does not require continuous ~rench~n5 is used, a sm back of 5-6 feet should be sufficient for
protecting the trees. L'
TOA Project# 99-1298 - July g. 1999
tO¥-Z~-lt II:O~ FROM-F~IEDij~I SOLOi~ON LLP ~alO553i4h ~-4~ r,n~i~ r-u.~
R, BF Auoda~,~ Inc.
Irmd Row/Tru ~.aluat~on for Tmttatiw ~'aa No. 1~021 Thomu~ OL.n As~o~x,.. Inc. '
REFERENCES CITED
Burns, Russell M. and Honkala, Barbara H. (Fds) 1990. SiIvics of North America, Yohtme 2:
Hardwoods Agriculture Handbook No 654 Washington, D C.. United States
Department of Agdcuhure Forest Service
Dreistadt. SIeve H- 1997..Pests oftanthcape Trees and Shntbs. U. nf California Division of
Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication No. 3359. Oakland. California: ANR
Publications
,:
i-lickmaa, lames C. 1993. TheJepsonMmmal: HigherPlants of California. Berkc..s:
University of California Press.
HeFtlag, George H 1971. Diseases of Forest cmd Shade Trees of the United States.
Agriculture Handbook No 386 Washington, D C.. United States Department of
Agriculture Fore~ Service
Hogan. Susan L CEd.} 1988 Sunset Fgestern Garden Book. Menlo Park, California: Lane
Publishing Co.
General Plan for the City ofKancho Cucamonga, California 1981. As amended 1989
Paine. Timothy D., Millat. J G., and Hanks, L M. 1995. "Integrated program protects trees from
eucalyptus longhorned borer" California Agr#culntre 49: 1. Jan-Feb 1995. pp. 34-37.
Peterson, Roger Tory. 1990..d Ftdd Guide to Western Birds. BosTon. Houghton Mifflia
Shigo. Alex L. 1979. Tree Decay: An Expanded Concept Agriculture Information Bulletin No.
419. Washington, D.C.. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service
Smith, I.P. and Berg, K. CEds.) 1988. Inventory of Rare and Endangered l, rascular Plants of
Caltfoniia. 4'~ Ed. Special Publication No. I. Sacramento' California Native Plant
Society.
Ten'es, I K. 199i The A,dubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. New York:
Wings Books
United States Department ofthe lnterioc. Geological Survey Ct#camonga.Peak, Devore,
Fontiron, and Crttosti 7 5' Quadrangles.
TOA Project · 99-1298 - July 9. 1999 Page 10
NOV"Z9-g9 I1:i~ FRO~FRIED~N & SOLOt/D~ LLP T~iO;3~l~;o l-ql~ r.,;~,o r-~,
P~F tl~sociute_~ Inc.
tFmd Row ! Tret E~,~..~...m~.' n for T#raa~ve Tract No. 16021 Thomax Olse~ A~.oci, t~s, In~
·'.~ _; :, _. '"-: ~,.,i ~'-~"' Y ,. I '. ~ ,, i* '.~
:a~:-:~'-'3""'~:- ..... [' ' %! --:'-':; -~:- ., '.-: ~ "" i..- P~NCRE~
~:'-'.~.-:=';.,"~',L~'' j.~,,&~' 'I : ...,.., ~ ' ~ ~
Z8 ~ .,.,
'~::~;;-':'.:'~:~,+'-'."!'t,~,~'' , "','-~-"'i':'. ' ~ ETT-'.~"~
· ,- .._.:.:':--z~.b;; .... ,-~i--'- ~" .. "'.--:',,... ~,~ ~, -
-'
~ :'4 ~
:"7-'T' ': ~ ,~ ...' .: :' '
FIGURE 1. Project Vicinity Map
Source: The Thomas Guide, San Bernardino and Riverside Countms, 1998,
Project; 99-1298 - July.o. 7999 Page
RBF /luoci~au,
W~ad Row I Tree Evalsanlon Jar Te. nfa~ive Tro~t Nu. 1~021 Thomas Olsen Asiacigar, Inc.
FIGURE 2. Project Location Map
Base Map Source: USGS 7.5' Series Topogroph;c Maps.' Cucamonga Peak (1966, pho~orev.
19R8) and Guasxi (1966, photorev. 1981| Quadrangles.
TO.4 Project# 99,1298 - Juij, 9, 1999 Page 12
NOV-Zi-ii lhll F~OI'F!tlEDi4AN & SOLOI/~ LLP ,31~;0~14;= ,'~'~ ~'~" ';
7016 East Ave, I Ii
NOT A PART II 1
I
7082 East Ave. '-J ....
HOT A PART
Figure 3. Tentative Tract No. 16021
Site Map and Wind Row
ease Map: All~efr A. Wahl3 Assodares; June 19. ~ 999
Scale: I inc~ = ~6 feet
3 3
~ Shaded areas inkcare ON-~TE
)
8 3
:.;,
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16021
{-F.. 12 8 5
DRI YE
-- -- Walnut Tree
,3 .: 74 ,5
6hrub
S.P.R.R. R/W
'\ ' I ,;I ~ I _, I
\ ~ I I
'- / I I I ,
,.~3j~'F,\i'I',<~ 'I'/VF'. l~/Jz!~' JVC& 7.~[-J71~;~
ENVIRONMENTAL
INFORMATION FORM
(Part i - Initial Study)
The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the prolSosed
project so that the City may review the project pursuant to Gity policies, ordinances, and
guidelines; the Galifornia Environmental Quality'Act; and the Gity's Rules and Procedures
to Implement CEQA. It is important that the information requested in this application be
provided in f~Jl,~l. ~
iNCQMpL_cTE APPLICATIONS t~LL NOT B~ PROCESSEO. Please note that ir is the responsibilityof the applicant to ensure
that the application is complete at ~e ~ime of sueinitial: City staff will not be available to perform work required to provide missing
informalion.
Application Number. for the pmiect to which ~is form pertains:
Project Title: TencaCive Trace Map No. 1602t
Name & Address ofpmiect owner~s): Din8 Wen Wang and L~ang Yue h Wang
401 F_sc,ndon Ave,
Rancho V~elo, TX 78575
Name & Address ofdeveloPerorPmiect sponscc RBF Associates ArCh: Mr. Jon Fre idman
2049 Oancury Park Ease See. 790
Los Angeles, CA 90067
RBF Associates' At:On: b~, Jon }'reidman
Contact Person & Addre~:
2049 Century Park Ease See. 790 ~
- .- Los An_p. Seles, CA 90067 " --
; 316'553-2&34
Telephone Numbe~
.. : .
Name & Address of per~on preparing this form (if different kern above): M~. Richard Teller
Albert A. Webb Associates ____
3788 Mc?q_~SCreeC -- --
Riverside_~J__~CA 92506 -----'
909-686-1070 --
Telephone Numbe~
INITSTD1 .WPD - 4/~6 .'
Information indicated by asterisk (') is not mqulmd of non-construction CUP's unlesz othen, v{se requesled by staff.
'1) Provide a full scale (8-1/2 x 11) copy of the US:GS (~uadrant Sheet(s] which includes the pro/err site. and indicate the
site boundaries.
2] Provide a set of color photographs which ~ho~t raprasenta~ve views into the site from the north. south, east and
views int~ and f~m the ~iIe from the p~ma~ access p~ints wh~ch sen~e the s~te: and reprasentative views ~f ~igni~cant ."
features ft~m fie site. Include a map showing location of each ~3hotograph. ..,
3] Projec;I. ocation(d~scdbe]: West of East Sireel: between Baseii~e Road ar~ Victoria ;'
Sf:reet in the City of Bancho Cucamon~a
4) Assessor'sPamelNumbeng(attachaddltionalsheetifnecessan/): 227-121-30 and 227-121-43
'5) Gross Site Area (adsq. ft.): 7.53 acres
'6) Nel Site Area (Iotal site aize minus area of pubtlc streets & proposed dedications]:
5.58 acres
7) Oescn'be any proposed genet~l plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (attach addilional sheet
if netessay':
N/A. The propsed use ls cons;tstent with the Low Density Residential destBnatton
under the l~ttwanda Specific Plan.
Include a desc~p~onof*a~perm~s wh~hv,411benecessa~[mm the ~ o/R~ncho Cucamonga and othergovemmental
agencies ~ orderto [ullyimplementth. epmject: ,.
Pro,j~ct implementation will require approval of this tentative map application,
future approvals for grading and building permits.
9] Describe the physical setting of the site as il exists before the project indudlng information on topography. so~? stab#?ity. plants
and animals. ~natum trees. t~fls and roads, drainage coumes. and scenic aspects. Desc~be any existing structures on site
(including age and condition) and the use d the stnJctums. Adach photographs of significant features described. In addition.
site all sources of information (i.e.. geological and/or hydralogic studies. bigtic and amheological surveys. traffic studies):
The p=olect site ts vacant la~, with a few scattered trees th~OuShout the
site. The site is essentiaZly level a~ does not exhibit any known
limitations relatec~ co so:~ls, plants, .anima]-~t, clraina~;e courses or scenic
'~ n e
aspects. There are no existin~ st=eels or drai aF; ~mprovements on the site.
/
1 o] Oescnbe Ihe known cultural and/or hlslorical aspeels of the site. Site all sources of information (books, published reports and
oral histoP/J:
There are no known cultural or historical aspects oJ~ this site (Et~wancta
Specific
1 I) Describe any noise sources and thelrlevels that nqw affect the site (aircraft. foodwe~ noise. e(c.) and how tbe~ will affect
pn~posed uses:
The site is impacteel by noise Erorn traffic o~ Baseli~e Avenue to ~:he south,
Interstate 15 to the east.
Describe ~e proposed project in detatT. This should provide an adequate desdption of lhe site in terms el ~l~mate use which
wilt result from the prosed project Ino?cate if them am proposed phases for developmen~ Ihe extent of devetopmen? to occur
with each phase. and the antedpared completion of each inc, mmenL A~tach ad~ilional sheet(s) if neces~an/:.
The propsoed project would create a subdivistdn of 16 lots for single-family
residential use. Lots uc~!d be sold for construction of custom homes.
13) ~e~ctibetheSun`~und~ngprope~t~e~.~ndud;ngin~ma~i~n~np~n~sandanim~s~nd~n~cu~uf~.hi~t~dca~.~scenica~pec:~.
Indicate the type of land use (residential. commercial, etc.). intensity of land use (one,.lamily. apartment houses. shops.
department Stems. e/c.) and scale of development (height. frontage. Setl)eck, mar yard. etc.):
P, sstdentlal uses exist to the east and north. E~s; Avenue forms the east
boundary~ and Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way forms the south
boundary of the site. :
1 ~'} Vt411 the proposed project change the pattern scale or cJ~arac~er el ~e sur~undlng general eroa of the projea?
No. The proposed project is consistent withthe residential character of
the surrounding area.
15] Indicale'{he I),pe d shotHarm and k~ng~erm noise to be genested. including soume and amounl. How will Ihese noise levels
affect ad/acen/ prope~ies and on-ella uses..14fnal me{hods o! sound proofing are proposed7
Noise will be ~eneraced fu~t~ site 17ad-!n~ consl:rucl::Lon of each indiviHual ·
~rd City ~equirements.
· 16) Indicate proposed mmovals and/or mplacemenls of meture or scenic trees: There are a fev mature
trees on site ~Ln varlous conditions oE healch, No~e are considered scenic.
All w~11 be removed in conluncCton viCh stce ~Tadtn~.
~ndicateanyb~d~es~fwater(inc~udingd~mesticwatersupp~~es]intewhichffiesitedrains: The sil:e drains
co the southvest and southease inca exisclng culverts and uncle= the Soul:hem
Pacific Roadroad rt~;hr-of-va~o
t B] Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachmenl A for usage estimates]. For futther Clan~cation, please conlacl
the Cucamonga County Water Oi=tfict at 987-259 I. '
a. Residential (gai/day] ~m 600 Peak use (gab'Day) 191200
~. CommerciaMnd. (gel/day/at) "' Peak use (gel/rain/at] "'
19) Indicate pmposed method of Sewage disposal. Septic Tank . Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed. attach
pemoiation tests. If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected da~y sewage geneslion: (See
Attachment A for umage estimates). For{ur~her da~cation. please contact ~he Cucamonga County Water Distn'ct at 987-2591.
a. Residential (gaYday) 4,320
b. Commemial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) ---
10 N'TIA PR T'
2p) Number of residential ~nits:
Detached (indicate range of pa~l s/zes, minimum lot ~ize and maximum lot size: :
MiD." 10,000 S.F.
l'~ax. -'15,000 S,F. - '
AttaChed (indicate whether units am rental or for sale units): H/A
2 I) Anliclpaied range of sale pt~ces ancYor rents: Unknown /
Sale Price(s) $. to *~ .,~
Rent (per reonth)
·
22) Specify nureber of bedrooms by unit lYPe: Unknovn
23] Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: |ln~'nn,.,'n
24) Indicate the expected number of school children who wdl be residing within the project: Contact the opprept~ate Schcol
Dist~cls as shown in Attachment B:
a. Elementary: 24 (0.4343 students per unit, Eciwanda Elementary School District)
b. JuniorHigh: 11 (0.1934 students per unit, Eciwanda Elementary School District)
c. SenlorHigh 11 ·(0.20 stuaencs per unit, Charley High School District)
~QMMERCtAL. INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS
25) Desct~e type ~f u~e(s) and maj~r ~uncti~n(s~ ~f c~reree~a~. indust~a~ ~r ins~tuti~nal uses:
26) Total floor area of corereerdal. industrial, or lnstitutional usos by type:
INITSTD1 .VVPO - 4/96' .-
27) Indicate houR of opemtlon:
28] NumberSf employeeS: Total:
Maximum Shift:
T~me of Maximum Shift:
29) Provide breakdown of anticipated job classifications. including wage and salaP/ r'Jnges, as we//as an indication of fie rate
of hire for eaci~ classification (attach additional sheet if necessary]:
30) Estimation of the number OI worke~ to be.hired that currently reside in the City:
'3 I) For commercial and industn'al uses only. ind;cale the soume. type and amount of air pollution emissions. (Oats should
verified t~rough the South Coost Air Quality Management Oism'ct. at (818) 572,6283):
ALL PROJECTS
32) Have ~e water. -~:ewer. ~re~ and ~d c~ntt~ agendes ~et`~g the pr~ect been ~ntac~ed t~ determine their abi~//y ~ pn~vide
adequate Service to the proposed project? 1[3o. please indicate their response.
A~;enc:tes have noc been coal:act. eel as yec.
,~3) ~n the kn~wn hist~n/ ~ this pmperb~. has ~here been an~ use° s~age. ~r discha~e ~f hazard~us ancy~t t~xic matetfa~s?
Examples of hazarclous and/or toxic materta~s include. but are not limited to PC8'~: radioactive sub,stances: peslidde$ and
herbiddes: fu~ls. 0~75, solvents. and other i1ammable Equids and gases. Also note undeqmund storage of any of the above,
Please list the m atertats and descdbe their use. storage, and/or dischanSe on the property. as weft as the dates of use. if
known.
· :,
34] Vv~ ~e p~p~sed projecl ~nv~ve ~he lemp~at7 ~r ~ng~len~ use. s~rage ~r di~chaqe ~f hazans~us and/~ t~ic
materlois. including but hal limited to those examples listed above? If yes. provide an inventon/ of all such matertals Io be
used and preposed method of disposal. The Iocsfion of such uses, along wfih the storage and shipment areas. shall bo
shown and labeled on the app~calion plans.
No.
I h,~rc, b)~ certify that the statements [umished above and in the attached exhibils present the data and information mqulred for
adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my abilily. that the facts. statemont.~', and information presonled am tnao and
co~ct tot he best of my knowledge and belie~ I further undentand that additional intonation may be required to be submitted
before on adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
'
,
..~
:
NiTSTD1 vvPo - 4/96: ~ ,.~ Page 8 ot
ATTACHMENT A
Water Usaqe
Average use per day
Residential
Single Family 600 gaYday
Apl/Condo ' 400 gaYday
Commercial/Industrial
General and Regional Commercial 3000 gaVdaylac
Neighborhood Commercial 1500 gal/daylac
General Industrial 1500 gal/daylac
Industrial Park 3000 gai/daylac
Peak Usage
For all u~es z
Average use x 2.0
Sewer Flows
Residential
Single Family 270 gal/day
Apt/Condos 200 gab'day
Commercial/industrial
General Commercial 2000 gai/daylac
Neighborhood Commercial 100-1500 gal/daylac
General Industrial 20QO gal/daylac
Heavy IndusD'ial 3000 gaVday/ac
Source: Cucamonga C~unty Water District Master Plan. 9~86
elf - 4/96 Page 9 of 10
:
ATTACHMENT
Contact the school district for your area for amount and payment of school fees:
Elementary School Districts
Alta Loma
9350 Base Line Road, Suite F
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 987-0766
Central
9457 Foothill Boulevard
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 989-8541 t
Cur.~monga
8776 Archibald Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
{,9.0.9) 987-8942
Etiwanda
5959 East Avenue
P.O. Box 248
Rancho Cuc~monga, CA 91739
(909) 899-2451
High School
Chaffey High School
211 West 5th Street
Ontario, CA 91762
(909) 988-8511
elf - 4/5.6
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: Tentative Tract No. 16021
2. Related Files: Tree Removal Permit 99-23, Tentative Tract No. 15912
3. Description of Project: A residential subdivision of 16 single-family lots on 7.53 acres of
land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific
Plan, located at the northwest comer of East Avenue and Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-
way - APN: 227-121-30 and 43.
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: John Friedman, RBF Associates
2049 Century Park East, Suite 790
Los Angeles, CA 90067
5. General Plan Designation: Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
6. Zoning: Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: To the north are single-family dwellings and vacant
land, to the south is a railroad right-of-way (tracks are presently "out of service"), to the east
is vacant land recently approved for a single-family residential tract, and to the west are
single-family residential dwellings and the historically-significant Hibbard Ranch.
8o 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:
Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner
(909) 477-2750
10. Other agencies whose approval is required:
none
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 16021 ' 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 (x) Biological Resources (X) Utilities and Service Systems
(X) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics
(x) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources;
( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation
( ) Mandaton/Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
( ) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
(X) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has 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 rec, '~red, but must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could nave 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
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signed: ~_'~ 'f'~/Lme~ bl~9
E ,;,. Wi
Assistant Planner
November 15, 1999
L
initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 16021 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:
d) The site wraps around three 'out parcels" on East Avenue, which are under separate
ownership outside of the project boundaries. These out parcels contain existing
single-family residences. The developer is proposing a street connection between
two of the out parcels within a 60-foot strip of land which is a part of the subject site.
The public street will be constructed to meet City standards. The project design
provides the three out parcels that front on East Avenue with access to the proposed
interior streets.
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)
initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 16021' Pa~le 4
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in
or expose people to potential i:7~pacts 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:
f) The project involves grading to develop residential pad sites and s~eets. The site
presently drains to the rail read right-of-way to the south. The topography of the site
will be altered to allow the lots to drain to the new public streets, where runoff will be
conveyed to approved drainage facilities. The design of the project site and
construction of the proposed grading and structures shall follow the
recommendations of the soils engineer and shall comply with the current building
standards and codes at the time of construction. The recommendations of the Final
Soils Engineering Investigation Report shall be incorporated into the project design
with pertinent information noted on the final Grading Plan which shall be reviewed
and approved by the Building Official 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)
initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 16021' Pa~le 5
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
water body?
e) Changes in currants, 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)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
Comments:
a) The project will increase runoff, and as mitigation, the developer shall
construct the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area 8 Interim Master Plan Basin No.5 as
justified by a final drainage report, approved by the City Engineer and as
follows:
(1) Acquire an easement for Interim Master Plan Basin dedicated to the City
prior to final map approval.
(2) Provide an ultimate design for the basin to serve the entire EtiwandaJSan
Seviane Area 8 developed tributary area north of Base Line Road.
(3) Install sufficient capacity to mitigate the increased runoff from this
development, with an outlet system capable of handling the ultimate basin
design (entire tributary area) with a minimum amount of modification as
incremental development occurs.
(4) An assessment district shall be formed for maintenance of the detention
basin or a maintenance agreement with refundable deposit shall be
executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney
guaranteeing private maintenance of the facility if the private maintenance
is sufficient and allowing the City to access those costs to the developer.
Said agreement shall be recorded to run with the property.
(5) Basin shall be completed and operational prior to the issuance of building
permits.
(6) The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover the
proportionate cost of land and ultimate basin related facilities (outlet, etc.)
from future development using the basin. If the developer fails to submit
said reimbursement agreement within six months of the public
improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer
reimbursement shall terminate.
I~itial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 16021 ' Pa~le 6
e) The site presently drains to the rail road right-of-way to the south. The topography
of the site will be altered to allow the lots to dra:n to the new public stre~;ts, where
runoff will be conveyed to approved drainage ~acilities. Surface runo[i currently
reaching the site from off-site areas will be conveyed to approved drainage facilities
which will be designed to handle the flows.
Potentially Unle~ Than
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 ( ( ) ( ) (x)
cause any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors? ~ ( ) ( ) (x)
potentially ~
ISSUGS end Suppoding irdomyation S~umes: .~l M~gatlon S~l~t, am nl~
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Wou/d 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 pad; .~ - capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
e) Hazards or bar, ,~.~s for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) (x) ( ) ( )
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
g) Raif cr air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
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 build-out
conditions. The proposed density is less than the density range for the property.
j'nitial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 16021 Pa~le 7
The conditions of approval shall include installation of frontage street improvements
in their ultimate configuration, per City ordinance, and to pay Transportation
Development Fees.
b) The circulation design features conform with our Street Design, Driveway, and
Intersection Line-of-Sight policies.
e) The project involves creating residential lots which will generate additional pedestrian
and bicycle trips, including trips to the nearby Etiwanda Intermediate School and
Etiwanda High School on Victoria Avenue. The project design includes sidewalks
and Class II bike lanes along the East Avenue frontage; however, there will be a
narrow, unimproved gap on East Street between the project frontage and Victoria
Avenue. In order to provide for the safety of pedestrians traveling between the
project and the nearby school, the developer shall install a temporary asphalt
sidewalk from the northern boundary of the project to Victoria Avenue to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
L~sues and Suppoffing Information1 Soume: Sle~ctcant M~tiga~on 91gifttent
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Wo~ld 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)
Comments;
b) There are 114 trees on or near the subject site. In general, the trees form
5 windrows located on the north, west, and east boundary lines. An arborist's report
(Thomas Olsen Associates, July 9, 1999) indicates that 43 Eucalyptus trees, I blue
elderberry bush, and 1 walnut tree are physically on the subject site. The windrows
to the west and in the nodheast corner are outside of the project boundaries, and
should not be damaged by this development. The arborist's report recommends
removal and replacement of the on-site windrows due to fire damage, infestation and
poor health. The report states that none of the Eucalyptus trees within the project
site boundaries offer significant aesthetic, wind-control, or habitat value. The
windrows are not designated as existing windbreaks to be preserved in Figure 5-13
of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The Etiwanda Specific Plan allows windrow removal
subject to replacement along the established grid pattern. As a condition of
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 16021 Pa~le 8
approval, replacement windrows of 15-gallon Eucalyptus maculata (Spotted
Gum) planted 8-foot on center shall be requ iTe.~to mitiga.,te_the loss of the
mature windrows to be removed. '-~ ~ · -~ O
8. ENERGY ANI:) MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? ( ( ) (x)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( ( ) (x)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? ( ( ) (x)
9. H~ARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesOicicles, 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 sourues of
potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, gross, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
Comments:
b) Streets exceeding 600 feet in length without seconda~ access must be
mitigated by providing spinklers in residences or other alternative approved
by Fire Marshall.
(nitial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 16021 Pa~]e 9
10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
b) Exposure of people to severn noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
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 fo~owing areas:
a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
c) Schools? ( ) (x) ( ) ( )
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ( ) ( ) (x)
e) Other governmental services? ( ( ) ( ) (x)
Comments:
c) The Etiwanda and Chaffey High School Districts submitted correspondence
indicating existing schools that would serve this project are already at or above
capacity. The project will be subject to school mitigation in accordance with the new
State law (S.B. 50), enacted November 1998. Essentially, the school districts are
reevaluating the fee structure upon issuance of building permits for mitigation in-lieu
of the previously required Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for construction
and maintenance of necessary school facilities.
Impact I,e~s
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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( ) ( ) (x)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) (x)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 16r..: Panic 1 q
e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) (x) ( )
f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( )
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( )
CommsntsE
e) The project wiii not result in substantial alterations to the master plan of
drainage by proposing to alter the location of intedm basins which are required
the Regional Mainline facilities are installed by the San Bemardino Coun~ Flood
Control District. The drainage approach shall be justified in the prelimina~ drainage
repo~ and a final drainage study will be required prior to map recordation.
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 glare? ( ) ( ( ) (x)
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
b) Disturb archaeologica! resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
c) Affect historical or c;.,!;.,-'!'~l resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
d) Have the potential to cause a physi~l change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 16021 ' Pa~le 11
Significant
Issues and Supl)orting Infomlatio~l Sourt:es; Sl~fia~tant S~cant I
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)
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)
,Ini~al Studyfor C~ of ~c~
Tenure T~ 1~ :_ _, __ ,_,~ Page 12
E~UER IYS_,
~ier ~ ~ be ~ whoa. pu~ m ~ ~d~, p:~ BR. ~ ~r CE~ p~,
one or morn eff~ have ~ ~ua~iy a~ in an ~; - 'r BR or Ne~ D~m~on per
S~ffan 1~(c)(3)(D). The eff~ ~e~i~ a~e br~ p~ ~e ~n me ~ at and
ad~ ~ in ~e f~b~ ~er d~m~Ks)
su~ e~ ~m ~d~ by mi~g~on m~ur~ b~ on ~ e~ier ~1~. ~e fol~ng
~er ~ e ~ in mple~9 ~ In~l ~W ~d am l~i~ for ~ew in ~e Ci~
~ ~n~ O~onga, Planrang D~ office, ?~ C~ ~tr D~ (~ ~ mat ~):
(x) Ge~ P~n EIR(~fi~ Apnq 5, 19~ )
(x) ir ~mnm~ ~ss~dor me 19~ Gene~ Ran U~
(SCH ~0115. ce~ J~ua~4. 1989)
(x) ~ ~c ~n EIR
(SCH ~061 ~1 ~t~ Ju~ 6 19~)
~ ~) N~ D~m~on for Ten~ T~ 15912
: (Ce~ ~ber 1~, 1998)
~PLIC~ C~RCA~N
~ ~ Inhial ~ ~ ~e pr~ mid~on me~ur~- ~, I ~ve r~sed me
pmjm pl~s or ~ ~or hem~ ag~ m ~e pm~ ~on me~u~ ffi a~ me
e~ or mi~gm me eff~ ~ a ~nt whom de~y
[""
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 Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: Tentative Tract 16021 Public Review Period Closes: December 8, 1999
Project Name: Project Applicant: John Friedman. RBF Associates
Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the northwest corner of East Avenue and the
Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way -APN: 227-121-30 and 43.
Project Description: A residential subdivision of 16 single family lots on 7.53 acres of land in the Low
Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Related File: Tree
Removal Permit 99-23.
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.
December 8, 1999
Date of Determination Adopted By
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 16021, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 16 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS
ON 7.53 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4
DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN,
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF EAST AVENUE AND THE
SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-121-30 AND 43.
A. Recitals.
1. RBF Associates has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map 16021,
as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract
Map request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 8th day of December 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headrig on the applicetion and concluded said headng
on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on December 8, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, together
with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at the northwest comer of East Avenue
and the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, with a street frontage of 580 feet, a lot depth of 650
feet, and which is presently undeveloped; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is single-family residential and vacant
land, the property to the south consists of the railroad right-of-way, the property to the east is
single-family residential, and the properly to the west contains single-family residential and
undeveloped land; and
c. The application contemplates a residential subdivision of 16 single-family lots on
7.53 acres of land within the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda
Specific Plan; and
d. The General Plan and the Etiwanda Specific Plan designate a public Community
Trail off-site within the railroad easement to the south; and
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. The tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and
Etiwanda Specific Plan; and
b. The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General
Plan, Development Code, and Etiwanda Specific Plan; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 16021 - RBF ASSOCIATES
December 8, 1999
Page 2
c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and
d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and
e. The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and
f. The design of the tentative tract will not conflict wih any easement acquired by the
public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed
subdivision.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment
for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative
Declaration based upon the findings as follows:
a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines
promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared
therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this
Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative
Declaration with regard to the application.
b. That based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into
the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 d the Califomia Code of
Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the
proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat
upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon 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 Col'emission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth
below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Planning Division
1 ) To avoid damaging the root system of the Eucalyptus windrow located 4 to 5 feet
outside the project along the west property line, no block walls or continuous
footings shall be constructed. Developer shall construct wrought iron fence or
other post and rail fence to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
2) The project shall construct the East Avenue theme wall as the tract boundary wall
on East Avenue (stone pilasters with stucco walls and river rock planters) per
Figure 5-28A of the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
3) Tree Removal Permit 99-23 is approved, subject to replacement planting as
required in the Environmental Mitigation Measures below.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 16021 - RBF ASSOCIATES
December 8, 1999
Page 3
2) The project shall construct the East Avenue theme wall as the tract
boundary wall on East Avenue (stone pilasters with stucco walls and
river rock planters) per Figure 5-28A of the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
3) Tree Removal Permit 99-23 is approved, subject to replacement
planting as required in the Environmental Mitigation Measures below.
4) Construct decorative perimeter block wall, including where adjoining
"not a part" parcels, but excluding west tract boundary.
En.qineering Division
4-) The full width of the existing portion of East Avenue shall be removed
and reconstructed to Secondary Arterial standards simultaneous with
widening along the project frontage and both "not-a-part" parcels south
of "A" Drive. Widening shall extend across the Southero Pacific
Railroad right-of-way. Provide pavement transitions sufficient to
accommodate left turn striping into the proposed tract. East Avenue
shall be fully improved, including but not limited to pavement, curb,
gutter, sidewalk, street lights, street trees, Class II bike trail, and R26
"No Parking" signs. The ":.ctc. F,-"-rt" p"rcs!s shc~ hcvc t~n .,0 '.;:v;, AC
2) The developer shall make a good faith effort to negotiate with the
owners of APN:s 227-121-42, 227-121-29 and 227-121-24 an exchange
of right-of-way dedication for full parkway improvements including
pavement. sidewalk, curb and gutter, street trees and street lights. If
the owners are not willing to participate, the frontages shall be
completed with AC berm at the edge of pavement with necessary
transitions.
3) The developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the property
owner of APN 227-121-42 to complete the following:
a) Install street trees and parkway landscaping with a pdvate irrigation
connection. If the private owner is not willing to participate, the
parkways will be designed with a 5-foot wide properly line adjacent
sidewalk and a cobbled parkway from the back of curb to the
sidewalk along "B" Court and "A" Drive to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
b) Acquire the full comer right-of-way to allow for the construction of
a standard handicap ramp and return area. If the owner is not
willing to participate, the return at the northeast comer of "B" Court
and "A" Drive shall be constructed with the full height curb.
Concrete shall complete the return area between the property line
and the curb.
4) The developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the property
owner of APN 227-121-24 to complete the frontage improvements
along the south frontage of "A" Drive in the following order of
preference:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 16021 - RBF ASSOCIATES
December 8, 1999
Page 4
a) A retaining wall shall be constructed on pdvate property with an
acceptable wall/fence on top. The parlGNay shall be graded at the
standard 2 percent and have a property line adjacent sidewalk
constructed to City standards. Street trees and parkway
landscaping with pdvate irrigation shall be installed.
b) If the owner is not willing to consent to the frontage improvements,
the developer shall install a minimum height retaining wall (12
inches to 24 inches) at the back of the right-of-way with a
maximum 3:1 slope between the wall and a 6-foot wide curb
adjacent sidewalk. The slope shall be rockscaped.
5) Construction of improvements within East Avenue shall take into
consideration the Route 30 Freeway construction and Etiwanda High
School traffic and maintain two-way traffic on East Avenue at all times.
6) Parkway improvements along East Avenue shall be consistent with
Figure 5-28A of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Tract perimeter walls shall
be located at the top of slope, just outside the landscape easement on
private property. Portions of the river rock planter wall or the perimeter
wall may be used for retaining, if needed.
7) Transportation Development Fees shall be paid pdor to final map
approval in anticipation of a City project to install traffic signal at the
intersection of East Avenue and Victoria Street.
-system4er=E~_~f-A,~-~c.
8) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the
existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical except for
the 66 kV electrical) on the opposite side of East Avenue shall be paid
to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. The fee shall be
one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length from the center
of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way to the north project
boundary. excepting the frontage of the not-a-part parcels.
9) Landscape Maintenance District plans shall incorporate cost efficient,
low maintenance designs, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The
maximum slope within publicly maintained landscape areas shall be
3:1. Where slopes occur, a 1-foot flat area behind the sidewalk shall
be provided. Slopes higher than 6 feet shall have a 2-foot bench at the
top of slope, measured from the wall.
10) The developer shall construct Etiwanda/San Sevaine Intedm Master
Basin No. 5 as justified by a final drainage report approved by the City
Engineer, and as follows:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 16021 - RBF ASSOCIATES
December 8, 1999
Page 5
a) Acquire an easement for Intedm Master Plan Basin dedicated to
the City pdor to final map approval.
b) Provide an ultimate design for the basin to serve the entire
Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area 8 developed tributary area north of
Baseline.
c) Provide for maintenance vehicle access in the basin design.
d) Install sufficient capacity to mitigate the increased runoff from this
development, with an outlet system capable of handling the
ultimate basin design (entire tdbutary area) with a minimum
amount of modification as incremental development occurs.
e) An assessment district shall be formed for maintenance of the
detention basin or a maintenance agreement with a refundable
deposit shall be executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
and the City Attomey guaranteeing pdvate maintenance of the
facility, but providing the City with the right of access to maintain
the facility if private maintenance is insufficient and allowing the
City to assess those costs to the developer. Said agreement shall
be recorded to run with the property.
f) Basin shall be completed and operational pdor to the issuance of
building permits.
g) The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover
the proportionate cost of land and ultimate basin related facilities
(outlet, etc.) from future development using the basin. If the
developer fails to submit said reimbursement agreement six
months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all
rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate.
11) The developer shall construct necessary local facilities with
the ca acity to contain flows from areas tributary to the site
from ~ture development and the Master Planned Storm
Drain Facilities in East Avenue from the north tract
boundary to the interim basin to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. The developer shall receive credit for the cost of
permanent master plan facilities up to the amount of the
future fee collection in accordance with City policy. If the
developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement
within six months of the public improvements being
accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to
reimbursement shall terminate.
12) The develo er shall design the ultimate storm drain
connection t~om "A" Drive to East to Q~00
Avenue include
sump catch basins on both sides of the street.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TF 16021 - RBF ASSOCIATES
December 8, 1999
Page 6
13) The proposed catch basin at the northwest comer of "A"
Drive and "B" Court shall be designed to keep the
intersection dry and free of nuisance water. The
intersection shall be redesigned to eliminate the cross
gutter.
Environmental Mitigation Measures
1) Construct a 6-foot wide paved shoulder on the west side of East
Avenue from this development to Victoda Street and across ,the-
= ::': ,":c;fic R;:'. "--~ -:-~' ^' ......not-a-part parcels within
existing rights-of-way.
2) Fire sprinklers for residential dwellings are required in lieu of secondary
access. Notwithstanding, if an adjoining property subsequently
provides secondary access to the project, the developer may submit a
wdtten request to the Fire District for a waiver of this condition.
3) The developer shall replace windrow trees with Eucalyptus maculata
trees of 15-gallon size, planted 8 foot on center.
4) Trenspodation Development Fees shall be paid pdor to final map
approval in anticipation of a City project to install a traffic signal at the
intersection of East Avenue and Victoda Street.
5) Construct Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area 8 Master Plan Storm Drain
facilities in East Avenue from the north tract boundary to, and including,
the relocated intedm basin in Tentative Tract 15912, to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer. The developer shall receive credit for the cost of
permanent master plan facilities up to the amount of the related
drainage fees in effect at the time reimbursement is requested and
shall be reimbursed for excess costs from future fee collection in
accordance with City policy. If the developer fails to submit for said
reimbursement agreement within six months of the public
improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to
reimbursement shall terminate.
6) Construct EtiwandaJSan Sevaine Intedm Master Basin No. 5 as follows,
justified by a final drainage report approved by the City Engineer:
a) Provide an ultimate design for the basin to serve the entire
Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area 8 developed tributary area nodh of
Base Line Road.
b) Provide for maintenance vehicle access in the basin design.
c) Install sufficient capacity to mitigate the increased runoff from this
development, with an outlet system capable of handling the
ultimate basin design (entire tributary area) with a minimum
amount of modification as incremental development occurs.
d) An assessment distdct shall be formed for maintenance of the
detention basin or a maintenance agreement with a refundable
deposit shall be executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
and the City Attorney guaranteeing private maintenance of the
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
']']' 16021 - RBF ASSOCIATES
December 8, 1999
Page 3
4) Construct decorative perimeter block wall, including where adjoining "not a part"
parcels, but excluding west tract boundary.
Engineering Division
1) The full width of the existing portion of East Avenue shall be removed and
reconstructed to Secondary Artedal standards simultaneous with widen I along
the project frontage and both "not-a-part" parcels south of "A" Dd
shall extend across the Southern Pacific Railroad dgh~-of-way.
transitions sufficient to accommodate left tum stdping into the tract. East
Avenue shall be fully improved, including but not limited to gutter,
sidewalk, street lights, street trees, Class I Parking" signs.
The "not-a-part" parcels shall have an 8-inch AC berm/c cted across the
frontage if additional right-of-way is not obtained.
2) The developer shall make a good faith effort to the owners of APN's
227-121-42, 227-121-29 and 227-121-24 of right-of-way dedication
for full parkway improvements including sidewalk, curb and gutter,
street trees and street lights. If the owners not willing to participate, the
frontages shall be completed with AC be~ the edge of pavement with
necessary transitions. /
3) The developer shall make a good > work with the property owner of
APN 227-121-24 to complete
(a) Install street trees and landscaping with a private irrigation
connection.
(b) If the private owner is not participate, the parkways will be designed
with a 5-foot wide .., adjacent sidewalk and a cobbled parkway from
the back of curb to ;idewalk along "B" Court and "A" Drive to the
satisfaction of the ;neer.
(c) Acquire iht-of-way to allow for the construction of a standard
handicap ramp ~ area. If the owner is not willing to participate, the
return at the ast comer of "B" Court and "A" Drive shall be constructed
with the full Concrete shall complete the return area between the
property lin the curb.
4) The develo make a good faith effort to work with the property oyster of
to complete the frontage improvements a ong the south frSntage
APN 227-1 I
of "A" Dr n the following order of preference:
a) wall shall be constructed on private property with an acceptable
on top. The parkway shall be graded at the standard 2 perce~t
I have a property line adjacent sidewalk constructed to City standards;",
trees and parkway landscaping with private irrigation shall be insta
If the owner is not willing to consent to the frontage improvements, the'
developer shall install a minimum height retaining wall (12 inches to 24
inches) at the back of the right--of-way with a maximum 3:1 slope between the
wall and a 6-foot wide curb adjacent sidewalk. The slope shall be
rockscaped.
5) Construction of improvements within East Avenue shall take into consideration the
Route 30 Freeway construction and Etiwanda High School traffic and maintain
two-way traffic on East Avenue at all times.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
'El' 16021 - RBF ASSOCIATES
December 8, 1999
Pags 4
/
6) Parkway improvements .;,ang East Avenue shall be Figure 5-28A
of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Tract perimeter wall,, be located at the top of
slope, just outside the landscape easement on Portions of the
river rock planter wall or the perimeter wall for retaining, if needed.
7) Transportation Development Fees shall prior to final map approval in
anticipation of a City project to install signal at the intersection of East
Avenue and Victoda Street.
8) The south parkway of "A" Drive sh ned utilizing street trees and dver
rock in the parkway and shall to the irrigation system for East
Avenue.
9) Shift "B" Drive as far east as to minimize excess right-of-way fronting the
adjacent "not a part" parce! area between Parcel 227-121-42 and the
standard street be dedicated on the map as a right-of-way. The
resulting excess pieted with cobbles to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
10) An in-lieu fee as to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead
utilities and electrical except for the 66 kV electrical) on the
opposite side of Avenue shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of
building fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the
lengl Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way to the north
project boun ry.
11) /laintenance Distdct plans shall incorporate cost efficient, low
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The maximum slope
within ~licly maintained landscape areas shall be 3:1. Where slopes occur, a
.foot area behind the sidewalk shall be provided. Slopes higher than 6 feet
.',~all a 2-foot bench at the top of slope, measured from the wall.
12) ruct Etiwanda/San Savaine Interim Master Basin No. 5 as follows,~justified
final drainage report approved by the City Engineer, and as follow~
a) Acquire an easement for Intedm Master Plan Basin dedicated to the~ity prior
to final map approval.
(b) Provide an ultimate design for the basin to serve the entire Etiwanda/San
Sevaine Area 8 developed tributary area north of Baseline.
(c) Provide for maintenance vehicle access in the basin desi~h. '
(d) Install sufficient capacity to mitigate the increased runoff fron~jhis
development, with an outlet system capable of handling the ultimate 15~isin
design (entire tributary area) with a minimum amount of modificat~ as
incremental development occurs.
(e) An assessment distdct shall be formed for maintenance of the ~etention basin
or a maintenance agreement with a refundable deposit shall be 'e~ecuted to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attomey guarantee~ pdvate
maintenance of the facility, but providing the City with the right of access to
maintain the facility if private maintenance is insufficient and allowing the City
to assess those costs to the developer. Said agreement shall be recorded to
run with the property.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
"IF 16021 - RBF ASSOCIATES
December 6, 1999
Page 5
(f) Basin shall completed and operational prior to the issuance of building
permits.
The dev oper may request a reimbursement agreement to recover the
(g) propon' nate cost of la.nd and ultim. ate basin related facili!ies (outlet,.etc.) fro.m
t hi
accei3ted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement s a l
ter, r'ninate.
13) The/~outh parkway of "A" Drive shall be designed utilizing street trees and river
roc, l{ in the parkway and shall be connected to the irrigation system for East
Avenue.
Environmental ation Measures
1) 6-foot wide paved shoulder on the west side of East Avenue from this
develop~ !nt to Victoda Street and across the southern Pacific Rail Road right-of-way, within
ihts-of-way
2) Fire inklers for residential dwellings are required in lieu of secondary access.
standing, if an adjoining property subsequently provides secondary access to the
the developer may submit a written request to the Fire District for a waiver of this
3) faveloper shall replace windrow trees with Eucalyptus maculata trees of 15-gallon size,
8 foot on center.
4) Development Fees shall be paid prior to final map approval in anticipation of
City project to install a traffic signal at the intersection of East Avenue and Victoria Street.
5; 3onstruct Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area 8 Master Plan Storm Drain facilities in East Avenue
from the north tract boundary to, and including, the relocated intedm basin in Tentative Tract
15912, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The developer shall receive credit for the cost
of permanent master plan facilities up to the amount of the related drainage fees in effect at
the time reimbursement is requested and shall be reimbursed for excess costs from future fee
collection in accordance with City policy. If the developer fails to submit for said
reimbursement agreement within six months of the public improvements being accepted by
the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate.
6) Construct Etiwanda/San Sevaine Interim Master Basin No. 5 as follows, justified by a final
drainage report approved by the City Engineer:
(a) Provide an ultimate design for the basin to serve the entire Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area
8 developed tributary area north of Base Line Road.
(b) Provide for maintenance vehicle access in the basin design.
(c) Install sufficient capacity to mitigate the increased runoff from this development, with an
outlet system capable of handling the ultimate basin design (entire tributary area) with
a minimum amount of modification as incremental development occurs.
(d) An assessment district shall be formed for maintenance of the detention basin or a
maintenance agreement with a refundable deposit shall be executed to the satisfaction
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 16021 - RBF ASSOCIATES
December 6, 1999
Page 6
of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing private maintenance of the
facility, but providing the City with the right of access to maintain the facility if private
maintenance is insufficient and allowing the City to assess those costs to the developer.
Said agreement shall be recorded to run with the property.
(e) Basin shall be completed and operational prior to the issuance of building permits.
(0 The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover the proportionate
cost of the land and ultimate basin related facilities (outlet, etc.) from future development
using the basin. If the developer fails to submit said reimbursement agreement within
six months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the
developer to reimbursement shall terminate.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 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 8th day o
December 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: i~,~,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: :~ .~'
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM
Project File No.: Tentative Tract 16021- RFB Associates
This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation
measures identified in the (Mitigated Negative Declaration) for the above-listed project. This
program has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation
measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code).
Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements:
1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and
the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval
are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project.
2. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This
procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom
and when compliance will be reported.
3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring
progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon
recommendations by those responsible for the program.
Program Management - The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project
planner, assigned by the City Planner, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project
planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly
and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the
conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department.
Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
1. A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in
performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant.
2. An MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its
corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached
hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when,
and to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting
documentation will be kept in the project file with the department having the original authority
for processing the project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following
address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga - Lead Agency
(Planning Division)
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staff's 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.
Mitigation Monitoring Program
TT - 16021 - FRIEDMAN
December 8, 1999
Page 2
4. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the
completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each
measure is vedfied 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 c: :he MMP is not occurring after
wdtten notification has been issued. The project planner or, ,~sponsible City department also
has the authority to hold ce.~tificates 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 identity 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.
MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III)
Project File No.: TT 16021 Applicant: Jon Friedman
Initial Study Prepared by: Rebecca Van Buren/Emily Wimer Date: December 8, 1999
Construct an interim water detention basin to be CE B Final map C 1
located in TI' 15912. The detention basin shall be recordation
completed prior to occupancy.
Construct Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area 8 Master CE Prior to
B A 2
Storm Drain facilities in East Avenue from the construction
north tract boundary to and including the relocated permits
interim basin in Tract 15912.
TransportatiOn/Circulation i:' :",'~::!"' :~"" !::~::!~,:'....".-~i!.':::"',.::~!:i: ;:~I.; ' .:;~ ,. ,: ":~;~::.i: ,-. ~:'::!!1 , ~ ~ :!.
Install temporary asphalt sidewalk from the CE B Prior to A 1
northern boundary of the project to Victoria construction
Avenue for pedestrian safety. permits C 1
- Transportation Development Fees shall be paid in CE D Prior to
anticipation of a City project to install a traffic construction
signal at the intersection of East Avenue and permits
Victoria Street.
Replacement windrows of 15-gallon Eucalyptus CP D Ongoing A 1
maculata planted 8-foot on center shall be
required to mitigate the loss of the mature
windrows to be removed.
F~r, ~! :>:~i!:?!.:!:: :;~:i~;,:i~'i!~!::.!-,::'.::~... !.~:!i:;:~!i:-!!i!:.'i'i :?.:::::: :!i.:.:!:',.;~.~: :~!::~!!:~:.:: ::::?:.!;:~!i~?i." :~:~' ~-:!~i.-i:;; ~-:. !i:~:~::.:!~:i:;:.:i! :;:?i!'...:~':"': ~' '~:
Install fire sprinklers in lieu of secondary access. FC B Prior to C 2
construction
permits
Key to Checklist Abbreviations
Responsible Person. ~'. ,: ..; +.' ,.' . ,Monitoring Frequency :,' ;, · · ~, ' -, Method of Verification '- ': .~, -~, -.- · Sar~ctlnns. :: ~. ~.~ ~, ~;~r!
CDD - Community Development Director A - With Each New Development A - On-site Inspection 1 · Wit,%ho, ld Recordation of Final Map
CP - City Planner or designee B - Pdor To Construction B - Other Agency Permit / Approval 2 - W!tZ :,:: !~ Grading or Building Permit
CE - City Engineer or designee C - Throughout Construction C * Plan Check 3 - W ith;i;!~ Certif cate~of Occul:~a. ncy
BO - Building Offidal or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submittal (Reports / Studies / Plans) 4 - Stop Work Order ;ri
PO - Police Captain or destgnee E - Operating 5 - Retain Deposit or BOnds
FC - Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: TENTATIVE TRACT 16021
SUBJECT: FRIEDMAN TRACT
APPLICANT: JON FRIEDMAN
LOCATION: NWC EAST AVENUE & S.P.R.R./NORTH OF BASELINE ROAD
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 Planners letter of approval, and all
Standard Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and
construction plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check.
B. Time Limits
1. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning
Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the City Engineer within 3 years from
the date of approval.
C. Site Development
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which
include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign
1
program, and grading. on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein
Development Code regulafions and the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
2. Pdor to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all
Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
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 pdor 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. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the
adopted Street Naming Policy pdor to approval of the final map.
6. The Covenants. Conditions. and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the
Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineedng
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or
prior to the issuance of building Dermits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be
provided to the City Engineer. T'he Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning
Division a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January I of each and
every year and whenever said information changes.
7. 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 secudty fencing.
8. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project pedmeter. if a double
wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the
adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all
contiguous property owner at least 30 days pdor to the removal of any existing walls/fences
along the project's perimeter.
9. On comer side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk.
10. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be
manufactured products.
D. Landscaping
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and ,"~odel home landscaping in the
case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed I~,,. .,ape architect and submitted
for City Planner review and approval pdor to the issuance of bu~;'-.' .~ 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, irdgated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion
control Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be
insz.{~ s:;J by the developer prior to occupancy.
3. A!: ~-, ~'ate slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope
sha;! be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to sof,'en their appearance as follows: one
15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-cjallon or larger size shrub per each
100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in
vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250
sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope
plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be
installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
4..For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously
maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and
occupied by the buyer. Pdor to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted
by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition.
5. The final design of the pedmeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the
required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated
for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering
Division.
6. Special landscape features is required along East Avenue
7. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineedng Division.
8. Landscaping and irdgation shall be designed to conserve water through the pdnciples of Xedscape as
defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
E. Environmental
1. Mitigation measures am required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of
implementing said measures, including monitodng 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, 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.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
F. 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
CompleUon Date
waste diagram,. sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating
and air conditioning; and
g. Planning Division Project Number (Le, 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
report. Architect's/Engineers stamp and '~vet" signature are required pdor 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 pdor to permit issuance.
G. Site Development
1. Pdor to issuance 0~'building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to
existing unit(s), the app',cant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees
may include, but ai'e .,3t limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee,
TransFortation 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.
2. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation
and prior to issuance of building permits.
H. Grading
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Buildir~g Code, City
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved grading plan.
2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to
perform such work.
3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits.
4. ff developed as a custom-lot subdivision, the following requirements shall be met:
a. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all
on-site drainage facilities necessary for dewatedng all parcels to the satisfaction of
the Bu!lding and Safety Division prior to final map approval and pdor to the issuance
of grading permits.
b. Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage water that are conducted onto or
over adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the
Building and Safety Division pdor to issuance of grading and building permits.
c. On-site drainage improvements, r:..cessary for dewatering and protecting the
subdivided prope~,ies, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for
construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving,
or within a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested.
d. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety __/
Completton Date
Division for approval prior to issuance of building and grading permits. (This may be
on an incremental or composite basis).
e. All slope banks in excess of 5 feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native /
grasses or planted with ground cover for erosion control upon completion of grading
or some other alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the
satisfaction ofthe Building Official. In addition a permanent irrigation system shall be
provided, This requirement does not release the applicantJdeveloper from
compliance with the slope planting requirements of Section 17.08,040 I of the
Development Code.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
I. Dedication and Vehicular Access
1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets,
community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal
encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or
tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cress-lot drainage, local feeder
trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map.
2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured
from street centerline):
44 feet total feet on East Avenue __ __/__
3. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. __ __/__
4, Vehicular access dghts shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for '/ /__
approved openings: East Avenue
5. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on / /
the final map.
J. Street Improvements
1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, __1__1__
landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City
Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter,
AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees.
2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: / /__
tCurb & A,C. Side- Drive
Lights . Trees Trail island Trail
Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr.
East Avenue X X X X X
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.
Project No. TF 16021
C0mplatl0n Date
3. 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 sha~i be prepared by a registered
Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved ~,,, the City Engineer. Security
shall be posted and an agreement executed to the sahs~action of the City Engineer
and the City Attorney guarenteeing completion of the public and/or pdvate street
improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first.
b, Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineers Office in addition to
any other permits required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing. street name signing, traffic signal conduit,
and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or
reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future
traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the
street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City
Engineer.
Notes:
(~,)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of
200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized
steel with pull rape 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
adequate detours dudrig construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. ;~
cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall
refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cress 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 hay9 lines of sight plotted as required,
K. 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: East Avenue, "A" Drive south side only with the private north side
designed to match.
2. Public landscape areas are required to incorporate substantial areas (40%) of mortared /
cobble or other acceptable non-irrigated surfaces.
3. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of
building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
4. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the
developer until accepted by the City.
L, 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 developers responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone D designation
removed from the project area. The developer's engineer shall prepare all necessary reports,
plans, and hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR)
shall be obtained from FEMA prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prior to
occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first.
3. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final __1___
map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage
facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
4. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe I __
measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk.
5. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage /
in a sump catch basin on the public street.
M, Utilities
1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, __/ /
gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. / /
3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the __/__/__
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and
the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bemardino. A letter of
compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits,
whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days
prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the
case of all other residential projects.
N. General Requiremere; and Approvals
1. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan /.__/
Drainage Fees shall be paid prior to final map approval or pdor to building permit issuance if
no map is involved.
2. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their dght.-of-way / /
Metropolitan Transportation Authority. '
3. A non-refundable deposit sh~:-~ 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.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-
2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDfflON$:
O. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. The .__/__/
developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced,
participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facffities 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: 1000 gallons per minute, Per '97 UFC Appendix Ill-A, 3, ' / /
('increase).
A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer andswitnessed by fire __1__1
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 cnnstruction and pdor to occupancy.
3. Fire hydrants are ,,.::uirad. All reqL~red public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, /__./
flushed, and operabrae prior to delivery of any combusti~,:~ building ma';:edals on site (i.e.,
lumber. roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shaft be witnessed by fire department
personnel.
4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided pdor to water plan approval. Required /
hydrants, if any, will be determined bv the Fire DistricL Fire District standards require a 6-
inch riser with a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-i-' · outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgreded to
meet this standard. Contact the Fire . :lety Division for specifications on approved brands
and model numbers.
5. Pdor to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be /
submitted to the Fire D!..q:r~ct 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 all hydrants and installed prior to /
final inspection. ' --
sc-.m
8
7. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire Distdct's fire lane standards, as noted:
All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 32.
· 8.. Fire department access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apparatus.
9. Emergency secondary access shall be provided in accordance with Fire District standards.
10. Fire Distdct fee(s), plus a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District as follows:
X $132 for Single Family Residential Tract (per phase).
**Note: Separate plan check fees for Tenant Improvement work, fire protection systems
(sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon
submittal of plans.
11. Plans shall be submitted and approved pdor to construction in accordance with 1997 UBC,
UFC, UPC, UMC, and RCFD Standards 32 and 15 and 1996 NEC.
THE c,~v o~
~ANF_~HO CUCAIqONGA
DATE: December 8, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission'
FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer
BY: Betty A. Miller, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
-- 14872 - HUITT-ZOLLARS - A subdivision of 20.8 acres of land into 12
parcels, 11 in the General Industrial Development District (Subarea 3) of
the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and one in the Low Median Residential
Development District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the south
side of Eighth Street between Cucamonga Creek Channel and Hellman
Avenue - APN: 209-151-27, 209-151-37 and 209-161-24. Staff has
prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for
consideration
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested: Approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map as shown on
Exhibit "B".
B. Parcel Size: I 1.9 AC 7 0.8 AC
2 1.0 AC 8 1.0 AC
3 1.0 AC 9 1.0 AC
4 1.1AC 10 0.9AC
5 1.0 AC 11 1.9 AC
6 1.0 AC 12 4.0 AC
TOTAL 16.6 AC Net
C. Existing Zoning:
General Industrial, Subarea 3, Industrial Area Specific Plan, and Low Medium
Residential south of Seventh Street.
ITEH E
,PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14862 - HUITT-ZOLLARS
December 8, 1999
Page 2
D. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North - Metrolink tracks
South - Cucamonga Creek Channel
East GTE storage yard, vacant and multi-family residential south of 7th Street.
West - Cucamonga Creek Channel
E. Surrounding General Plan and Developments Code Designations:
North - Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 2, General Industrial
South - Cucamonga Creek Channel, City of Ontario
East - Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 3, General Industrial and Low
Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre)
West - Cucamonga Creek Channel, Cr,V of Ontario
F. Site Characteristics:
Site is vacant and slopes to the south at 1% %. South half of Seventh Street and
storm drain connection to Cucamonga Creek Channel exists between parcels 9 and
10. Eighth Street is paved, but lack: curb and gutter, along the north project
boundary.
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of this parcel map is to create 11 induc~:ial parcels for individual sale and
development while retaining the residential parcel ori the south side of Seventh Street
,~djacent to an existing gated community. The applicant is required to improve Eighth
Street full width and complete the improvements to Seventh Street. Rough grading plan
approval is also required prior to map recordation. A detailed master plan will be
requiR:,~:~ with the first Development/Design Review application.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The applicant completed Part I of the Initial Study. Staff conducted a field investigation
and completed Part II of the Initial Study. No adverse impa~s upon the environment
are anticipated as a result of this map. Therefore, issuance of a Negative Declaration is
appropriate.
CORRESPONDENCE:
Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in
the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Posting at the site has also been completed.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14862 - HUITT-ZOLLARS
December 8, 1999
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of
Tentative Parcel Map 14872. Staff recommends approval through adoption of the
attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Respectfully submitted,
Dan James
Senior Civil Engineer
DJ:BAM:sd
Attachments: Vicinity Map (Exhibit "A")
Tentative Map (Exhibit "B")
Development Master Plan (Exhibit "C")
Initial Study Part II
Resolution and Recommended Conditions of Approval
NORTH
1" = I000'
CiTY OF : _~en aive P~ce' a
ENG~!EE~G DIVISION EXHIBIT: "~"~
NORTH
P' = 4oo'
CITY OF ITEM: Tentative Parcel Map 14872
RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: Tentative Map
ENGINEERING DIylSION ~ ~' EXHIBIT: "B"
ENVIRONMENTAL
INFORMATION FORM
,,. N V Banyan Realty
1. .~ =rid zddress of developer or project =~mqor: Investments, _..Group
2 VentU~ Irvine. CA. 92718 714-450-8600
2. A~icL-ess of project: NOrth ~ide nf 7th street westerly of Hellman Ave.. R.C.
Asee.~_~or's Block -rid L~t Nuttuber: Blk 8 Lot 27 (A.P.209-151-27)
3. N~me, address, znd telephone :un~er of pe~ ~ be coatzcted concerning
this p~oject: WilliamSOn & Schmid/Huitt-Znllars RnhPrt S,ndstrnm 714-259-7900
4. Indicate nLuuber of the permit &ppXlcstion for the project to ~lch this
form pertaJ.-~:
5. List zad describe zn), other tel=ted permits =rid other pubtic zpprr~l~
rt~qtLtred for this project, lacludine~ those requl~ed by city, re(lonzt.
stzte ~d federzl ~e~cies: N/A
6. Existing zoning district:
7. Pro~c=~ed use of site (Project for which this form is flted): An industrial
complex consistin9 of 12 parcels.
· Project De~crtpttoa
8. Site size. 20.8-+ acres
9. Squ~re (oo~e.
10. ,~h~ber oZ ~l~ors of ~=t~. Unknown
tl. ~t of of~-~t ~q p~d~.Unknown
12. At~ ply. N/A
13. ~ ~b~uli~. Immediate (mapping)
14. ~at~ p~j~t. None
15. ~tici~t~ lnc~tzl d~elo)nt.N/A
or role p~tc~ or ~ts, ~d t) o~
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG
[7, [.~ ~rwwercSzl, indicate ~.,~e t:.~e, '~et~er ~e~r~, cLty or regLon~L~y
orientS, ~re ~t~e o~ ~Les =~, ~d ~1~ t~c~tt~, Unknown
t8. It lnd~trt~l, ladiczte t~, ~t~t~ · +~o~nt ~r shl:~, ~d togd~n
fxcillti~,Unkn0wn
!9. I: instltutto~l, iDdi~te the ~Jor t~(:cioD, esti~t~ ~plo~eGt
~ ~ertv~ fi~ the pmJ~t. Unknown
20. It the project iDvoives ~ v~riuce, ~ditio~l ~ or
tion, rote this ud ~adic~te clart~ ~y the ~pplLc~ti~ is ~.None
Are the tollo~ lt~.~li~bXe ~ ~e pmj~t or its et~ts? Di~l
21. ~ge in exlstt~ t~t~ of ~y ~ys, tideluds, ~h~ XL
22. ~ge in ~lc vte~ or vis~ ~) extsttq ~ld~tizl XX
arm or ~bL~c 1~ or ~s.
~ge in ~ttem, ~le or cM~ter of g~enl ~
p~J~t,
the vicinity.
lt. Su~tially i~ f~il fuel ~Htt~ (el~trtcit~ XX
o1 l, ~t~l ~, etc. ).
32. ~lacionship ~ a lqer p~J~t or ~ri~ ot p~J~ts. X~
33. ~escrtbe the project site a,t tt exists before th( project,
:atton on topography, soLl stability, pL'ntS ~nd a~i~ls, ~nd ~ny cu'.-..
htstortczt or sCenLc zspectS, DescrLbe zny exLstkn2 struct~Pe_s ,r. -.-.
Please see attached photos.
" s!1:e, 3=~cI '.~e '~se o.~ ::e s:r'~c:';res. ~'-:~c.~ ~o:~r~p~,s ~ :r.e
ot t~d ~e (~identi~l, ~-~Fue~c~l, etc.). lnteostty o~ [~nd '~se (one-
~mily, ~p~rtme~t houses. shops, dep~rt~ent scor~, etc.), ~ ~te o~
~evelo~ent (beirUt, troot~e, set-b~ck. ~e~c y~cd. etc.).
photographs of t~e vi:in~ty. Snzps~ots or ~z~oid p~otos w~ll ~e
~ccep:~.
Certlftc~tl~
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and
the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this
initial evaluation to the best of my aoility, and that the facts, statements,
and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to
be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Planning
Division.
Date: /O-'Z-~-c?~ Signature ' '
~.' Title
34. Surrounding properties are generally vacant industrially zoned
properties. The site and the general area gently slopes from the
northeast to the southwest and drains into the adjoining Cucamonga
channel. There are no known cultural, historical, or scenic aspescts
to the project site. The project site will be developed with light
industrial concurrent with zoning standards for the property.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: Tentative Parcel Map 14872
2. Related Files: N~ne
3. Description of Project: Twelve lot parcel map, eleven industrial lots and one multifamily
residential parcel
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Cucamo~',ga Investments N.V.
18752 F~::;~en Drive
Tarzana. CA 91356
5. General Plan Designation: Subarea 3, Industrial Area Specific Plan - 20 acres
Low Medium (4-8 dwelling units per acre) - 1 acre
6. Zoning: General Industrial - 20 acres
LM Development District - 1 acre
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Metrolink tracks to the north. flood control channel
to the west. GTE facility and vacant land to the east. partially completed condominium
project to the south
8. ,,.cad Agency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Engineering Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730
9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Betty Miller, (909) 477-2740 ext 2312
10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Metropolitan Water District
~lnitial Study for " "City of Rancho Cucamonga
TPM 14872 Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
( ) Land Use and Planning (x) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Sentices
( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems
( ) Geologicel Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics
(x) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources
( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation
( ) Mandato~/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 eadier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
February 4, 1998
.Initial Study for ' City of Rancho Cucamonga
TPM 14872 Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15C~:~ of the Califomia Environmental Quality ,i :t 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) DisrLp: or divide the physical arrangement of an
estabiished community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
2. POPULATIOt'~ ,-,i'~1D 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)
~ ~- City of Rancho Cucamonga
.initial Study for -
TPM 14872 Page 4,
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would ~e proposal re~ul~ in
or expose people to potential imp~c~ involving:
~) F~ul~ mp~ure? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) -
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
~ Erosion; ~h'~nges 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. ~ll the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pa~erns,
or the rate and amount of su~ace water runoff? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
b) Exposure of people or prope~y to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Discharge into su~ace water or other alteration
of su~ace water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Changes in the amount of su~ace water in any
water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
~ Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavatiqns, 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)
4'nitial Study for ' City of Rancho Cucamonga
TPM 14872 Page 5
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater othe~ise available for public water
supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comment~-
a) Daw~epment of a cu~ently w~nt site will alter the absorption rate because of the
paviRg and hard s~ proposed. All ranoff will be conveyed to appmved drainage
facilities which have been designed to handle the flows.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contdbute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pofiutants? ( ) ( ) ( ) (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)
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)
~l'nitial Study for ~ ('-City of Rancho Cucamonga
TPM 14872 Page 6
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
altemative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments'
a) Development of a vacant site will increase vehicle tdps, but will not exceed the
projected traffic for the street classifications in the General Plan, which are based
on the currently permitted land use. The project will be required to install frontage
street improvements in their ultimate configuration, per City ordinance, and to pay
Transportation Development fees.
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, dparian and vernal
poo )? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
;fnitial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
TPM 14872 Page 7
- s
...: ,. .
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with ~ammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
-.fnitial-Study for ~' "City of Rancho Cucamonga
TPM 14872 Page 8,
si~',c.~
1t, PUBLIC SERVIdES. Would the pmposal have an ....
~ dec effect upon or result in a need for new or aflered
' ' government se~ices in any of the following areas: .
a) Fire prote~ion? a. F ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) :. PIc ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Other governmental se~ices? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
I
S~
t 2. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations to the fo~owing utilities:
a) Power and 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)
q Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
'13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
{' ~' City of Rancho Cucamonga
-Initial Study for '
TPM 14872 Page 9
t4, CULTURAL RESOURCES, Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Disturb archaeological reseurces? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Affect historical or cuRura~ ,,.:sources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Restdct existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
t 5, RECREATION, Would the proposal.'
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( )
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
~lnitial Study for {' "City of Rancho Cucamonga
TPM 14872 Page 10
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have
the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild]ire
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. definiti.ve 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)
-lnitial Study for ~
"City of Rancho Cuc;monga
TPM 14872 '_'-' Page 11
EARLIER ANALYSES
Eadier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiedng, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The
following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review
in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all
that apply):
(X) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981)
(X) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
(X) Industrial Area Spe~i'~'~517~n EIR (Certified September 19, 1981)
( ) Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 18, EIR
(SCH #93102055. certified June 15, 1994)
( ) Victoria Planned Community EIR (Certified May 20, 1981)
( ) Terra Vista Planned Community EIR
(SCH #81082808, certified February 16, 1983)
( ) Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR
(SCH #87021615, certified September 16, 1987)
( ) Etiwanda Specific Plan EIR
(SCH #82061801, certified July 6, 1983)
( ) Etiwanda North Specific Plan EIR
(SCH #89012314, certified April 1, 1992)
( ) Other:.
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I
have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the
project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would
occur.
Print Name and Title: '~-~n" M.
.,,h ,C:itY of Rancho Cucamonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in ac~df~ance with the
Califomia Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public R~urces Code.
Project File No.: Tentative Parcel Map 14872 Public Review period Closes: 12/8199
Project Name: Project Applicant: Huitt-Zollars
Project Location (also see attached map): South side of Eighth Street between Cucamonga Creek Channel
and Hellman Avenue.
Project Description: A subdivision of 20.8 acres of land into 12 parcels, 11 in the General Industrial
Development District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and one in the Low Medium Residential
District (4-8 dwelling units per acre).
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an
Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is
proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
~ The initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment.
n The Initial Study identified potentially significant effect 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 n 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,
February 4r 1998
Date of Determination Adopted By
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 14872, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF EIGHTH STREET WEST OF HELLMAN AVENUE, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209-151-27. 209-151-37 AND
209-161-24
WHEREAS, Tentative Pamel Map Number 14872, submitted by Huitt-Zollars, applicant,
for the purpose of subdividing into 12 parcels, the real property situated in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, County of San Bemardino, State of California, identified as APNs 209-151-27, 209-151-
37 AND 209-161-24, located on the south side of Eighth Street west of Hellman Avenue; and
WHEREAS, on December 8, 1999, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised
public headrig for the above-described map.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made:
1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan.
2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
General Plan.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development.
4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause
substantial environmental damage or public health problems or have
adverse effects on abutting properties.
SECTION 2: Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative
Declaration, together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for
the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon
the findings as follows:
1. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with
the Califomia Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the
State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder;, that said 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.
2. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been
incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse
environmental effects will occur.
3. 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14872
December 8, 1999
Page 2
Negative Declaration for the project, there h; '; evidence that the
proposed project will have potential for an adve~!; impact upon wildlife
resources or the habitat upon which wildlife der::nds. Further, based
upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the
staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning
Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission
hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section
753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
SECTION 3: TentatiVe Parcel Map Number 14872 is hereby approved subject to the
attached Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions:
Special Conditions - -
1. Construct ~; ,,.~hth Street as follows:
a. Rem-,ve and reconstruct to current City standards, full width
across the project frontage, including street lights, street trees, and
landscaping (minimal maintenance) but no sidewalk on the norf''
side. The standard south parkway treatment shall include strc-
trees and properly line adjacent sidewalk.
b. North curb line shall align with the north curb of the existing
Cucamonga Creek bridge with additional widening to
accommodate the 44-foot width, and ultimate centerline alignment,
occurring on the south side.
c. Street improvement plans shall include the ultimate alignment for
Eighth Street from Hellman Avenue to the Cucamonga Creek
bridge. East ofthe project boundary the centedine should parallel
the Metrolink tracks, 80 feet to the south. Reverse curves
connecting the two end points shall have a minimum radius of
feet.
d. Install pavement transitions east of the project frontage to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
2. The existing overhead utilities (telecemmunications and electrical) on
the north side of Eighth Street shall be undergrounded along the entire
project frontage extending to the first pole off site (east and west), prk, r
to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whic;,-jver occur',5
first.
3. Complete Seventh S~eet improvements full width, including parkway
improvements, front;n.q parcels 9, 10 and 11. Existing c',,rb adjace;.'
sidewalk on the south side shall be extended to the :~:nuckle,
transition to property I~ne adjacent on the north side tc :~-,atch interi,:
streets. Install pavement transitions east of the project ~ntage to tl'~.
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
4. Parkways shall slope at 2 percent from the top of curb to 1 foot behind
the sidewalk along all street frontages.
~LANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14872
December 8, 1999
Page 3
5. All streets to be posted "No Parking". '
6o Provide a legal description for the Metropolitan Water Distdct (MWD)
easement for approval by the City Engineer and MWD. Include all
existing and proposed monumentation calculations, and closures.
7. Provide 16-foot wide':ddve approaches on both sides of "A" Street for::~c~
access to the MWD easement.
8. Extend the local storm drain system as far on site as needed to contain
Q25 within tops of curbs (Q50 at sumps), Q100 within fights-of-way and
provide a 10-foot dry lane in Q10. If possible, storm drain laterals shall
not cross the MWD pipeline.
9. MWD shall approve all plans which impact their easement, including
streets, storm drains, utilities, on*site landscaping, and the detailed
master plan. A note shall be included on all pertinent plans requiring
the MWD Operations Maintenance Branch to be notified two working
days pdor to starting any work in the vicinity of their easement.
10. A rough grading plan for the entire subdivision, excluding Parcel 10
south of Seventh Street, shall be approved by the Building Official prior
to final parcel map approval. Incorporate the following Grading
Committee recommendations regarding the conceptual grading plan:
a. Either obtain permission to grade off site from property owners to
the east, so the property line will be at the top of a 2:1 slope (sec.
F-F), or provide a retaining wall along the east property line. Said
wall shall not cross the MWD fight of way, wherein a maximum
slope of 10 percent is allowed (15 percent if paved), per Section
G-G.
b. Regarding section C-C, the developer shall either obtain permission
from the Flood Control Distdct to drain the 2:1 slopes to District
fights-of-way or provide facilities to ensure that all lots drain to the
public streets. Said fadlities can be either retaining walls along the
west property line or toe gutters which discharge to streets.
Provide pdvate cross lot drainage easements on the final map as
needed. Walls shall not cross the MWD right of way, wherein a
maximum slope of 10 percent is allowed (15 percent if paved).
c. Wherever retaining walls are installed, perimeter screen walls will
also be required for public safety.
11. Provide pedestrian access through the flood control channel fencing at
the intersection of Seventh and "A" Streets, to the satisfaction of the
Fire Chief.
12. Upon submittal of a Design/Development Review application for any of
the buildings, a detailed master plan including design guidelines shall
also be submitted for review by the Planning Commission. Said master
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14872
December 8. 1999
Page 4
plan shall not show panking, trees, walls or other obstructions within the
MWD easement.
13. Provide a minimum 10-foot wide landscape stdp along the west project
perimeter to buffer future development from existing homes to the west.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF "I'F{E. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry McNiel, Chairrn'_ ,
A'R'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 8th day of December, 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONEi:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.
Those items checked are Conditions of Annroval.
A. Dedications and Vehicular Access
_V 1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, conununity trails,
public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, waffle si~al 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 Wails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map.
..~ 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way for the perimeter streets (measured from street
centerline):
33 total feet on
total feet on
total feet on
total feet on
3. An irrevocable offer of dedication for roadway purposes shall be made for the private streets.
V'/ 4. Comer property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards.
_/ 5. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets. except for approved
openings:
/c, 4774
V/ 6. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by C C & R's or by deeds and
shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the final parcel map.
V/ 7. Reciprocal parking agreements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance
of all common roads, drives, or parking areas shall be provided by C C & R's or deeds and shall be
recorded prior to or concurrent with the final parcel map.
V/ 8. AH existing easements lying within future right-of-way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the final
.parcel map per the City Engineer's requirements.
9. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall be
dedicated to the City.
V/ 10. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the
final parcel map.
11. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum of 7 feet
measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn lane, a parallel
street tree easement shall be provided.
12. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests necessary
to construct the required public improvements and, if he/she should fail to do so, the developer shall at
least 120 days prior to submittal of the final parcel map for approval, enter into an a~'eement to complete
the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at sm:h time as the City acquires the
property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for paysneat by the
deve~~~er~fa~~c~stsincurredbytheCityt~acqu~rethe~~-site~r~~ertyinterestsrequiredin ~..~e:tinn
·. with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shah be in the form of a cash dr ,, .-! the
amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall
have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. This condition applies in
particular, but not limited, to:
B. Street [morovement,~
~/' I. All public improvements, (interior streets, drainaoe facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas,
etc. ) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street
improvements shah include, but are ndt limited to, curb and guRer, AC pavement, drive approaches,
sidewalks, street lights, and street trees.
'~ A minimum, of 26-foot wide pavement within a 40- foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be cons~ucted
for all half-sectlon streets.
3. Construct the following missing perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
Street Name Curb AC Side- Drive ~..~.e~¢I Sffeet Cornre. Median Bike Other
& Pvmt walk Appr. ~ ,7i L~ Trees Trail Island Trail
Gutter
J
Notes: (a) Median Island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will bc
deteamined during plan check. (c) If so mazkcd, sidewalk will bc curvilinear per STD. #114. (d) If so mmrkcd, an in-lieu
ofconstrucdan fee shall be provided for this item.
2
4. Improvement Plans and Consmiction: ' '
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 approvcd by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to '
the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteelag completion of the public and/or
private street hnprovements, prior to final parcel map approval.
b. Prior to any work being performed in the public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction
permit shall bc obtained from the City Engineer's office in addition to any other pennies required.
c. Pavement sl:'ipinc, marking t~ffic si~,nin~, street name s gning, ITaffic signal conduit, and interconnect
conduit shah 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 interconnec~'i~ng.
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. S along streets. a m~.ximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise
specified by the City Engineer. ('2) Conduit shall bc .~-inch (at intersections), or 2-inch (along sueeta) galvanized steel
with pullrope or ~s specified.
e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all comers of intersections per City Standards or as
directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours
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 submiual for first plan check.
5, Street improvement plans per City Standards for all private streets shall be provided for review and
approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being performed on the private streets, fees shall be paid and
construction permits shall be obtained from the City Engineer's office in addition to any other pennies r~quired.
6. Street trees, a minimum of IS - gallon size or larger shall be installed per City Standards in accordance
with the City's street tree program.
7. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for Confurmance with adopted
policy. On collector or larger street, 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.
8. A Permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any work within the following right-of-way:
__ 9. All public improvements on the following streets shall be operationally complete prior to the issuance of
building permits.
C. Public Maintenance Areas
1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Wor~ Standards shall be submiRed
to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final parcel map approval. The following landscaped
park'ways, medians, paseos, easements, lnlils, or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance
District:
No~--Tht ,Sl b~ O~ ~']GhtTH
2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts
shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final parcel map approval. Formation costs shall be borne by the
,~eveloper.
V/ 3. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer
until accepted by the City.
__ 4. Park'way landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beauti~cation
Master Plan:
D. Drainnee and Flood Control
I. The project (or portions thereof) is located v,'ithin a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood protection
measures shall be provided as certified 5- a registered Civil Engineer and approvcd by the City Engineer.
__ 2. It shall be the dcveloper's responsibility to have the cutTent FIP~M Zone designation removed from
the project ares. The developer's engineer shall prepare all necessary. reports, plans, and hydrologic/hydraulic
calculations, Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA, prior to
final parcel ma~ approval. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy
or improvement acceptance. whichever occurs first.
V/ 3. A final drainage ~ludy shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final parcel
map approval. All dra:'. ,~.- facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
4. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property
from adjacent areas.
5. A permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within it's right-of-
way.
d 6. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from
the outer edge of a mature tree trunk.
.. 7. Public storm drain easements shah be graded to convey overflows in the event of blockage in a sump catch
basin on a public street.
4
E. Improvement Comnletion
/
._L/ 1. If the required public improvements are not completed prior to approval of the final parcel map, an
. . improvement security accompanied by an agreement executed by the Developer and the City will be required
for.
2. If the required public improvements arc not completed prior to approval of the final parcel map, an
improvement certificate shall be placed upon the final parcel map, stating that they will bc completed upon
development for:
F. Utilities
I. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric
power, telephone and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shah
be provided as required.
2. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and conslructed to meet requirements of the Cucamonga County
Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health
Deparanent of the County of San Bemardino. A lener ofcompllance from CCWD is required prior to final
parcel map approval.
3. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved, Approval of
the final parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them.
4. The developer shah be responsible for the re[ocadon of existing utilities as necessary.
G. General Reuuirements and Annrovals
1. The tentative map approval is valid for the 24 month period following the approval date. Time extensions
may be granted by the Planning Commission, if requested prior to the expiration date.
2. Final grading plans for each parcel shall be as required by the Building and Safety Division prior to
issuance of grading permits.
V'/ 3. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (C C &: K's) approved by the City Attorney is
required prior to approval of the final parcel map.
V/ 4. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to final parcel map approva] for:
5. Prior to approval of the final parcel map a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost
of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District , among the newly created parcels.
V/ 6. A non-refondable deposit shall he paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs ~or all new
street lights for the tirst 6 months of operation, prior to final parcel map approval.
5
7. Prior to rmalLzation of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed beyond
the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map.
__ 8. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan Drainage Fees shall
be paid prior to final p~cel map approval:
V/ 9. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way.
__ I0. A si~.qedconsent and waiver form to join and/or form the Law Enforcement Co~m'finity Facilities District '
shall be flied with the City Enginee~ Fdor to final parcel map approval. Formation costs shall be borne by the
developer.
,/ -
~ 11. Prior to recordation of the final parcel map, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the
establishment ofa Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance ofneeessary
school facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities
District, the applicant shall, in the.alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of
such existing district prior to the recordation of the final parcel map. Further, if the affected school district has
not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within Byelye months from the date of approval of
the project and prior to the recordatinn ofth.e final'parcel map for said project, this condition r:';all be deemed
null and void.
This condition shall be waived if the City, receives notice that the applicant and all affected school districts have
entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts as a result of this project.
V'/ 12. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District
shall apply to this project.
13. Pursuant to provisions of California Resources Code Section 21089(b), this application shall not be
operative, vested or final, nor will building permits be issued or a map recorded, until (I) the Notice of
Determination (NOD) regarding the associated environmental action in filed and posted with Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors of the County of San Bemardino; and (2) any and all required handling charges, are paid to the
County Clerk of the County of San Bemardino. The applicant shall provide the Engineering Deparanent with
a stamped and copy of the NOD together with a receipt showing that all fees have been paid.
In the event this application is de::rmined exempt from such filing fees pursuant to the provision of
the California Code, or the guidelines promulgated thereunder, except for payment of any required handling
charge for filing a Certificate of Fee Exemption, '&~s condition shall be deemed null and void.
Rev. 10/14/96 6 _
.l
THE CITY OF ___ I
· I~ANCIlO CBCAMONCA
SmffRepo
DATE: December 8, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
~: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Debra Meier, AICP, Contract Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT 15477 - MATREYEK TRUST - A request for an extension of.
previously approved residential subdivision for condominium purposes and design
review for the development of 153 detached condominium units on 20.15 acres of
land in the Medium and Medium-High Residential Districts (8-14 and14-24 dwelling
units per acre, respectively), located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and
Milliken Avenue - APN: 0227-691-01. Related File: Variance 94-05. Staff has
prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
TIME EXTENSION FOR VARIANCE 94-05 - MATREYEK TRUST - A request for
extension of a previously approved variance to reduce the required minimum building
separation from 15 feet to 8 feet and to increase the distance for the closest visitor
parking space from a dwelling unit from a maximum of 150 feet to 240 feet for a
proposed 153-unit detached condominium project on 20.15 acres of land in the
Medium and Medium-High Residential Districts (8-14 and14-24 dwelling units per
acre, respectively), located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken
Avenue - APN: 0227-691-01. Related File: Vesting Tentative Tract 15477.
BACKGROUND: Vesting Tentative Tract 15477 was approved by the Planning Commission on
November 9, 1994. Since that time, the State granted automatic time extension for several years
during the recession. This extended the expiration of the subject Vesting Tentative Tract to
November 9, 1997. Subsequently, staff approved an extension for the Vesting Tentative Tract and
Variance for 1-year; and the Planning Commission approved an extension of time in
December 1998. The City's regulations for time extensions were amended in January 1999.
ANALYSIS:
A. Subdivision Map: The City's Subdivision Ordinance (RCMC 16.16.070) provides that the
Planning Commission may grant time extensions in 12-month increments for up to 5 years
(a maximum of 8 years from the original approval). The 3 years of time
extensions automatically granted by the State are in addition to the time extensions which
may be granted by the City; therefore, the maximum life of this project would be up to
11 years from the original approval (final expiration on November 9, 2005). Staff has
analyzed the proposed time extension and compared the proposal with current development
Item F & G
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
V'I'F 15477 - MATREYEK TRUST
December 8, 1999
Page 2
criteria outlined in the Development Code. Based upon this review, Vesting Tentative Tract
15477 meets the development standards for the Medium and Medium-High Residential
Districts. Staff recommends granting a 12-month time extension to November 9, 2000.
B. Development/Desiqn Review and Variance: The original approval for the Matreyek Trust
project also included design review for construction of condominium units on the lots and
variances to reduce building separation and increase the minimum distance required for the
closest visitor parking space. The time extension of design reviews and variances is
regulated by the City's Development Code. The Development Code was amended by
Ordinance No. 596 to grant a 5 year approval period with no possible time extensions. The
3 years of time extensions automatically granted by the State are in addition to the time
extensions which may be granted by the City. Therefore, the maximum approval period,
including State extensions, would be eight years from the original approval. The final
expiration of the design review and variances could be November 9, 2002. Staff
recommends granting a time extension to November 9, 2000.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Part I of the Initial Study has been prepared by the
applicant. Staff has completed Part II, the Environmental Checklist, and found that
conditions in the area have not changed appreciably since the Vesting Tentative Tract
received approval on November 9, 1994.
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 properly
owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant a one-year
time extension for the subdivision map and design review for Vesting Tentative Tract
15477 and Variance 94-05 through adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval and
issuance of a Negative Declaration.
City Planner
BB:DM:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant
Exhibit "B" - Time Extension Letters dated June 18, 1996, and
September 15, 1997
Exhibit "C" - Tentative Tract Map
Exhibit "D" - Site Plan
Exhibit "E" - Elevations and Floor Plans
Exhibit "F" - Variance Letter
Exhibit "G" - Initial Study
Resolution of Approval - Vesting Tentative Tract Time Extension
Resolution of Approval - Design Review Time Extension
Resolution of Approval - Variance Time Extension
Post Office,Box 1515 Donald G. Haslain Tammy S. Jager
Ontario, California 91762 Rot~rt F. Schaucr Katrina West ° Of Counsd
Telephone (9(}9)983-9393 Edx, ard A. Hopsone J. Michael Kaler
FAX(909) 391-676Z Jctte R. Anderson Eric S. Vail
COVINOTOI I WE
RECEIVED
September 2, 1999
City ofRancho Cucamonga SEP 0 7
Community Development Department
10500 Civic Center Drive City of Rancho CucamonC
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Paanning Division
Attention: Brad Buller, Planning Director
Re: Matreyek Trust property (Arborcrest)
20.15 acres NEC Baseline Road and Milliken Avenue
Extension of Tentative Tract 15477
Dear Mr. Butler:
The 20.15 acres at the nortl;east comer of Baseline Road and Milliken Avenue, owned by
the Matreyek Trust, is the subject of vesting Tentative Tract 15477, approvals for which currently
expire on November 9, 1999. As you know, this property was in escrow during a substantial portion
of 1998 and early 1999 with Kaufinan & Broad. That escrow terminated approximately three
months ago.
The Matreyek Trust is currently ex. ploring sale of the property to develop with the existing
tentative map or updating the tentative map by reapplylng to the Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission. In either event, insufficient time rcmains before the current map expires rot either
activity.
I believe that this tentative tract map may be extended for one final time. As Trustee of the
Matreyek Trust, I wo'ald respectfully request that an addi. tion~] extension of one yezr be given for
the current Tentative Tract 15477 to enable the Trust to make productive use of this property For
which both the Matreyek Trust and the City ofRanS:hb Cucamonga can benefit and point with pride.
Should you have any questions on the foregoing or on the enclosures, please contact me at
your convenience.
Very truly you ,
EAH:glc w
Enclosures Cov~n ton & Crowe
co: Leslie Bergelin
E_/P/-//B// '
(
T H E C I T Y 0 F
DANCHO CUCAHONGA
June 18, 1996
Mr. Tom Matreyek
Matreyek Homes
655 N. Mountain Avenue
Upla. nd, CA 91786
SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15477
Dear Applicant:
In response to the severe impact of the recession on developers, the Legislature recently amended
the Subdivision Map Act by Assembly Bill 711 (Aguiar). This bill extends by 12 months the
expiration date of any tentative subdivision and parcel map that had not expired on or before Mat,/
14, 1996. This extension is in addition to any other extension as provided for in the Map Act.
Therefore, the new expiration date for your project is as follows:
File # New Expiration Date:
']'T 15477 November 9, 1997
AB 771 also extends any Conditional Use Permit or Development/Design Review application
granted in conjunction with your tentative subdivision map. The extensions granted by AB 771 are
automatic; no application for extension or fee is necessary.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office at (909) 477-2750.
Sincerely,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City Planner
BB:DC:mlg
cc: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer
-
Moy~t WiDicm J. Al~xon~er ~_)' Councilmem~3er Paul Bicne
!x Gutierrez ~r~-r r'~"-'~ Councilmember James V. CurotcIo
y Maneget ' ' " Councilmem~e: Dicn6 Willlares
· , ' , . 2 · (:;CO)
C ~
~";T H ~ C I T Y""' 0 F
- ~
R A N C H 0 -C U C A M O N G A
September 15, 1997 1~ '~
Mr. Edward A. Hopson
Covington & Crowe, LLP
P.O. Box 1515
Ontario, CA 91762
SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE T~CT 15477
Dear Mr. Hopson:
The Planning staff has analyzed the Tentative Tract Map time extension request and determined as follows:
Findinqs
1. The previously approved Tentative Tract Map is in substantial compliance with the Cily's current
General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies.
2. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map will not cause significanl inconsistencies with the current
General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies.
3. The extension of the Tentreave Tract Map is nol likely to cause public and safety problems.
4. The extension is within time limits prescribed by State law and local ordinance.
Based upon the findings and staff review set fo~h in the paragraphs above, the Planning staff hereby grants
a time extension for:
Tract Applicant Ne~ration Date
~ 15477 Matreyek November 9, 1998
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call the project planner, Steve Hayes, at (909)
477-2750.
Sincerely,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
City Planner
;C,5,:0 Civic CgnT=_t ,Drive-' · P,O. ~ox ~7
.... ~,~ ~--- ~ ~
..... A V~Sr/~ MAP FOR
, . ~ . ~ ~ ~ :.- ,~
" "' ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ .... ~ ~ u
" .... "" ' ' :=:=':~ ....
~ ,, '~'" " ' ' ~E~ I
· -;=;;~=~- TENTATIVE TRACT 15477
~ =.~'~-.~_,,
......... "l' "
,.?-,! p ~ - .. .
i,~' ~ ,.~>"'
. ,~ I . .'
~, ~ TECHNICAL
~ --.,,~ '~ TENTAnVE TRACT 15477 ~;% 3
......... ~":~ ......
' '~ TENTATIVE TRACT 15477
........ ~r ~ ~x~ c~ CLUSTERS
RIGHT EL~VAT]ON REAR ELEVATION
SPANISH COLONIAL STYLE
PLAN 2B
_eyek Homes
LEFT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION
'~, ~i~.~=' -.' -~~
FRENCH COU~RY STYLE
PLAN 3A
gyek tlomes ~ ~ ............................ ~-I -:? ..................
der-developer ~ ~
~ ',"ICJC_JL~I ' .
R IGIIT ELEVATION Fle, ONT ELEVATION ~leeeeal e
SPANISH COLONIAL STYLE
· PLAN 3B
~-~~,~~.~:."~,-~ .....................
:_e)Lek llmnes u
47'-0'
Matreyek Homes
builder deVelope
~LA.N;:ING DIVISION
I~UG 16 1994 ell
August 16~ 1994
H~, S~eve ~ayes
Planning Department
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
VARIANCE REQUEST
ARBORCREST
TENTATIVE TRACT 15477
Dear Steve:
In conjunction with the processing of our tentative tract map,
we hereby request a variance from the building to building
separations ~ideyards) from 15 feet to a minimum of 8 feet.
The 15 foot 'separation is applicable to large multi-unit
buildings to separate the building masses. Our project
proposes single family detached residences, predominately one
story unitz with small sideyards replicating a zero sideyard
product. Many of our si~eyard areas exceed the eight foot
minimum re~uested.
For more specific details, please refer to our Typical Building
Clusters Plan (Sheet 4 of our submittal package).
Should you have any questions, please call.
Vice President
enc.
TWM: lb
z/Zlz rT
855 ~O~ ~OU.~rrAB~ AV~[. ~OS~ O[[~C[ 8OX ~4~0. ~tA~O. CAL~WOS~A 9~785 (909) ~8~-~74~
ENVIRONMENTAL
INFORMATION FORM
(Part I Initial Study)
The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic componen~ of the proposed
project so that the CiW may review ~e project pumuant to City polkios, ordinances, and
guidelines; ~e California Environmen~l Quall~ Act; and the Ci~'s Rules and Procedur~
Io Implement CEQA. It is impo~n~ that lhe information requested in this app[icatlon be
provided in full.
#NCOMPL E rE APPL ICA TIONS WlL t, NO T BE PROCFSS~r~ Pfoalo noffi Ihat it l$ tilo msPonld~ility Of the al3Diicant to ensuro
ivan'e&AdclmssolptojectownetyS) Eelward A. Hopson~ Trustee o~ the Blll Albln Matreyek and
J~arv El'Izabeth Surne¥ Matreyek Trust Unde~ Declaration o~ Trust dated June 9, 1986,
1131 W. Sixth Streett Suite 300~ Ontario~ CA 91762
Cun:ac~ ~ef,'on ~ ,~d~r~' Leslie BerSelin .(.Matre~ek Homes), 655 N. Mountain Avenue,
P.O. Box 1410~ Upland~ CA 91786
T~.~.hone Nun,Oct (209) 981-5741
iV'uIt~"~;~c[c~to'1'~OF~i#~r=Ol~fO~e31#fi~th~3~'Otlll(l~dlfZ~lU~rtf~'o~Ovel}' Edward A. Hopson, 1131 W. Sixth St.,
Ontar'o, CA 91762
r¢:,:n,,,m.r~,,moer: <909) 983-9393
'1] P~v/de ~ ~dl ~Cste [~- 1~ x ~ ~ ] copy Of fi~e USG~ Ouadmnt Sheet[s) whi~ includes the ~oct ~ite. ond ind/calo the
~m/~:c~Lucalion[doschOe]: 20,~5 ac~es a~ ~he noc~heas~ co~e~ of BaseZ~ne goad and
H~ZZ~ken Avenue
4) A~,ses,~o,',s P~zcel Numnors (Btfach adclifional sheef d nocossaP/j: 227-691-01
20.15 acres +/-
'6] Nor Sjte AtOa (tOtill ~lte ~2o mittlt.~ 8feo of pubhc s#roots & proposed dedicattons]:
INITST01 ,I/~O - 4,96 Page 2 of I0
The site is currently vacant and slopes in a southerly direction at ,~ rate of
aPProximately 2%. The site is ~eotechnically stable with rocky soil. The
site has been ~raded in the past and very little native flora or fauna, if
,any, exists on the site. This site is ~enerally covered with weeds.
The site is adiacent to Baseline Road and Milliken Avenues. Any ~.treet nn~p
will have to be mitigated with perimeter walls and architecture.
I,'IIFSTDI VZPD - 4/'36 PaOe 3 of 10
t 2f De/~cnbe Hie ~t~Jocl~, ~,.~ Rmject in detail. This 8t~oul~ prow'de an adequate descti~j~on Of the ~ite in tem~ of I/It~q~te use wi)ich
· The site consists of 153 proposed residential dwelling units within a gated
comraunit . A recreation center and a series oE o en s ace ameniti ·
~rovided. Enhanced landscaping, monumentation and open space connectivity
are ira ortant as ects of the__e~_~ject.
-----_________,_
To the immediate north is an abandoned railroad right of usv nnH north of the
ri~h_~ of way is an existing residential subdivision· To the east there ~ an
existing residential subdivision. South of Baseline Avenue is an existing
commercial development. West of MillSken Avenue is the site of the Ci~¥',~
future regional park.
No.
INITSTInl .VV'F'O. 4/95 Page
DurinS construction, noise will be generated with equipment. Limited hours and
.mufflers will be utilized. After construction, typical noise associated with
a residential subdivision will exist. The use of w~11~, landscaping and
architecture will minimize impact.
a R~,.~o'e,,r,.~l (~,af/ct,~y} ~ ~, 400 ~'Oa;r u:n (g,~ayI 190,800
0Re~donbalrgu~doy~ 42,930
Commo~aMln~. (ga~doy/ac)
R~SIDENFIAC PROJECTS:
Att,3chod (;ndicIHu whelher untt3 am rental or/or 3~le unit~).. , sale units | 153
A,t~C;patedranfieotsaleptfceSf.~d/ormnis: unknow~ at this time
Sale P~ce(s) S, tO ~
Rent (per monlh) S to $
S~czfy number of ~moma by ~it type: ~OC ye~ ~tnally deCeitned
23) Ind~Cateanficipateclhousoholdsizebyundtype: not yet £tnalZy determined
24] h~dicale the expected number of school childrOd who w#~ be msicling wifhin the pml~t: ~toct ~e 8ppmpnato SCh~I
a. Clen.entu~y. 68
C. Senior High 32
25] Doscnbe ~e el use(s) end maJOrfunction[s) of comme~tal. ktdust~ol nr inshtufi~af uses:
26) Totat floor area of commercial. industrial. or [n3htutional uses Oy type'
INITSTD1 .Y~PD, 4196 Page 6 Of 10
,A"',/--- C; r ............................
301 EshtHal#oR of t.~o humDot of wofi~or~ I0 be I~r~d ti~at CHrr~ntty tryside tn Iho C~IF'
v(,n6ed through lhe SOHffl Coast Aft Oua~ly Mdnogonfetl{ D;Stncl. at ~818] 572-6283):
ALL PRO,/~CFS
32} t t¢~vu the walor. Sewer, fir~. and flOOd Con{t~# oOtt. nCiu$ ~a~fng It~ ~oct bo~tt Contacted Zo det~ino Itm;f Rb~lf~y fo pmv;~o
~es. A~ aSenc~es have been contacted and have ~nd~caced Che~c ab~c~ co
~v~ce the p=o,iecC sub,iecc Co ~nsCa~aC~on o~ ons~ce ~mp=ovemenCs.
h~;c;des: /ups, ~13, $~nt~. ar~ other ~amm~lo I;qujd3 and ga~es. AI~O ~ uttd~l~oufrd $tO~ Of any of tt~
34) 14~11 the proposed Dmjocf involve the lemDot~ry or Iong-ten~l use, storage or dzschenje of hazardous ,"md/N tO,ic
materYale. ~nclud~ng but not liratied to those exampies listed above? If yes, provide an invenlo~ of &ll such malen,31.~ to he
used and proposed method of disposal. The locab'on of suCh USES, along mlh the) stomOe and =hipment am,3s. .~hRII he
shown end libeled on the appl;catzon pl~tl$.
0nl}, Chose ~h~ch a=e pe=m~cCed ~n cot~,=i~f_~on ~Ch ces~denC,~,al use
=es~dent~al subdivisions.
INJTSTD1 WPD - 4~J6 PaOe 8 of 10
/:e/ C 3 b ......................................................
ATTACHMENT A
water Usacle
Average use per day
Residential
5mgte Family 600 gagclay
A0f/Condo 400 gaf/day
Commercial/Industrial
General and Regional Commercial 3000 gaLrdaylac
Neighborhood Commercial 1500 galldaylac
General Industrla I 1500 gal/daylac
Industrial Park 3000 gaUdaylac
Peak USage
For all uses
Average use x 2,0
.~,ewer Flows
Residential
S4nglc Family 2 ?0 gaUddy
ApVCondos 200 gal/day
Commercial/Industrial
General Commercial 2000 gat/daylac
Ne~gfiborhood Commercial 100-1500 gal/day/ac
General Industrial 2000 gat/dnyl~c
Heavy Industrial 3000 galldaylac
Source Cucamonga County Water DIstr~ct Master Plan, gl86
IrJITSTC3 1 v'/PO - 4/96 ParJe g of 10
· ATTACHMENT B
Contac! th~ ~chool distric~ for your area for amount and payment of school fees:
Elementary School Districts
Alta Loma
9350 Base Line Road, Suil~ F
RancJ~oCucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 987-0766
Central
.10601 Church Street. Suite 112
Rancho Cucamnnga. CA 91730
(909) 989-8541
Cucamonga
8776 Archibald Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga. CA 9t730
(909) 987-8942
Etiwanda
5959 East Avenue
P O Box 248
Rancho Cucarnonga. CA 91739
(909) 899-2451
High School
Charley High School
2 t 1 West 5th Street
Ontario. CA 91762
(909) 986-8511
INITSTD1 WPD · 4/96 Page 10 of 10
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: Vesting Tentative Tract 15477
2. Related Files: Variance 94-05
3. Description of Project: TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15477
- MATREYEK TRUST o A request for an extension of a previously approved residential
subdivision for condominium purposes and design review for the development of
153 detached condominium units on 20.15 acres of land in the Medium (8-14 dwelling units
per acre) and Medium-High (14-24 dwelling units per acre) Residential Districts, located at
the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-691-01.
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Matreyek Trust
c/o Covington & Crowe, LLP
P.O. Box 1515
Ontario CA 91762
5. General Plan Designation: Medium (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and Medium-High
(14-24 dwelling units per acre) Residential.
6. Zoning: Medium (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and Medium-High (14-24 dwelling units per
acre) Residential District of the Victoria Community Plan.
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is vacant and contains no significant
vegetation or structures. It is surrounded by single family residential development to the
north and east, vacant land to the west, and commercial development to the south.
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:
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
(909) 477-2750
10o Other agencies whose approval is required:
None
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Vesting Tentative Tract 15477 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 Significar~t Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
( ) Land Use and Planning (v') Transportation/Cimulation (~) Public Services
( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resoumes ( ) Utilities and Service Systems
(v') Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resoumes (v') Aesthetics
(~) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resoumes
( ) Air Quality (v') Noise ( ) Recreation
( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
(t/) 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 eadier 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 potci~tially significant effects
1 ) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
signed:
ontract Planner
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga-
Vesting Tentative Tract 15477 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 proposah
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (f)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
viciniW? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established communi~? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (t/)
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')
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Vestin~l Tentative Tract 15477 Pa~le 4
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/)
d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( )
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( )
f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) (~) ( )
g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (f)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
Comments:
f) The design of the project site and construction of the proposed grading and
structures shall follow the r~commendations of the soils engineer and shall comply
with the current building standards and codes at the time of construction. The
recommendations of the final Soils Engineering Investigation Repo~ shall be
inco~omted into the project design with pe~inent information noted on the final
Grading Plan which shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official pdor to
the issuance of grading permits.
4. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in abso~tion rates, drainage pa~erns,
or the rote and amount of surface water ranoff? ( ) ( ) (~) ( )
b) Exposure of people or pmpe~ to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ( ) (f)
c) Discharge into su~ace water or other alteration
of su~ace water quali~ (e.g., temperature,
dissolved o~gen, or turbidi~)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (f)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water bod~ ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movement? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
~ f) Change in the quanti~ of ground watem, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Vestin9 Tentative Tract 15477 Page 5
LS,~u. 8nd Sul)~ortinO Infofmati~41 ~m~: 9~t ~ti~ti~ 9~t N
excavations, or through substantial loss of ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
groundwater recharge capabili~?
g) Altered direction or rote of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
h) Impacts to gmundwmer quailS? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater othe~ise available for public water
supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
Comments:
a) The project will cause changes in abso~tion rates, drainage pa~erns, and the rate
and amount of su~ace water runoff due to the amount of new hardscape and
rooffops proposed on the currently vaunt site. All ranoff will be conveyed to existing
and proposed drainage facilities which were designed to handle the subject water
flows.
5. AIR QUALITY, Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) (v')
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) (~/)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ( ) (v')
d) Create objectionable odors? ) ( ) (v~)
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (v') ( )
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Vesting Tentative Tract 15477 Pa~le 6
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (
g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (
Comments
a) The project will not generate substantial additional vehicular movement. The
proposal is consistent with the General Plan for which the street widths were
evaluated at a build-out condition.
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)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees,
eucalyptus windraw, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( v~)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and
vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamong&
Vestin~l Tentative Tract 15477 Pa~le 7
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( ( ) (v')
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the ragion and the residents of the State? ( ( ) (~/)
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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/)
10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (v') ( )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) (~/) ( )
a) The project would increase noise levels since the site is currently vacant and the
development would add people and traffic to the area. The impact is not
considered significant.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Vestin~l Tentative Tract 15477 Page 8
b) The project is located along Base Line Road, a major arterial street, and is subject
to exposure to traffic noise in excess of the General Plan standard of 65 CNEL
exterior and 45 CNEL interior. An acoustical analysis (Bricken, August 23, 1991)
prepared for the site recommends the following to mitigate noise to []safeD levels:
Construct a minimum 6-foot high wall along both Base Line Road and Milliken
Avenue at the top of the proposed landscaped berms and/or slope areas. The walls
and landscaping have already been incorporated into the subdivisionFIs design;
therefore, the impact is considered reduced to a level of less than significant impact.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/)
c) Schools? ( ) ( ) (v) ( )
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/)
e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/)
Comments:
c) The Etiwanda School Distdct submitted correspondence dated September 16, 1994,
that indicates the existing schools that would serve this project are already at or
above capacity and the Distdct will not be able to accommodate all of the students
expected to be generated by this project. As ;~ condition of approval, the developer
shall execute an agreement with the Distdct to provide full mitigation. This may be
accomplished by means of a requirement to form, or to participate in an existing
Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for school facilities.
The Chaffey Joint Union High School District submitted correspondence dated
September 9, 1994, stating that the developer may annex into an existing Mello-
Roos District. The projectgs impacts on schools is considered to be reduced to a
level not 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:
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Vesting Tentative Tract 15477 Page 9
a) Power or natural gas? (~)
b) Communication systems? (~)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( (~)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( (~)
e) Storm water drainage? ( (~)
f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
g) Local or regional water suppries? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
13. AESTHETICS. Wou/d the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( (v')
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( (s/)
c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) (v') ( )
c) New light and glare will be created on the currently vacant site. The impact is no
greater than other existing residential development in the City.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ) ( ) (
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ) ( ) (
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ) ( ) (
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Vestin9 Tentative Tract 15477 Pa~le 10
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 important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Short term: Does the project have the potential
to Gchieve 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.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
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.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (V')
d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have
environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (t/)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga-
Vestin9 Tentative Tract 15477 Pa~le 11
EARLIER ANALYSES
Eadier 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 eadier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following
earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply):
(V') General Plan EIR
(Certified Apdl 6, 1981 )
(v') Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
(t/)Victoria Planned Community EIR
(Certified May 20, 1981
(V') Initial Study/Negative Declaration for Vesting Tentative Tract 15477
(Certified November 9, 1994)
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 Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: Time Extension for Vesting Tentative Tract 15477
Public Review Period Closes: December 8, 1999
Project Name: Project Applicant: Matrayek Trust % Covington & Crowe, LLP
ProjectLocation(alsoseeattachedmap): LocatedatthenortheastcomerofBaseLineRoadandMilliken
Avenue - APN: 227-691-01.
Project Description: A request for an extension of a previously appmved residential subdivision for
condominium purposes and design review for the development of 153 detached condominium units on 20.15
acres of land in the Medium and Medium-High Residential Districts (8-14 and14-24 dwelling units per acre,
respectively). Related File: Vadance 94-05.
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 ;rid 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 attach: '.~ !nitial Study. The project file and all
related documents are available for review at the City of [~:ancho 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.
December 8, 1999
Date of Determination Adopted By
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR
THE EXTENSION OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15477, A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF 153 DETACHED CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON 20.15
ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM AND MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS (8-14 and14-24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE,
RESPECTIVELY), LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BASE
LINE ROAD AND MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-691-01.
A. .Recitals.
1. Matreyek Trust has filed an application for the extension of the approval of Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 15477, 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 November 9, 1994, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 94-81, thereby
approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Vesting Tentative Tract 15477.
3. On the 8th day of Decamber 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 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 December 8, 1999, including ,written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The previously approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map is in substantial compliance
with the cityrls current General Plan, specific plans. ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and
b. The extension of the Vesting 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 Vesting 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 V'l'r15477 - MATREYEK TRUST
December 8, 1999
Pate 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 Califomia
Environmental Qualit.v Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated
thereunder;, that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the
independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and
considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application.
b. That based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into
the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the Califomia Code of
Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project
will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife
depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff
reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public
hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in
Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby grants a time extension for.
Project Applicant Expiration
Vesting Tentative Tract 15477 Matreyek Trust November 9, 2000
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO C~jCAMONGA
BY:
Lany T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I~LANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TE FOR VTT15477 - MATREYEK TRUST
December 8, 1999
Pate 3
I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do heraby
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 8th day of December 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR
THE EXTENSION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW FOR
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15477 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
153 DETACHED CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON 20.15 ACRES OF LAND IN
THE MEDIUM AND MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (8-14 AND
1424 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, RESPECTIVELY), LOCATED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND MILLIKEN AVENUE,
AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-691-01.
A. Recitals.
1. Matreyek Trust has filed an application for the extension of the approval of the Design
Review for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 15477, as described in the title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review Time Extension request is referred to as
"the application."
2. On November 9, 1994, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 94-82, thereby
approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, the Design Review for Vesting Tentative
Tract No. 15477.
3. On the 8th day of December 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals.
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting on Decamber 8, 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 Cityl]s
current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and
b. The extension of the Design Review approval will not cause significant
inconsistendes with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies;
and
c. The extension of the Design Review approval will not cause public health and
safety problems; and
d. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local ordinance.
I~LANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR FOR V I ',' 15477 - MATREYEK TRUST
December 8, 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,
Project Applicant Expiration
Design Review for Matreyek Trust November 9, 2000
Vesting Tentative Tract 15477
4. The Secretary to this Commission shall cartiff/the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THiS 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
cartiff/that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly intmducad, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 8th day of December 1999 by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR
THE EXTENSION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED VARIANCE 94-05 TO
REDUCE THE REQUIRED MINIMUM SEPARATION FROM 15 FEET TO 8
FEET AND TO INCREASE !:HE DISTANCE FOR THE CLOSEST VISITOR
PARKING SPACE FROM A DWELLING UNIT FROM 150 FEET TO 240
FEET FOR A PROPOSED 153 UNIT, DETACHED CONDOMINIUM
PROJECT ON 20.15 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM AND MEDIUM-
HIGH RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (8-14 AND 14-24 DWELLING UNITS PER
ACRE, RESPECTIVELY), LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
BASE LINE ROAD AND MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-691-01.
A. Recitals.
1. · Matreyek Trust has filed an application for the extension of the approval of Variance
94-05, as described in the tiUe of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance
Time Extension request is referred to as "the application."
2. On November 9, 1994, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 94-83, thereby
approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Variance 94-05.
3. On the 8th day of December 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 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 heaming on December 9, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The previously approved Variance is in substantial compliance with the CityDs
current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and
b. The extension of the Variance approval will not cause significant inconsistencies
with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and
c. The extension of the Variance 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 VAR 94-05 - MATREYEK TRUST
December 9, 1999
Page 2
3o Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this
Commission heraby grants a time extension for:.
Proiect Applicant Expiration
Vadance 94-05 Matreyek Trust November 9, 2000
4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
A'I'I'EST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucemonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 8th day of December 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
· DATE: December 8, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND 'TENTATIVE TRACT NO.15993
WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING - A residential subdivision of 94 single-family lots
on 18 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per
acre) of the Victoda Community Plan, located on the northwest corner of Base Line
Road and Day Greek Boulevard - APN: 227-091-21 through 24. Related File:
Development Review 99-45.
ENVIR(ShMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-45 -
WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING - The Design Review of building elevations and
detailed site plan for Tentative:Tract Map 15993 consisting of 94 single-family lots
on 18 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per
acre) of the Victoda Community Plan. located on the northwest corner of Base Line
Road and Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 227-091-21 through 24. Related File:
Tentative Tract 15993.
BACKGROUND: This Item was continued at the request of applicant from the October 27, 1999,
Planning Commission meeting. The applicant has requested to proceed with the application as
previously proposed.
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.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The applicant has completed Part I of the Initial Study and
staff completed Part II. The applicanrs biologists also submitted habitat assessments with focused
surveys for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat and Califomiagnatcatcher. Both biologists did not find
either species on the site and concluded that the site did not contain viable habitat. The California
Department of Fish and Game (DFG) submitted a letter dated November 24, 1999 (see Exhibit "B")
which challenges the adequacy and findings of the biological studies prepared by the applicant.
Staff has requested that the applicanrs biologist prepare a detailed response to DFG (which was
not available as of the writing of this report). There is not enough time for DFG and staff to review
the issues before the public hearing; therefore, a continuance to the January 12, 2000 meeting is
recommended.
Item H & I
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
'R' 15993 AND DR 99-45
December 8, 1999
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the item to
January 12, 2000, to allow environmental issues to be resolved.
City Planner
BB:RZ\Is
Attachments: Exhibit "A" Letter dated November 24, 1999 from the L'epartment of Fish and
Game
Exhibit "B" - Staff Report dated October 27. 1999
Resolution Approving Tentative Tract 15993
Resolution Approving Development Review 99-45
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - 1'HE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS. Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
Eastern Sierra - Inland Deserts Region
4775 Bird Farm Road
Chino Hills. California 91709
(909) 393-0635
November 24, 1999 t~ E C E I V E D
t~O~ ~ 9 1999
Rudy Zeledon City o~ Rancno Cucan~onc,-
-.~r~ Division
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
P.O, Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Re: Biological Studies
Westem Pacific Housing
Negative Declaration
Dear Mr. Zeledon:
On October 28, 1999, the California Department of Fish and Game (Department) sent
the City a letter regarding the proposed development of 94 single-family homes on 18
acres near the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard. In this
letter the Department requested copies of biological studies, including habitat
assessment studies for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriami
parvus) and the coastal California gnatcatcher. The Department thanks you for
submitting the studies and requests that copies of biological studies accompany any
future Initial Studies or Negative Declarations.
The Department has five issues regarding this project. First, in the October letter the
Department requested that the City assess direct and indirect impacts to Riversidian
Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub and Coastal Sage Scrub. The Initial Study/Negative
Declaration did not indicate what resources were on site (quantitatively or qualitatively),
the direct impacts on these resources or the indirect impacts of the proposed
development. The biological studies do not address this issue either. Second, neither
the Negative Declaration nor the biological studies discuss the issue of mitigation for
the loss of sensitive habitat. Third, the biological studies do not indicate whether the
project would result in impacts to jurisdictional streambeds. Fourth, the biological
studies do not indicate whether any mitigation is provided for historical habitat of the
San Bernardino kangaroo rat, a federaHy listed species. Fifth, the biological reports
indicate that there is a drainage on site, and therefore, a 1601-1603 Streambed
Response to Bi.~logical Reports
Westem Pacific Housing
Alteration Agreement may be required. This fact makes the Department a Responsible
Agency, as well as a Trustee Agency,
Sensitive Habitat
Kirtland Biological Services conducted trapping studies for the presence of the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat in 1999. The biological study describes the on-site vegetation
as consisting of two communities: alluvial chaparral and alluvial fan scrub. There is no
calculat!on of how many acres of each community are found on the site. Neither were
locations of these communities plotted on a map supplied to the Department. The
BonTerra report on May 25, 1999 s_tates that extensive higher quality sage scrub
habitat is present just beyond th~'dorthern and southern limits of the project site and
along the eastern boundary.
Department Recommendations
The Department recommends that the alluvial fan scrub be mitigated for at a 3:1 ratio.
The mitigation can take the form of off-site acquisition, participation in a mitigation bank
or on-site restoration. The Department's opinion as a Trustee and Responsible Agency
is that the loss of alluvial fan scrub and loss of historic habitat of the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat is a significant impact that needs to be mitigated. The requir~i~ent for
mitigation is consistent with the formulation of a Multi-species Habitat Conservation
Plan for the County of San Bernardino.
Department Role as a Trustee/Responsible Aqency
This section of the comment letter addresses the requirements of CEQA and the role of
the Department as a Responsible Agency. It appears, from a reading of this
document, however, that the lea~-~ agency does not know exactly what the project
impact.--. are. Without documentation of specific impacts and specific mitigation
mea: :es, the Department cannot fulfill its role as a Trustee/Responsible agency.
Regarding endangered species and species of special concern and their respective
habitats, the Department is responding as a Trustee and/or Responsible Agency.
Regarding impacts to jurisdictional streambeds and riparian habitat, the Department is
responding as a Responsiblef Trustee Agency. As a Responsible Agency under CEQA,
the Depadment has a responsibility to ensure that potential project impacts are
identifiea, alternatives are considered and potential impacts are avoided and/or
mitigated. For this reason, the Department recommends that the lead agency include a
comprehensive analysis of biological resources, project impacts and include measures
to avoid or mitigate significant impacts to sensitive biological resources.
Section 15002 of the CEQA Guidelines defines the purpose of CEQA to:
3
' Response to Biological Reports
Western Pacific Housing
1 ) Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential,
significant environmental effects of propose. d activities,
2) Identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly
reduced,
3) Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring
changes in project through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures
when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible, and
4) .- Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved
'~!tl~ project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental
~r.'-~ effects are involved.
In addition,:~ection 15126.4(a)(1 )(A) of the CEQA'guidelines discusses the role of the
lead agency and/or responsible agencies regarding mitigation measures. It states:
(A) The discussion of mitigation measures shall distinguish between the
measures which are proposed by project proponents to be included in the
project and other measures proposed by the lead, responsible or trustee
agency or other persons which are not included but the lead agency
determines could reasonably be expected to reduce adverse impacts if
required as conditions of approving the project ....
The Department of Fish and Game is requesting that the lead agency and applicants
consult with the Department, as a responsible agency, regarding mitigation of habitat,
species of special concern, endangered species, and potential mitigation measures in
the context of the ND and not defer mitigation measures to subsequent negotiations
with the Department. As a responsible agency, it is the Department's position that the
lead agency shoutd consult with the Department in the context of the CEQA process as
is required by the CEQA Guidelines, particularly when the project is in a species rich
area. Department recommendations regarding 1601-1603 Lake and Streambed
Alteration Agreements will be addressed later in this letter.
The Depadment also requests, in the future, that impacts to Federally-listed
endangered species and potential avoidance, alternative and mitigation measures be
addressed in the context of the EIR and not solely in subsequent negotiations between
the applicant and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). It is a
common practice for lead agencies to have findings that future compliance with federal
regulatory permit actions will mitigate potential impacts of the project on biological
resources. This practice eliminates the Department's oversight and advisory role in
fish and wildlife protection and also effectively eliminates the public's role in CEQA.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service is not a trustee agency under CEQA. It is
the Department's understanding that the USFWS also prefers that the CEQA analysis
,. 4
' Response to Biological Reports
Western Pacific Housing'
include impacts and mitigation measures to fedorally listed endangered species. The
Department can consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding their
recommendations and the Service can be included in joint discussions concerning
biologicel resources. Wildlife resource recommendations can then be analyzed in the
alternatives section of the DEIR.
In the absence of such discussions, it is the Department's contention that the
Department cannot fulfill its obligations as a Trustee and Responsible Agency for fish
and wildlife resources and further that the lead agency canr~ot issue findings that
compliance with future regulatory actions will mitigate project impacts to a less than
significant level. It is the Department's position that permit negotiations conducted after
and outside of the CEQA process deprive the public of its rights to know what project
impacts are and how they are being mitigated.
At this time the Department has some specific recommendations. First, impacts to
sensitive habitat communities (Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, Coastal Sage Scrub and
riparian habitat), and state and federally listed species should be mitigated on a 3:1
ratio, if avoidance of impacts is not an option. Second, the Department recommends
that impacts to habitat occupied or utilized by species of special concern be mitigated
on a 2:1 ratio if avoidance of impacts is not an option. Third, the Department
recommends that impacts to raptor foraging habitat be mitigated on a 1:1 basis if
avoidance of impacts is not an option. Fourth, as regarding Riversidian Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub the Department prefers that avoidance measures and not off-site mitigation
be utilized.
These recommendations are based upon the fact that unless an endangered species is
involved, biological impacts to sensitive and rare communities and species of special
concern are not being adequately mitigated for in San Bernardino County. The Service
has concurred with this analysiS, in verbal discussions with the Department and in
previous comments on specific development projects. These recommendations are
also based upon the fact that available species-rich habitat is rapidly diminishing in
some areas of San Bernardino County and that development of a reserve system for a
multi-species habitat conservation plan is being threatened by the pace and location of
development, particularly for Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. It is also the
Department's opinion that in the absence of a multi-species habitat conservation plan
current development projects must include mitigation for projects involving coastal sage
scrub, Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, and other communities which provide
habitat for endangered species (such as the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, coastal
Califomia gnatcatcher) and species of special concern, including raptors. It is the
Department's position ~.'~t if adequate mitigation is not provided now it places an unfair
burden on future applic~r,,ts with species-rich habitat and compromises the County's
ability to formulate a workable multi-species habitat conservation plan.
1601-1603 Lake and Streambed Alteration Aqreements
5
' Response to Biological Reports
Western Pacific Housing
The Department is a Responsible Agency regarding the issuance of 1601-1603 Lake
and Streambed Alteration Agreements (Agreements). Potential impacts to waters of
the United States, wetlands or jurisdictional streambeds should be determined during
the CEQA process, not following it. The lead agency can consult with the Department
on project impacts and mitigation and incorporate a discussion of recommended
mitigation measures in the EIR.
The Department is implementing new procedures for processing Agreements. In this
regard, the Department is notifying lead agencies that projects which will result in
impacts to lakes or jurisdictional streambeds must include the supporting biological
studies and CEQA-required analysis in the text of CEQA-certified documents. Any
information necessary to the issuance of an Agreement must be processed via CEQA.
If the information necessary for the issuance of an Agreement is included with the
CEQA documents and has been subject to CEQA and public review, the Agreement
can be processed per Department procedures. Information which the Department
requires for its issuance of an Agreement which has not been CEQA-certified must be
again subject to the CEQA process for public review. In this scenario. the Department
has several options: 1) the lead agency can initiate a subsequent CEQA document and
forward it to the Department following completion of the CEQA process, or 2) the
Department can become lead agency. This same process applies to other
discretionary actions, such as CESA Incidental Take Permits.
The Department prefers that the applicant submit an Agreement application with
information approved during the CEQA process. The Department is available for
consultation on projects prior to submittal of an Agreement application. Ordinarily, the
information required includes: a description of the direct and indirect impacts of the
project on the lake or stream; a biological survey of the lake or stream and identification
of the absence or presence of riparian resources (flora and fauna); a discussion of
environmental alternatives; a discussion of avoidance measures to reduce project
impacts; and a discussion of potential mitigation measures required to reduce the
project impacts to a level of insignificance. The applicant and lead agency should keep
in mind that the State also has a policy of no net loss of wetlands.
The Department understands that this Agreement process is new to most applicants
and lead agencies. The Department also understands that this is not the way
Agreements have been processed in the past and that delays in Agreement processing
may result. In order to avoid delays or repetition of the CEQA process, the lead agency
should consult with the Department to discuss potential project impacts and avoidance
and mitigation measures. This change in Agreement procedure is a result of litigation.
The Department is under a writ of mandate from a State of California Superior Court
regarding the processing of Agreements (Mendocino Environmental Center vs
California Department of Fish and Game, Respondents, Bruce Choder, River Rat
Salvage et al, Real Parties). The write of mandate states in part:
' Response to Biological Reports
Westem Pacific Housing
~., A writ of mandate shall issue ordering the California Department of Fish and
" Game on or before May 1, 1999, to prepare and implement a program or
process that will incorporate a CEQA review into the Fish and Game Section
1603 process. The writ of mandate shall further order the California Department
,i'ie~'~, of Fish and Game to cease and desist entering into Section 1603 agreements
~. after May rl, 1999, unless such agreements have been subject to a CEQA
review.
Therefore, the Department::is advising the lead agency that all potential impacts to
biological resoijrces and sensitive habitat areas be analyzed in the DEIR document,
along with specific measures and alternatives to avoid or mitigate for the loss of
sensitive biological resources. 7, 1989 statute requires that public agencies adopt
reporting or monitoring programs to ensure mitigation measures are implemented. In
this connection, mitigation-, measures have to be specific, have to be capable of being
implemented and must be capable of being monitored.
Finally. the De.D~rtment requests that the Department be notified of any Notice of
Determination or approvals issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
If you have any questions, please call Robin Maloney-Rames, Environmental Specialist
III, Chino Hills at (714) 817-0585.
Sincerely,
Glenn Black
Supervisor
Habitat Conservation - South
Region 6
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 27, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Rudy Zeledon. Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO.15993
WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING - A residential subdivision of 94 single-family lots
on 18 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per
acre) of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the northwest comer of Base Line
Road and Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 227-091-21 through 24. Related File:
Development Review 99-45.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-45 -
WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING - The Design Review of building elevations and
detailed site plan for Tentative Tract Map 15993 consisting of 94 single-family lots
on 18 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per
acre) of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the northwest corner of Base Line
Road and Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 227-091-21 through 24. Related File:
Tentative Tract 15993.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Project Density: 7.5 dwelling units per acre.
B. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning:
North - Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way - Low-Medium Residential Distdct (4-8
dwelling units per acre) within the Victoria Community Plan.
South - Base Line Road - Regional Related Office/Commercial, within the Victoria
Community Plan.
East Future Day Creek Boulevard - Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units
per acre) within the Victoria Community Plan.
West Rancho Cucamonga Fire Station # 3 - Low-Medium Residential District (4-8
dwelling units per acre) within the Victoria Community Plan.
C. General Plan Desiqnations:
Project Site - Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre)within the
Victoria Community Plan
North Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre)
South - Commercial
East Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre)
West Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre)
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT 15993 AND DR 99-45
October 27, 1999
Page 2
D. Site Characteristics: The site is currently vacant, except for some scrub vegetation, and has
a natural slope of approximately 2 to 5 percent from the north to south. There is one mature
Califomia Oak Tree of historical significance near the middle of the site. The oak tree is
officially designated as a historical landmark and is required to be preserved. The developer
will be required to prepare an arborist report to'study the immediate area around the tree and
make recommendations to preserve the health of the tree before any authorization for
development on the property.
ANALYSIS:
A. Backqround: The project site was incorporated into the Victoria Community Plan in 1991.
The site is owned by the City's Redevelopment Agency and is under contract to be sold to
the applicant. ':998, the City Council approved Resolution No. 98-213, changing the
General Plat, .-_::rid Use Map for the project site from Medium Residential to Low-Medium
Residential. ']';'~e appreved Resolution also included a Master Plan requirement to ensure
coordinated development in the area. The applicant has provided a conceptual Master Plan
as required, which addresses viable circulation and lot patterns for the parcel west of the
project site.
B. Gene,: ' T'he site is proposed to be d~veloped under the Innovative Development Standards
of the .dc~oria Planned Community. The proposal is for the subdivision of 18 acres of land
into 94 single-family lots. The lots will range in size from 5.002 square feet to 9,586 square
feet, with an average size lot of 5,619 square feet. Three two-story house plans are being
proposed, each having three different architectural styles: Spanish, California and Craftsmen
Bungalow. The floor plans are all two-story and range in size from 2,346 to 2.875 square
feet. Lots that side or rear onto Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard are proposed to
have enhanced rear and side elevations to include second-story pop-outs (option for 5-foot
deck), wood shutters and corbel detail to second-story windows.
C. Innovative Standards: The developer is requesting consideration under the "innovative"
development standards to take advantage of more flexible side yard setbacks. The Victoria
Community Plan defines innovation as:
Innovation in single-family development means to provide creative design
solutions, which address the critical concerns of neighborhood compatibility,
densitytran~;~/on, and design quality. Innovative projects are characterlzed by an
attractive s.~eet scape, which is not monotonous, nor is the street scene
dominated by asphalt/concrete, garages, and cars. Innovative design means
finding creative ways to create well-designed space, particularly usable yard
space.
Western Pacific Housing is using the following strategy to accomplish an innovative design:
House plan 1 features a covered front porch (6 ~ feet x 28 ~ feet), with a front-on
garage setback at a distance between 60-70 feet from curb face. House plan 2
features a covered porch entryway (6 ~ feet x 5 feet) and proposes a two-car, side-on
garage, with the option for a second one-car garage that is front-on. House plan 3
proposes a two-car, front-on garage setback at a minimum of 18 feet from curb face.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT 15993 AND DR 99-45
October 27, 1999
Page 3
· There are nine different elevation styles with three main architectural design concepts:
Spanish, California and Craftsman Bungalow. A variety of roof, porch, and window
patterns are included on all house plans. There are 9 different exterior color and
matedel schemes.
D. Desiqn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on
October 5, 1999. The Committee (McNiel, Stewad, Fong) recommended approval with
conditions, which have been incorporated into the attached Resolution of Approval. In
addition, the Committee placed a condition that the preservation of the existing oak tree shall
be done through the incorporation of the lettered lot, rather than through the proposed 50-foot
easement. A green-belt trail or paseo connection shall be created to connect Streets "E" and
"C," so that the residents of the subdivision are able to enjoy the oak tree. The green-belt or
paseo connection shall be subject to City Planner review and approval. Also, the historical
significance of the California Oak Tree shall be documented though the incorporation of a
plaque. Action Comments from both meetings are attached (Exhibit "H").
E. Trails Adviso~ Committee: The Trails Committee reviewed the project on August 11, 1999.
The Committee recommended providing a green-belt paseo in the middle of the project to
contain the historic oak tree.
F. Gradinq and Technical Review Committees: Both committees reviewed the project and
recommended approval with conditions.
G. Environmental Assessment: The applicant has prepared Part I of the Initial Study. Staff
completed Part II of the Initial Study. The property is located in an area identified as potential
habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) and the California
gnatcatcher (Polioptilla californica californica). A habitat assessment was prepared for both
the California Gnatcatcher and San Bemardino kangaroo rat (Bonterra Consulting, May 21
and 25, 1999) by a biologist permitted by the UoS. Fish and Wildlife Service. The surveys
indicated negative results (no species were observed on the site).
FACTS FOR FINDING: Before approving the application, the Planning Commission shall make
certain findings that the following circumstances do apply:
A The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan.
B. The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the Victoria
Community Plan in which the site is located.
C. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development
Code and Victoria Community Plan.
D. 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT 15993 AND DR 9945
October 27, 1999
Page 4
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
· Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed td:all property owners within
a 300-foot radius of the project site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Tract
15993 and Development Review 9945 through the adoption of the attached Resolutions of
Approval with conditions and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Br~3 Buller
City Planner
BB:RZ~ma
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map
Exhibit "B" - Master Plan
Exhibit "C" - Tentative Tract Map
Exhibit "D" - Site Plan
Exhibit "E" - Grading Plan
Exhibit "F" - Elevations
Exhibit "G" - Floor Plans
Exhibit "H" - Trail Advisory Committee Comments, dated August 11, 1999
Exhibit "1" - Development Review Committee Comments, dated October 5, 1999
Exhibit "J" - Initial Study Part II
Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract
Resolution of Approval for Design Review
'I'T 15993 & 99-45
Western Pacific Homes
APN: 207-091-21 through 24.
Location Map
Project Site
N
eASTER PLAN SITE STUDY
DAY CREEK CHANNEL '
-, ~-:.. .
"~ ~ ~__,~t ~lte ~ 15993
i
i
I
!
I
DAY CREEK BLVD.
NORTH> Eg PHB ~ ASSOC~TE5, INC.
1520 SOU~ GRAND A~U(, GL~D~A, C
A~
'7
LOT AREA TABULATION
:',-::"~',-. ., - ....- .....
~ :;.::";',,. ...... -:
;:;:" ....... . ....-
'~:::":'~: ::
:: .... .-~ .........
:: '"' ":, ,, , ,~, --,. ,..
Plan i Front Elevations
El ----,,,,,--,-,,-__ rj
WesternPacific V' I C T 0 R ]7 A ~/~'~KTGYGROLIP,
"~i"~i;,:.::.""':"':
no,,i,g R a, c h o C, c a m o, g a . C a I i r o r, 1 ~~Zl'.'Z.~
El 7m~m El 2
KTOy NO. ~J40 E;
I1
Right
Rear
Left
Plan I Exterior Elevations
~w~. V I C T 0 R I A - ~=~ .....
Housing R a n e h o C u ~ a m o n g a , C a I i f o r n i a "~"~'~""~
0
;.,~ '~Z~ · ~ . .
. ~
Plan 2 Front Elevations
Pacifig
Housing R a n
Plan 3 Front Elevations
g 4
~Westtrn V I C T 0 R I A
Pacific KTGY GROUP ....
Housing R , n c h o C u c , m o n g , C , I i ror n
_~ .
~ "'T=:' ~.,~,~!~.~,~] Right
· ..........
~ . . ~ ....... L~ft
Plan 3 Exterior Elevations
:riiu:~:.. :=::~:...~:...:
s g Raneho Cueamonga California _ z= ........ ='-~""";
D D
I .... i 42',0'
I 5' Opt Deck I ~I*-~
,
MlStCf
Bath El B~d~r~°2~m . [~amily
rain:
Bath 2 ~ Kitchen
Hall ~ "?
; --
ty ~O Dining
Den I I Bcdr~m 4 Livins
'
I Opt Dcn , Porch
~11 i:t I 3 Second Ioor FirSt F~oo[ ..
'-~ ...... ~ ....... Plan ! Floor Pla~ -~-~ ....
b ._ Floor Plan
~W.t~rn V I C T 0 R I A 2,..~ ~,
Housing R a n c h o C u c a m o n g a , C a I i f o r n i a
T-0; ........................ ~'-9: . ~
Hall
Opt Loft
Floor Plfn
P I ~ ~ 2 ~ o o r ~ I a n 4 Bedroom / Op¢ Bedroom
o ( Opt Retreat / Opt Loft
~w~,t~rn V I C T 0 R I A ~:~a~ ....
pacific 7~.. ~ ::... ,. ":::'::
Housing R a n c h o C u c a m o n g a , C a I i f o r n i a - ~= ......... :";"""~
4
lJ I ....... I E]
I ~' Opt, D~ck I l 37%0'
.. ~ ...... . ~ ......... . ] ,iI ....... ,~
Opt Retreat ~]ow
Opt Loft "' LivinS
~ Bedroom 3 I '
/ Bedroom S
P I a ~ 3 F I o o r P I a~ ~ ~ Bedroom / Opt Den
w.t~. V I CT O R I A
Pacific .~ ~ KTGY GRO~ .....
Housing R a n c h o C u c ~ m o n g a C a ~ i f o ~ n i:a~ ~
,-' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
TRAILS ADVISORY
COMMITTEE AGENDA
WEDNESDAY AUGUST 11, 1999, @ 6:00 PM
RAINS ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
ACTION AGENDA
I. ROLL CALL:
Clopton X Rabone A ......
Coleman X Stewart X
Dickey X Tolstoy X
Mannerino (AItemate) Whitehead (Alternate)
11. NEW BUSINESS:
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15993 -
WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING -A residential subdivision of 94 single
family lots on 18 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-
8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoda Community Plan, located on the
northwest corner of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard - APN:
227-091-18 through 21. Related Files: General Plan Amendment 98Z04','
and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 98-04 approved by the City
· · Council in November 1998.
III. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
None
IV ANNOUNCEMENTS
Rails to Trails meeting tomorrow with SANBAG and other cities.
V. ADJOURNMENT
TRAILS ADVISORY COMMI'I'I'EE
COMMENT SHEET
AUGUST 11, 1999
II. NEW' BUSINESS
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15993 - VVESTERN
PACIFIC HOUSING -A residential subdivision of 94 single family lots on 18 acres of land
in the Low-Medium Residential Distdct (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoda
Community Plan, located on the northwest comer of Base Line Road and Day Creek
Boulevard - APN: 227-091-18 through 21. Related Files: General Plan Amendment 98-
04. and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 98-04 approved by the City Council in
November 1998.
Background: This site was not odginF.,:>' part of the Victoria Planned Community; however, was
incorporated into Victoria Community Plan in 1991. The site is owned by the City's Redevelopment
Agency and is under contract to be sold to the applicant.
Context: The project site is bordered by the old railroad right-of-away to the north, Fire Station No.
.:. ~nd San Bernardino County owned land to the west, future Day Creek Boulevard to the east. and
~-sse Line Road to the south. Since 1981, the City's General Plan has identified the railroad right-
of-a~vay as a future multi-purpose Community Trail. The Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-away
has b~en decommissioned for several years and the majority of the track have been removed. The
Railroad right-a-way will someday be an integral part of the interconnection of the City's trail system.
In addition, the Victoria Community Plan. identifies the railroad right-of-away as a vital connection
to the interconnection of residential areas to one another, and to the communities open space
system as well as a connection to the regional open space arid trail system. The stated goal of the
' :ctoda Community Plan is to create a system of trails that weaves throughout the community
~,r~necting residential areas to one another, and to open space (i.e. parks). As a result. projects
in Victoria that border the railroad right-of-way. have provided greenbelt trail connections to the
railroad right-of-way. A Community Trail is planned along the east side of Day Creek Boulevard and
is currently unde... :~nstruction.
Analysis: The ;~raject proposes no greenbelt trails. nor any trail connection to the railroad right-
away, north of the project site. An interior trail connection, if provided, should be located at the
northwest corner of the tract (see Exhibit "A"). The applicant feels that the sidewalk being proposed
along the west side of Day Creek Boulevard, will adequately serve as a trail linkage to the railroad
ri~jnt-of-way. The proposed lot layout of site and the narrow width along the north property
boundary of the site, Day Creek Boulevard would conveniently serve as a paseo linkage for the
residents of the tract. An interior trail connection would provide a shorter route to
approximately 40 lots; however, staff believes that the benefit of a shorter walking distance
is minimal. Staff agrees with applicant, and feels that a trail connection along the north
property boundary is not necessary. Should the adjoining property to the west ever be
subdivided, staff would recommend a trail connection due to the significantly greater
distance from Day Creek Boulevard.
TRAILS COMMITTEE AGENDA
'IF 15993 - WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING
August 11, 1999
Page 2
· Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project as proposed.
Attachments: Exhibit 'W' - Tract Map
Staff Planner: Rudy Zeledon
ACTION: Recommended a green belt trail to connect "C" and "E" Streets and to
incorporate the Oak tree. Use decomposed granite surface and minimal landscaping.
~'f{'¥/t'r .,
.. //~ zl
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:30 p.m. Rudy Zeledon October 5, 1999
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO.15993 -WESTERN PACIFIC
HOUSING - A residential subdivision of 94 single family lots on 18 acres of land in the Low-Mediu-~
Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoda Community Plan, located on the
northwest comer of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 227-091-18 through 21.
Related Files: General Plan Amendment 98-04, and Victoda Community Plan Amendment 98-04
approved by the City Council in November 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DE~/ELOPMENT REVIEW 99-45 - WESTERN PACIFIC
HOUSING - The Design Review of building elevations and detailed site plan for Tentative Tract Map
15993 consisting'of94 single family lots on 18 acres of land In the Low-Medium Residential District
(4-8 dwelling uttlts'per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the northwest comer of Base
Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 227-091-18 through 21. Related Files: Tentatjve Tract
15993, General Plan Amendm~.~t 98-04, and Victoda Community Plan Amendment 98-04 approved
by the City Council in Novera:,-: ;' 1998.
Desiqn Parameters: The site is owned by the City's Redevelopment Agency and Is under contract
to be sold to the applicant. It is vacant except for some scrub vegetation, has a natural slope of
approximately 2 to 5 percent from north to south, and contains one mature California Oak tree in
the middle of the site. The Developer will be required to submit an arbodst report with
recommendations to ensure the health and the preservation the tree before any development on the
property.
The developer proposed to develop the site under the Innovative Development Standards allowed
in the Victoda Community Plan. The lots range in size from 5,002 to 9,586 square feet with an
average lot size of 5,619 square feet. Three two-story house plans are being proposed, each having
three different elevation styles. Plans I and 3 have front-on garages while Plan 2 has side-on
garages with the option for a second front-on garage. Lots that side or rear on to Base Une Road
and Day Creek Boulevard are proposed to have enhanced rear and side elevations to include
second-story pop-outs (option for 5-foot deck), wood shutters, and corbel detail to second story
windows.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion:
Major Issues: The following broad issues will be on the focus of committee discussion regarding this
project:
1. The Trails Advisory Committee, at its meeting of August 11, 1999, recommended that the
Design Review Committee consider a lettered lot fc; the preservation of the existing Oak tree
rather than a proposed 50-foot easement on Lot 33. The applicant proposed the 50-foot
easement because Engineering staff recommended it. According to Engineering staff, the
reason for the proposed easement versus a lettered lot is that at some future time when the
Oak tree ever becomes deceased or dying, the City would be able to vacate and remove the
easemenL However, the Trail Advisory Committee felt that creating a lettered Lot would allow
-. a green-belt trail connection to Streets "E"and "C." The Applicant supports both tree
preservation proposals; therefore, the Design Review Commi~-ee should provide direction .to
staff.
DRC COMMENTS
'1'1' 15993 & DR 99-45 - WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING
October 5, 1999
Page 2
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
;I. Continue wainscot siding treatment, on all proposed house plan elevations, around to side
elevations up to interior retum walls.
2. Provide corbel detail to both second floor windows, on house Plans 1 and 2.
3. All proposed stucco trim surround on windows, shall be of high density form.
4. Provide additional detail to the eaves, on all house plans, to include double wood fascia trim.
Staff Recommendations: Staff i'ecommends ~e Design Review Committee approve the project.
Desiqn Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pare Stewart, N,ancy Fong
Staff Planner. Rudy. Zeledon
The Committee recommended approval of the project subjeCt to the following conditions:
1. Preservation of the existing Oak tree through the incorporation of lettered lot, rather than
through the proposed 50 foot easemenL A green-belt trail or paseo connection shall be
created to connect Streets "E" and "C," so that the residence of the subdivision would be able
to enjoy the Oak tree. The green-belt or paseo connection shall be subject to City Planner
approval.
2. Continue wainscot siding treatment, on Plans 1C and 2C, around to side elevations up to
interior return walls or logical ending,
3. Provide corbel detail to both second floor windows, on rear enhanced elevations on Plans
I and 2.
4. All proposed stucco trim surround on windows, shall be of high density foam.
5. provide additional detail to the eaves, onPlanslAandlB, toinduded°ublew°°dfasciatdm
(in areas where gutters are not proposed).
®
~:- ,/-/'.¢- .Z"
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: Tentative Tract 15993 and.DR 99-45
2. .',:elated Files: General Plan Amendment 98-04;
Victoria Community Plan Amendmen,, 98-04
3. Description of Project:
TENTATIVE TRACT 15993 - WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING - A residential subdivision
of 94 single family lots on 18 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling
units per acre) District of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the northwest corner of
Base line Road and Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 227-091-21 through 24.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING- The Design Review of
building elevations and detailed site plan for Tentative Tract map 15993 consisting of 94
single family lots on 18 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per
acre) District of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the northwest corner of Base line
Road and Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 227-091-21 through 24.
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Western Pacif[.~ Housing
16940 Von Karmen Avenue, Suite 200
Irvine, California 92606
5. General Plan Designation: Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) District
of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the northwest corner of Base line Road and
Day Creek Boulevard
6. Zoning: Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) District of the Victoria
Community Plan, located on the northwest corner of Base line Road and Day Creek
Boulevard
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
North: Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-way
South: Base Line Road
East: Future Day Creek Boulevard
West: Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), Rancho Cucamonga Fire
Station iV 3.
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:
Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner
(909) 477-2750
'3""
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15993 ' Page 2
10. Other agencies whose approval is required;
None.
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) Transpodation/Circulation (X) Public Services
) Population and Housing (X) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems
) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (X) Aesthetics
~X) Water ( ) Hazards (X) Cultural Resources
~X) Air Quality (X) Noise (X) Recreation
( ) Mandaton/Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
( ) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
(X) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
1 ) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
' udy~c:q/edon
~'sLsistant Planner
September 27, 1999
City of Rancho Cucamonga
I Tentative Tract 15993 Pa9e 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation
is requ!red 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. Wob. l~d..the proposal.'
a) Conflict with general plan ~esignation or ) ( ) ( ) (X)
zoning? _.
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 tentative tract map application follows a General Plan Amendment and Victoria
Community Plan Amendment recently adopted for this land area (December 1998)
which changed the land use designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling
units per acre) to Low-Medium (4- 8 dwe;!~ng units per acre).
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)
initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15993' Pa~]e 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)
4. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Discharge into. surface water or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen. or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations. or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
ExA ,'b, '-d'- '/*
initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15993' Pa~le 5
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) The development of the proposed project will increase the amount of paved surface
areas which could result in a decrease in absorption rates and an increase in the
amount of surface water runoff. All runoff will be conveyed to existing and proposed
drainage facilities designed to handle the subject water flows.
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) ( ) ( n
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a & b) Air quality impacts may occur during the site preparation including grading and
equipment exhaust as it is used on-site. Major sources of emissions during this
phase include exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and equipment and
fugitive dust generated as a result of construction vehicles and equipment traveling
over exposed surfaces, as well as soil disturbances by grading filling. NOx and
PM10 levels will be exceeded on a daily basis during construction. The following
mitigation measures will be required to reduce impacts to a less-than
significant level:
1) The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment
used on-site 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.
2) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or diesel-powered
equipment in lieu of gasoline-powered engines where feasible.
3) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction Grading
Plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when
initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15993 Page 6
not in use. During 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.
4) The construction contractor shall support and encourage ride sharing
and transit incentives for the construction crew.
5) 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
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 origin.
6) The construction contractor shall utilize as much as possible pre-coated
natural colored building materials, 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.
..,,y u.,..
,
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15993' Pa~le 7
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 barders for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies suppoding
altemative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ) ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) The project will generate new trips because of the new construction. The number
of trips is not considered significant, therefore the project does not warrant a Traffic
Study Analysis. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and Victoria
Planned Community for which the street widths were evaluated at a build-out
condition. The project will be required to install street frontage improvements in
their ultimate configuration, per ordinance, and to pay associated Transportation
Development Fees. The project will include the construction of Base Line Road (full
width) from the Day Creek Channel to the east side of Day Creek Boulevard. The
project will also include the modification of the Day Creek Boulevard frontage, in
accordance with City standards for a "Major Divided Arterial" as required.
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 windroSy, 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
Tentative Tract 15993' Pa~e 8,
Comments:
a) The site is near sensitive Riversidian Aluvial Fan Sage Scrub and Costal Sage
Scrub Habitats. The property is located in an area identified by the Service as
potential habitat for the San Bemardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys Merriami
Parvus) and the California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila California Califomica). A habitat
assessment was propared for both the California Gnatcatcher and the San
Bernard ino Kangaroo Rat (Bonterra Consulting, May 21 and 25, 1999) by a biologist
permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The surveys indicated negative
results (no species were observed on the site).
b) There is one mature California Oak of historical significance near the middle of the
site. The oak is officially designated as a historical landmark. The California Oak
will be preserved. The Developer will be required to do an arborist report to study
the immediate area around the tree and make recommendations to preserve the
health of the tree. As mitigation, the Oak tree shall be preserved.
8, ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES, Would the
proposal.'
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with ~ammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15993' Page 9
· 10. NOISE. Willtheproposalresultin:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
b) Exposure of people to sever~. noise jevels? ( ) (X) ( ) ( )
Comments:
a) The project involves the construction of 94 single family homes. Construction
activity is likely to result in an increase in noise levels from associated grading and
development activity. Construction hours will be limited as required by the
Development Code, to lesson any construction related disturbance in noise levels
to the surrounding properties. The resulting residential project is not likely to
produce a significant increase in existing noise levels.
b) The General Plan indicates future noise levels exceeding 65 Ldn on Base Line
Road and exceeding 70 Ldn along Day'Creek Boulevard, which requires detailed
analysis of noise attenuation measures. Significant noise impact on the residents
will likely result if sound .attenuation devices (interior and exterior) are not
incorporated into the project design to screen noise impacts created by traffic on
Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard. An acoustical analysis was prepared
by RKJK and Associates Inc., on September 23, 1999, to determine what mitigated
measures would be necessary to reduce noise levels to a permissible level. The
noise study recommended that, in order to mitigate noise to "safe" levels, a
minimum 3-7 foot high wall be constructed along both Base Line Road and
Day Creek Boulevard (Lots 68-94), along the top of the proposed street scape
berms and/or slopes. In addition, lots 68-94 will require a mechanical
ventilation system to permit a "window closed" condition. Attic vents facing
Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard should be provided with an
acoustical baffle to prevent vehicle noise intrusion through the attic vents.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Schools? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15993' Pa~le 10
Comments:
a & c) The development of 94 single-family homes will increase the demand on public
services. Tract Map Conditions of Approval will require the developer to participate
in the funding of special districts for the necessary construction and maintenance
of fire protection and school facilities. Therefore, the impact is not considered
significant.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. W6uld the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
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)
"'
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) (X) ( ) ( )
:/-' 'j" / a"' //¥ Z
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15993' Pa~le 11
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
b) Refer to item 7b).
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal.'
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
b) Affect existing recreationa; opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) The development of 94 homes will increase the demand on parks. The developer
will be responsible for payment of park fees at the time of building permit issuance
to offset any impact on parks. The impact is not considered significant.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE,
a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have
the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal,
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
, I~itial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15993' Page 12
b) Short term: Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A Short-term
impact on the environment is one which occurs
in a relatively bdef, definitive period of time.
Long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.) ( ) ( ) ( (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)
(X) Victoria Planned Community EIR
(Certified May 20, 1981)
(X) General Plan Amendments 98-04 and Victoria Community Plan
Amendments 98-03.
(SCH #97071043, certified April 15, 1998)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15993 Pacje 13
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I certify that I am the applicant for the pr, i~ct described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I
have read this Initial Study and the preF~.~,ed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the
· project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would
OCCUr,
Print Name and Title: ~,:~u,~_.~ ~../ct,-Z~O~/GX, L/... , ~/~ ~r~
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 2f091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: Tentative Tract15993 and Development Review 99-45
Public Review Period Closes: December 8, 1999
Project Name: Project Applicant: Western Pacific Housing
Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the northwest corner of Base Line Road and
Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 227-091-18 through 21.
Project Description: A residential subdivision of 94 single family lots on 18 acres of land and the
design review of building elevations and detailed site plan thereof in the Low-Medium Residential Distdct
(4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan.
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted
an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is
proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
[] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment.
[] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this
proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or
mitigate the effects to a point where 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.
December 8, 1999
Date of Determination Adopted By
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVETRACT
MAP 15993, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 94 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
ON 18 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW-MEDIUM DISTRICT (4-8
DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) WITHIN THE VICTORIA COMMUNITY
PLAN, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD
AND DAY CREEK BOULEVARD. AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 227-091-21 THROUGH 24
A. Recitals.
1. Western Pacific Housing has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract
Map 15993, as descdbed in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." -"
2. On October 2~, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
continued the application at the request of the applicant.
3. On December 8, 1999, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
headng on the application and concluded said headng on that date.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct
2. Based upon substantial ..evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public headng on December 8, 1999, including written and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to the property located at the northwest comer of Base
Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard, with a street fronta9e of 685 feet on Base Line Road and
1,139 feet on Day Creek Boulevard and is presently vacant; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is the Southern Pacific Railroad fight-
of-way, the property to the south is Base Line Road, the property to the west is the San
Bemardino County Flood Control District land, and the property to the east is the future Day Creek
Boulevard.
c. The application contemplates a residential subdivision of 94 single-family
residential lots on 18 acres of land within the Low-Medium Residential Distdct of the Victoda
Community Plan; and
d. The project w comply w th a app icable innovative provisions of the Low-
Medium Residential Distdct of the Victoria Community Plan, including minimum lot size, minimum
lot average, lot width, lot depth, height limitations, setbacks, and private open space. The project
will subdivide 18 acres of land into 94 single-family lots, averaging 5,619 square feet per lot, which
exceeds the minimum lot average of 4,000 square feet. The project complies with minimum tot
depth of 90 feet and minimum lot width of 50 feet.
~LANNING COMMISSION RE, ',LUTION NO.
TT 15993 - WESTERN PACIF;C HOUSING
December 8, 1999
Page 2
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. The tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and
any appliceble specific plans; and
b. The design ~r improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General
Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and
c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and
d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and
e. The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and
f~ The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by
the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed
subdivision.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment
for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative
Declaration 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 ceompliance with
the Califomia Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines
promulgated thereunder;, that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared
therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and further, this
Commission has reviewed an~ considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative
Deciaration with regard to the application.
b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant
environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been
reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the projectwhich are listed
below as conditions of approval.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considedng 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 habita,'
upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the
Planning Commission dudng the public headng, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the
presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c- 1 -d) of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the applicetion subject to each and every condition set forth
below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 15993 - WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING
December 8, 1999
Page 3
P ann n,q D v sion
1) The existing California Oak Tree on the project site is required to be preserved in
place. The applicent shall do an arbodst report to study the immediate area around the
tree and make recommendations to preserve the health of the tree before any
authorization for development of the property.
2) The preservation of the existing the Califomia Oak Tree shall be done through the
incorporation of the lettered lot. A green-belt or paseo connection through the lettered
lot shall be created to connect "E" and "C" subject to City Planner and City Engineer
review and approval. In addition, the proposed fencing for residence surrounding the
letter lot shall be reviewed.
3) The histodcel significance of the Califomia Oak Tree shall be documented through the
incorporation of a plaque. The placement and design of the plaque will be subject to
City Planner review and approval.
4) Tract boundary walls along Base Line Road shall be the Victoria Theme Wall with
decorative columns and caps. The tract boundary wall along Day Creek Boulevard
shall be designed in compliance with the Day Creek Boulevard Scenic/Recreation
Corridor Master Plan. The developer shall be required to construct tract boundary
walls and install landscaping pdor to occupancy of any lot adjacent to the wall.
5) The major residential entry at the comer of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard,
and the streetscape along Day Creek Boulevard, shall be designed in conformance
with the Day Creek Boulevard Scenic/Recreation Corridor Master Plan and subject to
City Planner review and approval
6) The applicant shall make a good faith effort with the adjacent property owner
(SANBAG), north of the project site, to address the drainage issues (sump removal)
along the north boundary of the project site.
Enfiineerinfi Division
1) Construct Base Line Road full width from Day Creek Channel to the east side of Day
Creek Boulevard, including but not limited to, curb and gutters, sidewalks, street lights,
signing. striping, median island with dual eastbound left turn lanes at Day Creek
Boulevard, The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover the
cost of constructing the improvements south of the centerline of Base Line Road and
east and west of the project boundaries. If Base Line Road is improved by others, the
developers shall be reimbursed for their respective frontage improvements.
2) Provide a westbound bus bay at the northwest comer of Day Creek Boulevard and
Base Line Road and a dght turn lane at "A" Street for "Not A Part" to the west of this
project.
3) Modify Day Creek Boulevard frontage, in accordance with City standards for "Major
Divided Arterial" as required, including full street improvements, curb and gutters,
sidewalks, street lights, median island, traffic stdping and signing, and a right turn lane
at "H" Street. Median opening will be allowed at "H" Street (former Fire Department
ddveway) with a northbound left-turn lane in the median.
4) Fully construct internal street, in accordance with City standards as required, such as
curb and gutters, sidewalks, driveway approaches, street lights, signing and striping,
etc.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
33' 15993 - WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING
December 8, 1999
Page 4
5) Modify traffic signals at Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard, as required.
6) The existing overhead utilities (telecommunicetion and electdcal) on the project side
of Base Line Road shall be undergrounded from the first pole off-site east of the east
project boundary to the first pole off-site west of the west project boundary, pdor to
public improvements or occupancy, whichever occurs first. The developer may request
a reimbursement agreement to recover one half of the City adopted cost for
undergrounding from future development as it occurs on the opposite side of the
street.
~o~
7) Construct the Master Plan storm drain line in Base Line Road and Day Creek
· ~,~MBoulevard includiqg necessary catch basin to connect to Day Creek Channel to the
· ,L .satisfaction of the-City Engineer. The area bounded on the north and south by
-- - Highland Avenue and Base Line Road, and east and west by the Edison Corridor and
Victoda Windrows tract will be considered as drainage boundary for this area. The
cost of drainage systems shall be borne by all properties lying within the drainage
boundary in proportion to drainage areas. Right-of-way, government properties, and
utility corridors are exempt from the calculation.
8) Install ]6cal storm drains to convey all development drainage to the previously
mentioned master planned storm drains. The cost of local storm drains shall be borne
by this development.
9) If the City project of Day Creek Boulevard is completed, this develo.~' -.'It will be
required to complete the rest of the improvements. This development oh. :,t receive
transportation fee credit for backbone system. however, is eligible for a r.,-.',,~;~drsement
agreement to recover one half of the cost of the street improvements (including street
lights but not including parkway improvements) from the developer on the east side of
Day Creek Boulevard. However, if improvements are completed by others, this
developer shall reimburse those who completed the improvements.
10) The first development atong Day Creek Boulevard will be required to prepare a
Beautification Master Plan for the parkways and median. The City will attempt to
proportion the cost of the Master Plan to those developments required to install the
landscaping or fronting the landscaped areas.
11) City maintained landscape area shall be the frontage of Base Line Road and Day
Creek Boulevard only.
12) Preservation of the oak tree shall be as directed by the City Planner and the City
Engineer. The lot shall be a letter lot deeded to the City in fee simple with no
restriction. The access from the letter lot to the street shall be a paseo type street.
The design of the lettered lot shall be subject to City Planner & City Engineer review.
An arbodst shall be hired by the developer to recommend measures for proper
preservation of the oak tree dudng construction and the ultimate design of the lettered
lot. The arborist shall be on contract with the developer for the duration of the
development. Pdor to City acceptance of public improvements, the arbodst shall make
a final report of the status of the tree. The report is subject to review by c ;'v Staff. Any
recommendations or mitigation measures, should the tree be damagE' ' r dying, will
be the responsibility of the developer.
13) Street "A" shall be 60 feet wide. If communication with Flood Control for Joint access/
or right-of-way is not successful, Street "A" shall be moved eastedy within the tract
boundary.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 15993 - WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING
December 8. 1999
Page 5
14) "F" Street shall not terminate with a reduced radius cul-de-sac; it shall terminate as a
stub street with the curbs and gutters being straight and 36 feet between curbs.
15) The storm drain easement across Lot 85 shall be 12 feet wide.
Environmenta Miti.qation Measures
~{c
Air Quality
Air quality impacts may occur during the site preparation including grading and equipment
exhaust as it is used on-site. Major sources of emissions during this phase include exhaust
emissions from construction vehicles and equipment, and fugitive dust generated as a result
of construction vehicles and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces. as well as soil
disturbances by grade/fill. NOx and PM~0 levels will be exceeded on a daily basis during
construction. The following mitigation measures will be required to reduce impacts to a less-
than significant level:
1) The Construction Contractor shall select the construction equipment used on-site
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.
2) The Construction Contractor shall utilize electric or diesel-powered equipment in lieu
of gasoline-powered engines where feasible.
3) The Construction Contractor shall ensure that cons~t~uction grading plans include a
statement that work crews will shut off equipment When not in use. During 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.
4) The Construction Contractor shall support and encourage ride-sharing and transit
incentives for the construction crew.
5) 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 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.
'PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
'1'1' 15993 - WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING
December 8, 1999
Page 6
e) Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill materials and/or construction debds to
or from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin.
6) The Construction Contractor shall utilize, as much as possible, pre-coated natural
colored building materials, 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 coating applications such as paint brush, hand roller,
trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge.
Noise
1) To mitigate traffic noise to "safe" levels, a minimum 3-7 foot high wall be constructed
along both Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard (Lots 68-94) along the top of the
proposed street scape berms and/or slopes. In addition Lots 68-94 will require a
mechanical ventilation system to permit a '%vindow closed" condition. Attic vents facing
Base L~r,.e Road and Day Creek Boulevard should be provide with an acoustical baffle
to prevent vehicle noise intrusion through the attic vents.
Tree Preservation
1) The existing California Oak Tree on the project site shall be preserved in place. The
applicant shall prepare an arbodst report to study the immediate area around the tree
and make recommendations to preserve the health of the tree before any authorization
for development of the property. The tree shall be protected during grading and
construction as required by the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section
19.08.110.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1999.
PLA~,~NING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATI'EST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Bred Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of
the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of December 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM
Project File No.: Tentative Tract 15993 and Development Review 99-45
This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the
mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above-listed project.
This program has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation
measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code).
Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements:
1o 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. Aprocedureofcomplianceandverificationhasbeenoutlinedforeachactionnecessary. 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 Cucomonga.
1. A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in
performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant.
2. An MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its
corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached
hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when,
and to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting
documentation will be kept in the project file, with the department having the original authority
for processing the project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following
address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga - Lead Agency
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Mitigation Monitoring Program
TT 15993 AND DR 99-45
September 27, 1999
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 department will approve, by signature and date, the
completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each
measure is verified for complianc,-,, no further ad, ian 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 :f'~quidng 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 .~.,,'gject planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of
cor~st.'uction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after
written notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also
has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure
attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the
authority to hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented.
8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the
responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department. The
Department shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of
guarantee2 with the City. These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or
pay for City staff time tc, 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
Communi~, [;;~velopment Director prior to the issuance of building pern"' ~.
MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III)
Project File No.: TT15993 and DR 99-45 Applicant: Western Pacific '
Initial Study Prepared by: Rudy Zeledon Date: September 27, 1999
The .use of Iow-emi.ssions a. nd high-energy CP/BO B/C As Necessary A 4
where feasible.
Grading Plans state equipment shut off when not in CP/BO C Plan Check C 2
use. E~end construction period dudng smog
season (May-October)
Encourage ride-sharing and transit incentives for CP B/C As Necessa~ ND 4
construction crew.
Dust generated by the development shall be CP/BO C As Necessaff A 2/4
retained on-site.
Utilize, as much as possible, precoated natural CP/BO B/C As Necessa~ NC
colored building materials (water-based or
Iow-VOC coating) and manual coating or spray
equipment with high efficiency transfer.
A minimum of 3-7 foot high be constructed along CP/BO B~C Prior to the CiA 2
Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard (Lots issuance of
68-94) Building Permits 2
Mechani~l ventilation system to permit a "window CP/BO B C
closed" condition.
Affic vents facing Base Line Road and Day Creek CP/BO B C 2
Boulevard will require an acoustical baffle.
Prese~e oak tree. CP B/C Prior to the A, B, D
issuance of
Building Permits
MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR TENTATIVE I RACT 14759 Page 2
' Key to Checklist Abbreviations
CDD - Communi~ Development Dire~or A -~th Each New Development A - On-sit9 Ins~ion 1 -~hhold Re~rdation of Final Map
CP - Ci~ Planner or designee B - Pdor To Constm~ion B - Other Agen~ Petit I ~proval 2 - ~hhold Grading or Bui~ing Petit
CE - Ci~ Engineer or designee ~ C - Throughout Constm~ion C - Plan Che~ 3 - W~hold Ce~ifi~te of O~upan~
BO - Building Offidal or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submi~al (Repods I Studies I Plans) 4 - Stop Wo~ Order
PO - Poli~ Captain or designee E - Operating 5 - Retain Oepo~ or Bonds
FC - Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: Tentative Tract 15993 and Development Review 99-45
SUBJECT: 94 Lot Subdivision
APPLICANT: Western Pacific
LOCATION: Northeast corner Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLAN NING DIVISION, (909) 477-27500 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. Subdivision approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building
permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 3 years from the date of
approval.
2. 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 Victoria Community Plan.
Project NO, TT 15993 & OR 9945
Completion Date
2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions
of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
3. ~ccupancy~fthefaci~itiessha~in~tc~mmenceunti~suchtimeasal~Unif~rmBui~dingC~deand
State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be
submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety
Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to
occupancy.
4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approva~ shall be
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building pern~s.:
5, All site, grading, landscape, irrigation,.a'p_d street improvement plans shall be coordinated for
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building. etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved
use has commenced, whichever comes first.
6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code,
all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at
the time of building permit issuance.
7. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram,~shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800)~rprior to the issuance~of
building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method_~
shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties.
8. If no centralized trashreceptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with
all receptacles shielded from public view,
9. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shal{ 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.
10. All ground-mounted utility eppurtenances 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.
11. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the
adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the fina} map.
12. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner,
including proper illumination,
13. 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 Home~wners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the
name and address of the;. :-fficers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever
said information changes.
14. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be per- .: ~'r~tly maintained by the property
owner, homeowners' association, or other means ac~-:;_.:.a'ale to the City. Proof of this
landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Pianner and City Engineer review and
approved prior to the issuance of building permits.
Project No. TT 15993 & DR ~3-45
Completion Date
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 '/'=-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 ::orner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk.
19. For residential development, return walls and comer side walls shall be decorative masonP/.
20. 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 rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment, /
detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
2, All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated
with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be
included in building plans.
E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans)
1. Multiple car garage driveways shall be tapered down to a standard two-car width at street. __/__/__
F. Landscaping
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping / /__
in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior
final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2. 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, 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.
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
Proiect No. TT 15993 & DR 9945
Completion Date
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 satisfactory condition.
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 along Base Line
Road, Day Creek Boulevard.
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.
All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas,
the design shall be coordinated with the Engin.~ering Division.
G. Environmental
1. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation
to i~e~ow 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if
appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The build ing plans will be checked
for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report.
2. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cast 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.
H. Other Agencies
1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to setermine the appropriate type and
location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead
structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the
design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to
the issuance of building permits.
pn3ject No. TT 15993 & DR 99-45
;ompletlon Date
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
I~OMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
I. 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, ~nergy 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.
J. Site Development
1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be /
marked with the project file number (i .e., CUP 98-01 ). The applicant shall comply with the latest
adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National
Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements. and all other applicable codes, ordinances
and regulations in effect at the time of 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 Build ing 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. 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.
Project NO. TT 15993 & DR 99-45,
Completion Date
K. New Structures
1, Roofing materials shall be Class "A."
L. Grading
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved grading plan.
2. A 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 ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
M. 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. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from
street centedine):
Varies from 60 to 70 total feet on Base Line Road
72 total feet on Day Creek Boulevard
3. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on
the final map.
Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall
be dedicated to the City.
5. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right tum lanes, to provide a minimum
of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn
lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided.
6. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests
necessary to construct the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do so, the
developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an
agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such
time as the City acquires the property interests required forthe improvements. Such agreement
shall pro'-' 'de for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site
property !nterests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these
costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained
by the developer, at developer's cost, The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior
to commencement of the appraisal. This condition applies in particular, but not limited to: Base
Line Road.
Project No, Tr 15993 & DR 9945
Completion Date
N. 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 limited to, curb and gutter,
AC pavement. drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees.
2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike Other
Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail
Day Creek Blvd. X X X X X X X X
:Base Line Road X X X X X X X X
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.
3. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety
lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be
posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City
Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior
to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any
other permits required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or
reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future
traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the
street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City
Engineer.
Notes:
(1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets. a maximum of
200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel
with pull rope or as specified.
e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all comers of intersections per City
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with
adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A
Proiect No. TT 15993 & DR 99-45
Completion Date
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 sh~t 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. __/__
4. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all private streets shall be provided for review
and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being performed on the private streets,
fees shall be paid and construction permits shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office ;n
addition to any other permits required.
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.
O. 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: Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard.
2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting '/
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
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: Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard.
P. Drainage and Flood Control
1.Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe
measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk.
2. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage
in a sump catch basin on the public street.
Q. 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. Easen':~.r~ts shall be provided as required.
project No. TT 15993 & DR 9945
CompleUon Date
2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.
3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD). Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and
the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance
from the CCW D 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 pdor to final map
approval in the Case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the Case of all other
residential projects.
R. 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.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
S. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Fire flow requirement shall be: 1,500 gallons per minute, Per '97 UFC Appendix III-A, 3, (b)
(increase).
XA fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department
personnel prior to water plan approval.
X 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.
2. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed,__ __
and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i .e., lumber, roofing
materials, etc:). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel.
3. Existing fire hydrant loCations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, /
if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with
a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard.
Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers.
4. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be __/__
submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is
available, pending completion of the required fire protection system.
5. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to __
final inspection.
6, Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted:
X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 32. __/__
7. Fire District fee(s), plus a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District as follows:
X $132 for Single Family Residential Tract (per phase).
Proiect NO, ~'F 15993 & OR 99.45
Completion Date
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACTTHE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
T. Security Hardware
'1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors.
2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are
within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cyiinder dead bolt shall be
used.
3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices.
U. Windows
1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be
lifted from frame or track in any manner.
V. Building Numbering
1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for ni~.
visibility.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW 99-45 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15993, IN THE LOW-MEDIUM
DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE VICTORIA
COMMUNITY PLAN, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
BASE LINE ROAD AND DAY CREEK BOULEVARD AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-091-21 THROUGH 24.
A. Recitals.
1. Western Pacific Housing has filed an application for the Development Review of Tract
15993, 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 October27, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held
a meeting to consider the application and continued the item at the request of the applicant.
3. On Decamber 8, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
held a meeting to consider the application.
3o 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 December 8. 1999, including written and oral staff reports, this
Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and
b. The proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code
and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and
c. The proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of
the Development Code; and
d. The project will comply with all applicable innovative provisions of the Low-
Medium Residential District of the Victoria Community Plan, including minimum lot size, minimum
lot average, lot width and lot depth, height limitations, setbacks, and private open space. The
project will subdivide 18 acres of land into 94 single-family lots, averaging 5,619 square feet per
lot, which exceeds the minimum lot average of 4,000 square feet. The project complies with
minimum lot depth of 90 feet and minimum lot width of 50 feet. The project complies with the 50-
I~LANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 99-45 - WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING
December 8, 1999
Page 2
foot building setback from Base Line Road, including a 25-foot parkway and 44-foot building
setback from Day Creek Boulevard, including a 19-foot parkway. The dwelling units will not
· exceed 35 feet in height and meet the side yard setback of 5 feet minimum one side; 10 feet
combined both sides; roar yard setback of 15 feet, 25 feet if lot rears onto an arterial road; and
front yard setback of 10 feet for side entry garage and 18 feet setback for front entry garage. The
project complies with the 750 squaro-foot pdvate open space requirement; and
e. The proposed design, together with the conditions applicable theroto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare ~r materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
f. The development of the proposed project would not have a significant impact on
the environment.
3. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration, together with all wdtten and oral reports inc!uded for the environmental assessment
for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated heroin by this rolefence,
based upon the findings as follows:
ao That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with
the ~. omia Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines
prom:.,~ated 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 prc,;: :t, there is no evidence that the
proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upc,~,, 1 ;idlife rosources or the habitat
upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substaniial evidence contained in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the
Planning Commission dudng the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the
presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5 (c-l-d) of Title 14 of the Califomia
Code of Regulations.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1.2, 3, and 4 above,
'~his Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth
below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated heroin by this referonce.
Plannin.q Division
1 ) All conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 15993 shall apply.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO,
DR 99-45 - WESTERN, PACIFIC HOUSING
December 8, 1999
Page 3
2) All retaining walls exposed to public view shall all be treated with a
decorative extedor finish or be composed of a decorative block
material.
3) Garden and retaining walls extending into front setbacks shall have
a decorative cap and an end pilaster or "square block" to provide
definition.
4) Continue wainscot siding treatment on house plans 1C & 2C, around
to side elevations up to intedor return walls or logical ending.
5) Provide corbel detail to both second floor windows, on rear enhanced
elevations on house plans 1 & 2.
6) All intedor retaining walls shall not exceed 3 feet in height.
7) Provide a minimum 5-foot setback between fencing on all comer side
yards and sidewalks.
8) All proposed stucco tdm s.urround on windows shall be of high density
foam.
9) On house plans 1A and 1 B, provide additional detail to the eaves to
include double wood fascia trim (in areas where gutters are not
proposed).
10) Dwelling unit on Lot 77 shall have a rear yard set back of 25 feet from
the property line.
Enqineedn~ Division
1) All conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 15993 shall apply.
Environmental Miti.qation Measures
Air Quality
Air quality impacts may occur dudng the site preparation including grading
and equipment exhaust as it is used on-site. Major sources of emissions
dudng this phase include exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and
equipment, and fugitive dust generated as a result of construction vehicles
and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces, as well as soil
disturbances by grade/fill. NOx and PM~0 levels will be exceeded on a daily
basis during construction. The following mitigation measures will be
required to reduce impacts to a less-than significant level:
1 ) The Construction Contractor shall select the construction equipment
used on-site 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
I~LANNING COMMISS!ON RESOLUTION NO,
DR 99-45 - WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING
December 8, 1999
Page 4
--:be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's
'specifications.
2) The Construction Contractor shall utilize electric or diesel-powered
equipment in lieu of gasoline-powered engines where feasible.
3) The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading
plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment
when not in use. During smog season (May through October), the
~k~.. 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.
4) The Construction Contractor shall support and encourage ride-sharing
and transit incentives for the construction crew.
5) 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
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 c:
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 tarpeal from the
point of origin.
6) The Construction Contractor shall utilize, as much as possible, pre-
coated natural colored building materials, wateRbased 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 coating applications such as paint brush, hand roller,
trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge.
I~LANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 99-45 - WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING
December 8, 1999
Page 5
Noise
1) To mitigate traffic noise to "safe' levels, a minimum 3-7 foot high wall
be constructed along both Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard
(Lots 68-94) along the top of the proposed street scape berms and/or
slopes. In addition Lots 68-94 will require a mechanical ventilation
system to permit a '~,indow closed" condition. Attic vents facing Base
Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard should be provide with an
acoustical baffle to prevent vehicle noise intrusion through the attic
vents.
Tree Preservation
1 ) The existing Califomia Oak Tree on the project site shall be preserved
in place. The applicant shall prepare an arborist report to study the
immediate area around the tree and make recommendations to
preserve the health of the tree before any authorization for
development of the property. 'The tree shall be protected during
grading and construction as required by the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code Section 19.08.110.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 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 8th day of December 1999 by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM
Project File No.: Tentative Tract 15993 and Development Review 99-45
This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the
mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above-listed project.
This program has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation
measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code).
Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements:
1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and
the procedure necessary to ensure comOliance. The mitigation measure conditions of
approval are contained in the adopted Re~olution 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 o 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 a~'..t reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly
and proper action is taken or~ 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 covedng all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in
performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant.
2. An MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its
corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached
hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when,
and to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting
eocumentation 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 Ddve
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Mitigation Monitoring Program
'Fr 15993 AND DR 9945
September 27, 1999
Page 2
3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staff's is needed,
as determined by the project planner or responsible City department, to monitor specific
mitigation activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the project planner.
4. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the
completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each
measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of
development.
5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed
off as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the
MMP Reporting Form.
6. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation
measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions.
An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City
department and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational
personnel.
7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of
construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after
wdtten notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also
has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure
attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the
authority to hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented.
8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the
responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department. The
Department shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of
guarantee) with the City. These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or
pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the required period
of time.
9. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City
with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the
monitoring results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified
to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The
monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the
Community Development Director prior to the issuance of building permits,
MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III)
Project File No.: TT15993 and DR 99-45 Applicant: Western Pacific
Initial Study Prepared by: Rudy Zeledon Date: September 27, 199§
The use of low-emissions and high-energy CP/BO B/C As Necessary A 4
efficiency construction equipment.
Utilization of electric or diesel-powered equipment CP/BO B/C As Necessary A 4
where feasible. :
Grading Plans state equipment shut off when not in CP/BO C Plan Check C 2
use. Extend construction period dur:ng smog
season (May-October)
Encourage ride-sharing and transit incentives for CP B/C As Necessary ND 4
construction crew.
Dust generated by the development shall be CP/BO C As Necessary A 2/4
retained on-site.
Utilize, as much as possible, precoated natural CP/BO B/C As Necessary NC
colored building materials (water-based or
Iow-VOC coating) and manual coating or spray
equipment with high efficiency transfer.
· A minimum of 3-7 foot high be constructed along CP/BO B%C Priortothe C/A 2
Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard (Lots issuance of
68-94) Building Permits 2
· Mechanical ventilation system to permit a "window CP/BO B C
closed" condition.
· Affic vents facing Base Line Road and Day Creek CP/BO B C 2
Boulevard will require an acousti~l baffle.
· Prese~e oak tree. CP B/C Prior to the A, B, D 1/2
MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14759 Page 2
Key to Checklist Abbreviations
CDD - Communi~ ~velopment Dire~or A - ~th Each New Development A - On-site Ins~ion 1 - ~thhold Rearclarion of Finat Map
CP C~ Planner or designee B - Pdor To Constm~ion B - Other Agen~ Pe~ / ~proval 2 - W~hold Grading or Building Pe~
I -
CE - Ci~ Engineer or designee C - Throughout Constation C - Plan Che~ 3 - ~thhold Cedifi~te of O~upan~
BO - Building Official or designee D - On Completion D - Separate SubmiRal (Repo~s / Studies I Plans) 4 - Stop Wo~ Order
PC - Poli~ Captain or deslgnee E - Operating 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds
FC - Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENTO
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: Tentative Tract 15993 and Development Review 99-45
SUBJECT: 94 Lot Subdivision
APPLICANT: Western Pacific
LOCATION: Northeast comer Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard
ALL OF I'HE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
A. General Requirements collation 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, padicipate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such
padicipation 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. Subdivision approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building /
permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced wifhh~ 3 years from the date of
approval.
2, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, or DevelopmentJDesign Review approval shall expire if / /__
building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the
date of approval. No extensions are allowed,
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 Victoria Community Plan,
ProjedNo. TT15993 & DR 99415
Completion Date
2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions
of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
3. Occupancy of the facilities shaft 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 shaft be inspected for compliance prior to
occupancy.
4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved
use has commenced, whichever comes first.
6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code,
all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at
the time of building permit issuance.
7. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of
building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of
shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties.
8. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with /
all receptacles shielded from public view.
9. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shaft 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, __/__ __
including proper illumination.
13. 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 January I of each and every year and whenever
said information changes.
14. 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.
- Pmjed NO. TT 15993 & DR 99-45
Completion Date
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 miffimum of two ~A-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 comer side yards, provide minimum 5-tcL ~ setback between walls/fences and sidewalk.
19. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry.
20. 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 rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment,
detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits. ..
2. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated
with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be
included in building plans.
E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans)
1. Multiple car garage driveways shall be tapered down to a standard two-car width at street.
F. Landscaping
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping
in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and
subm tted for C ty P anner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior
final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2. E~.isting trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier
il~ 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. All priv~,te 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.
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
Project No. TT 15993 & DR 9945
Completion Date
~' follows: one l5.gallon or larger size tree per each l50 sq. ft. of slope area, l-gallonorlarger
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 developei' 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 satisfactory condition.
6. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls. landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included __
in the required I~d~'~pe 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 along Base Line
Road, Day Creek Boulevard.
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.
Environmental
1o A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation
to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if
appropriate, verity the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked
for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report.
2. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of
implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required
to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the
amount of $719.00, prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory
performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City
to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation
measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents
shall be considered grounds for forfeit.
In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final certificate of occupancy),
the applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior
to issuance of building permits. Said program shall identity the reporter as an individual
qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented.
H. Other Agencies
1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and
location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead
structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the
design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to
the issuance of building permits.
Project NO. TT 15993 & DR 99-45
Completion Date
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
I. 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. ElectricaI Plans (2 sets, detached)includingthesizeofthemainswitch, numberandsize
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, gD-r3-' Piping, and heating and
air conditioning; and
g. Planning Division Project Number (i.e., 'I'[ #, CUP #, DR #, etc.) cleady identified on the
outside of all plans.
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.
J. Site Development
1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be __ __/__
marked with the project file number (i.e., C UP 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 Beautificotion 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
jSSUarlCe.
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 constraction on Sunday or holidays.
project No. TT 15993 & DR 9945
ompletlon Date
K. New Structures
1. Roofing materials shall be Class "A." /
L. Grading
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City /
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved grading plan.
2. A 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 ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
M. 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. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from
street centerline):
Varies from 60 to 70 total feet on Base Line Road
72 total feet on Day Creek Boulevard
3. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on
the final map.
4. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall
be dedicated to the City.
5. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum
of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn
lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided.
6. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests
necessary to construct the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do so, the
developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an
agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such
time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement
shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site
property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these
costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained
by the developer, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior
to commencement of the appraisal. This condition applies in particular, but not limited to: Base
Line Road.
Project No, TT 15993 & DR ~9-45
Completion Date
N. Street Improvements
All public improvements (interior streets. drains- ~i~ities, community trails. paseos,
landscaped areas. etc.) shown on the plans and/or , . :. map shall be constructed to City
Standards. Interior street improvements shall inclur.,f., u~. are not limited to, curb and gutter,
AC pavement. drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees.
2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including. but not limited to:
Curb & A.C, ! Side. ~ Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike Other
Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail
Day Creek Blvd. X X X X X X X X
Base Line Road X X X X X X X X
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and ovedays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked. sidewalk
shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be
provided for this item.
3. 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
At~c. mey guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior
to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any
other permits required.
c. Pavement striping. marking. traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or
reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future
traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the
street at 3 feet outside of BCR. ECR, or any other locations approved by the City
Engineer.
Notes:
(1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of
200 feet apart. unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel
with pull rope or as specified.
e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all comers of intersections per City
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with
adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A
project No, TT 15993 & DR 9945
Completion Date
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 pdor to submittal for first plan check. __/__ __
4. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all private streets shall be provided for review __/__
and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being performed on the private streets,
fees shall be paid and construction permits shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in
addition to any other permits required.
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.
O. 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: Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard.
2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
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: Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard.
P. Drainage and Flood Control
1.Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe
measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk.
2. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage
in a sump catch basin on the public street.
Q. Utilities
1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas,
electric power, telephone, and cable 'IV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
- project NO. TT 15993 & DR 9945
Completion Date
2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.
3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Ranch~Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and
the Environmental Health Department of the County of San BernardinD. 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 p_rojects.
R, General Requirem~'~ts 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 men;~s of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to
building permit issuance if no map is I.~!;olved.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UN IT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
S. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Fire flow requirement shall be. t,500 gallons per minute, Per '97 i ~'..'. Appendix III-A, 3, (b)
(Increase).
XA fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/d~,:teloper and witnessed by fire department
personnel prior to water plan approval.
X For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants
shall be conducted t~. ',he builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel
after construction anu prior to occupancy.
2. 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.). H:jr~'3nts flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel.
3. Erjsting 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 dser with
a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard.
Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers.
4. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall b~
submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is
available, pending completion of the required fire protection system.
5. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to
final inspection.
6. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted:
X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 32.
7. Fire District fee(s), plus a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District as follows:
X $132 for Single Family Residential Tract (per phase).
Project No. TT15993&DR99~5
Completlo, Date
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477°2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
T. Security Hardware
'1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors.
2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are
within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be
used.
3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices.
U. Windows
1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be
lifted from frame or track in any manner.
V. Building Numbering
1.Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime
visibility. -