HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/03/08 - Agenda Packet" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY MARCH 8, 2000 7:00 PM
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chamber
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Chairman McNiel__ Vice Chairman Macias
Com. Mannerino__ Com. Stewart . Com. Tolstoy
I1. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 9, 2000
February 23, 2000
Adjourned Meeting February 23, 2000
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following Consent Calendar items are 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. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
99-63 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES - The development of a
70,620 square foot industrial building on 4.25 acres of land in the
General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific
Plan, located at the southeast corner of Tacoma Drive and White
Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-11. Related file: Development
Review 99-62. Staff has prepared a Negative Dectaration of
environmental impacts for consideration. (Continued from February
9, 2O00)
V.' PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following it~;ms are public headngs in which concerned individuals may voice
their opinion of ,'he related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman
and address tl,e Commission by stating your name and address. All such
opinions shall b~ limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign
in after speakin(, l
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 99-17 - AIRTOUCH CELLULAR - The development of a
wireless communication facility consisting of a 65-foot stealth
mc, nopol~ on 3.34 acres of land in the Flood Control District, located
at 8248 ' 9th Street (CCWD Well No. 24) - APN: 201-201-40. Staff
ha.'; pret;ared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for
consider~)tion.
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- 00-03 MCALAN'S PUB AND GRILLE
- A requ~.~st to establish a bar in conjunction with a restaurant that
offers en':ertainment, in the Neighborhood Commercial District of the
Haven ~iltage Center, located at 6321 Haven Avenue (formerly
Willie & Pies Pizza) APN 201-271-69. Related file:
Entertain"nent Permit 00-01.
D. ENTERT.~,INMENT PERMIT 00-01- MCALAN'S PUB AND GRILLE-
A request to offer entertainment consisting of a small acoustic trio
and Kar~.oke in conjunction with a bar and restaurant within the
Neighbor'~ood Commercial District of the Haven Village Center,
located ~.t 6321 Haven Avenue (formerly Willie & Pies Pizza) -
APN: 201-271-69. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 00-03.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
E. ENVIROHMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
99-62 - 3APELLINO AND ASSOCIATES - The development of
three ind['strial buildings totaling 82,376 square feet on 4.12 acres of
land in rye General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial
Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Arrow Route,
approximately 300 feet east of White Oak Avenue -
APN: 20.~-461-02 and 209-471-03. Related file: Development
Review .~'9-63. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration. (Continued from February
9, -~000)
F. POLICY WAIVER - BADDER - A request to waive the Planning
Commission design policy requiring the use of tile roofing material,
and proposing composition shake instead, for a new home located
at 10336 Hidden Farm Road APN: 1074-121-07.
Page 2
VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the commission. Items
to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda.
VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS
G. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROGRESS - Oral report
IX. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an
11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard
only with the consent of the Commission.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ADJOURN TO A
WORKSHOP IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING 'IN THE RAINS
ROOM TO DISCUSS PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 00-03 -
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP
I, Gail 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 March 2, 2000, at least 72 hours prior to the
meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Ddve
Rancho Cucamonga.
/
Page 3
VICINITY MAP
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- ::::::.:
~i ,-.'.'.'.--'-': ........... I -:----'-
~ ' ,
., ) ()
CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY OF
J~ A N C I~ 0 C U C A H 0 N G A
S' f:f Report
DATE: March 8, 2000
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-63 -
CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES - The development of a 70,620 square fo,,t
industrial building on 4.25 acres of land in the General industrial District (Subarea
8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Tacoma
Drive and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-11. Related File: Development
Review 99-62
BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission continued this item from the February 9, 2000,
meeting to allow the applicant time to respond to concerns from the United States Fish and
W~ldlife Service (USFWS). The USFWS letter received by staff on February 8, 2000, (Exhibit
"A") made unsubstantiated claims regarding supposed environmental impacts associated with
the project. No scientific evidence of impactswas provided. However, the applicant's biologist
has conducted a Habitat Assessment Survey of the issues raised by USFWS (potential San
Bernardino kangaroo rat and burrowing owl habitat) and supplied fact-based responses to the
USFWS letter. Staff believes the applicant has addressed ali pertinent issues. Please refer to
the attached applicant's response (Exhibit "B") dated February 21, 2000, for further details
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The applicant has completed Part I of the Initial Study and
staff has completed Part II. Supplemental information provided by the applicant's biologist in
response to USFVVS claims has been added to the discussion portion of the Initial Study. With
implementation of a mitigation measure requiring an additional burrowing owl survey within 30
days prior to construction, potential impacts associated with the project can be mitigated to a
less than significant level. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration would be in order.
ITEM A
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 99-63 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES
March 8, 2000
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission issue a Mitigated
Negative Declaration for Development Review 99-63 through minute action.
Brad Bullet
City Planner
BB:RZ~Is
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from United States Fish and Wildlife Service, received by staff
on February 8, 2000.
Exhibit "B"- Impact Sciences Inc., Habitat Assessment Survey response, dated
February 21,2000.
Exhibit "C" Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 9, 2000
Exhibit "D"- Revised Initial Study Part II and Mitigation Monitoring Plan
C (
United States Depaxtment of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service '
coto c t
Carlsbad Fish and W'fldlli'e
2730 Loker Avenue Wcst
Carlsbad, California 92008
0 8
Rudy Z¢lcdon
Assoclat,' Plaaacr
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Centex Dxive
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
Subject: Devetopmeu~ P,~view 99-62 and 99-63, in the City of Kancho Cuc~tmonga, San
Bemardina County, CalLfomia
Dear Mr. Z¢lcdon:
'['his lct~cr provid~ our commtm~ on thc Notices o£ Intaut for D~vclopmez~t P. cviaw 99-62 and
99-63, rt~ziv~l by thc U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Son.ice) on January 20, 2000, for the
dcv¢lopmant of industrial buildings in the General Indus'trial Distcict (Subarea 8). We
undera'tand that the proposals are to develop 4.12 ~ locatext south of Arrow P. out¢ aad e~t of
White Oak Avenue, and 4.25 acr~x Iocatecl at the xouthca-~t comer of Tacoma Drive and White
Oak Avenue inthc City ofP. ancho Cucamonga (City), San Bcmardlaa County,
indlcat~l previously in our lctt~ of May 5, 199g (a~¢b~), w~ arc conc~-ncd about thc potential
impacts to the federally ~dangcred Delhi Saad~ flow~-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminams
abdominally, "DSF") that is known to occur witl/m sandy soils within the proposed l~ojcct
vicinity. The DSF is fully prot~ct~l un~l~r th~ End.gered Sp~clea Act of 1973 (Act), as
amended.
~,Vc provid~ thc following commonts in k~ping wlth our agency's mission to wo~ "with others
to con~'vc, protect, and ~ace flab, wildlife, and plant~ and their habi~at~ for thc coafinuing
· ' c" Moreover, we inovide commeut~ on public noticea issued f~r a
benefit of thc American peopl .
Federal l~'~mlt or lict-.m~ a~'ectlng the Nation's v,-at~r~ purxuant to thc Clean Water Act. We also
~dm~tli$t~' [he Act. So.don 7 of thc Act r~quixc~ F~xleral agcacic$ to consult with us, thc
Ssrvlca, should it be d~t~m~nc'd that th~i~ a~io~ may affect federally Iistezi speci~. S¢t:tion 9
of thc Act p~hibi~ the "take" (e.g., haan, ~-a~ra~nt, pursuit, injury, kill) of fed~ally listed
wildlife. "Harm" ix furtlx~ definexi to include habitat madificatiou or d~graztatiott whcr~ ~t killa
or injures wildlife by impairing essential behavioral patt~n:~ including b~eeding, feeding, or
sheltering, Take incidental to otherwise lawful acfvitics can b~ authorLz~'d under ~ct[ons 7
(Fexicral comulmlioa~) and 10 (habita~ cona~rvation plaas) of thc Act.
Kudy Z~:lcdon 2
We have reviewed thc habltat-b~,ed evaluations'conducted by Sco~t Cameron ofhnpact
Science. As indicated in the report, DSI~ am capable of occupyin~ sub-optima! h~hitats and
definitive conclusions relative to thc p~scnce or absence c~nnot bc aicer~,ined absent
conducting focused surveys fo~ DSF. Therefore, w~ disa~ee with Mr. Camc~on's conclu~ion~
that thc proposed development will not likely result in adverse effects to the DSF. Thus, w~ am
providing thc following comments and recomm~,'lations to ~able the City and thc project
propoaant to take propor a~tion with regard to the endangered species concerns on the proposed
project sit~s.
We conduced site visits fi.om the side of the nyad on...a'il 21~, 1995, and again on Februm'y 3,
2000, and determined that both sims cunm[n appropriate soils that could sump. orr thc DSF and
native plant species associated with DSF-occupicd s~s. Wc concluded that thc sim had the
po~ntial to support DSF in our previous Icl'tm' .,,e~ sim conditions do not appear tn have changed
since thai time, therefore, we still we recommend that protocol surveys for thc DSF be conducted
by a permitted biologist, er that appropri~ authorization pu~umt to the Act be obt~/ned prior to
.any disturbance on thc s~. In.-,~-4~tion, a habitat assessmen~ stmuld be co~ad, ucted by a qualified
biologist to det~,,,,;nc if'.M si~ n-~m~-o~ and,~ng=~ ~an t~emardino kangaroo rat (l)i.~o~bmys
merrlaralalxlrvus; "SBKR.~ ~? er lg~m",,,~ If so, thc slt~ should bc trapped by c permitted
biologist to det~.a mine the slams oft~e SBiGI: on the project sitc.
Sites that contain unconsolidated soils in the a~a arc s~nlflcant because they play -cfi. tical role
in the recovery of the DSF in thls recovery unit. Thc recovery plan for the DSF identified the
~tabli~hment o£a x~ovcry unit in the Ontario area, wherein a secure habit~ base will nccd to be
conserved and restored to achieve population suability md recovery of thc species. Further
habitat loss in this recovery unit by this project and otl~rs ,*'ill increa.se thc likelihood of
cxtlnction of thc DSF in the Ontario Recovery Unit. Wc ar~ now working with several cities
within San Bcrnardino County to ad.ess issu~ relating to DSF regionally, inclodln~ the cities of
Rancho Cucamonga and O-~do. This regional solution would identi.c7 lands that would be
conscrvcd for DSF and lands that could bc dcvclopcd outsidc of thc reserve areas. Although thc
plan is still being developed, the ultimat~ plan may provide a solution for properties such as the
subject sites in the near future.
We arc also concerned about thc potential impacts of the proposed project to the sensitive
burrowing owl (,4tl~ene canicu/ara), and other sensitive spccics that occur in the general
and raptors that use the area ss foraging habitat. Duc to urban and industrial d~vclopment, DSF,
SBKI~ and b~rowing owls have cteclined thxoughout this axea of San Bernardlno County. Issues
related to .~ii,~l~cant biological r~ourcns on thc proposed project site, such as development and
loss of Delhi sands that either support or have the potential to support the DSF, SBKR,
burrowing owl, and use of thc site by foraginl~ xaptors, should be adequately addre-sscd und~ the
C_.alLfomla Envlmnmcntal Quality Act (CEQA).
We apprcciat~ the opportunity to provide ecrrnments on the proposed projects and. are available to
work with the City and project proponent to avoid, m~,imiz~, and mitlgam impa~ts to federally
lista:d a~d se~sitlve species. Wc rcqusst that final approval of the proposed project be
3
P, xidy Zeledon
until the issues raised in this le=er been resotved. If you have any questions regarding this leaer,
please con~act Mary Beth Woulfe of this office si (760) 431-94~0.
~k Assistant Field Supervisor
Atta~'hrnenI
1.6.00.N~rrA- 19'/
· cc: City of N"ncho ~a, CA (A~m: Brad Buffc~/Lm~ Henderson)
CDFG, Chino, CA (Arm: Robin !q~o~ ~me-s)
Torrance, CA (Att~ Mark Cap~ll;no)
Impact Sciences, Aguora Hills, .C~ (AUra ScoOt Came~o~''~h Baizc~)
IMPACT 6CIENCES "
30343 Ca,~wocd Su. eec. Suite 210 '
Tclep~ (818) 87~11~ F~ (818) 879.14~ . .
CarUSo & ~ates .. "
~ ~1 ~ ~ev~, ~e. 1~ : -
Au~on: Mr. ~ck Ca~ "
~ ~ R~o~c~l~el Biological S~ C~d~ ~ a ~4.12-a~ ~d.
~acre Site, (D~elopment R~ ~ ~d ~), Ci~ .of R~cho'.
Mr.
~ letter ~o~ p~ ~d~ ~ a ~-[~le~el' ~e~'~ ~ ~valuate
In~duction
~paCt ~ ~ ~at ~e Ci~ h~ r~ ~at a habitat ~m~t ~
~o~on ~su~s~ ~ evaluaie ~e pot~U~l pre'of ~mieve biologic~ '"
(~WL). ~e ~12-~ ~ ~ l~at~ ~u~ of~ R~u~ ~ e~t of ~ie '~ Av~ue,.' *
~d ~e 4.~ac~ are b l~a~d at ~e sou~east ~ o~ T~oa,a ~E~"~d ~ite.' Oak
A~ue ~l~m I~ -.
~ or~ ~ m~ ~ ~~ d~on ~ ~view ~ ~ ~e age~i~
su& ~ ~ ~ U.S. F~ ~ Wild~e ~tce ~f~), pot~y. ~g ~sifive btol~l "
~ m~ ~ a~a~ly ad&~ ~ ~gated ~r 'to' site divel~t) i~-
~d ~ ~d~ge~ S~ A~ of 1973, as m~ (A~).. A~ord~g~y, ~s. ~n ~ ~ded '.
~ pro.de ~e ~r~ applic~t wi~ genet~ biol~d ~foma~on ~ga~ pot~nfiall7 "
~CATION :
.'
.Backsxound.
San Ventadi~.o r.~garoo Rat
On,l'anuary 27, I~)8~ ~e SB~ was ~ I~ted ~ a feder~y. ~d sp~s. ~e
S~e. a~t~ ~e ~, ~d ~c~on 7 ~ ~c A~ mq~ feder~ ~d~ ~ ~ with
~e ~e ~uld it be defend ~t ~eir a~ ~ ~t a f~a~ ~ted ~eat~ed
~ ~e~ spe~. ~c~on 9 of.~e ~t p~its ~e '~e~ of ~s~d spas. ~ t~
a~pt to ~ ~ ~y su~ c~u~ ~ ~ *ha~" ~ ~er de,ed to ~du~ habitat
mo~caaon w~ It ~ or ~s w~He by ~pa~g e~ng~ b~vio~l pat~.
At ~sue ~ ~e ~ b ~e SB~ (~d i~ Mbitat) ~at ~ ~ adversely affected ~ p~t
deve~pm~t. Ur~ ~ a~ic~tu~ developm~ have res~ ~ bo~ ~ ~ ~d
~a~fion ofna~ habitat. ~ca~ ~e~ lo~s have c~u~d ~ ~e d~ ~ the
SB~ ~ ~ m~on, p~ pmp~ ~ demo~ate ~ re~e~g a~s ~at polential
...
~y sm~ b~ ~o~ of ~ ~ ~ ~m ~e vic~ of ~e st~, ~d the
· 1~ $B~ pop~fi~ are ~c~y a~iat~ wi~ ~yd~lo~c~ ~yst~s (~uv~
. flood plus ~ s~dy lo~ s~s~a~ ~ t~on p~e~ o~, sp~ly vegetated h~i~ ~d
~ ~efly ~ a va~ety of sage ~ p~t ~ ~, typic~y
~e~ s~ges of ~u~aI ~. Howe~, ~ ~ p~t site ~ l~a~d wi~
hlsto~tc.~ge of SBKR, ~d ~ po~ons of ~e ~te c~ ~ elem~t of ~I habitat
(e.g., s~y ~s), a mo~ der, ll~ blologtc~ ~ysis of ~e p~ site relative
w~ ~qu~d.
The buri~vilg owl is a Species of SpeciaJ Cer~ to Califonda, and a Federal Species of
Co.em es well (formerly a candidate species). Guidelines for ~ Implementation of CEQA
l~rovtde ~hat a species be considered as endangered or ra~e regardless of appearance ena formal
IWt for the purposes of CF_~A (Section 153~0,' ~'b and d). CEQA reqlltres a ma.ndator,/
~inclinl~ of si~Lficance it impacts to threatened c~ endangez,~d species are likely to ocmr
(Sections 21001{c}, 2103; Guidelines I~380, 15064, 15065). To .be legally adequate, mitigaiion
measures must be capable c~ avoiding the impa:t, minimiz~g the impact, rectifying the
impact, -er l,~dt.,cing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation (Guidelines 15370).
Avoid~a:e or mitigation to zecluce Lmpacts to less than sig'aificant levels must be included in a
pro{act ot the C.~QA lead agency muir ~-I~e a~d justity findm~ of ovetridlr~ conslcleratio~
While this sensitive species is not protected by state ~ federal endangered species acts like
the SBK'~ burrowing owls are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
o~ 1918 il& U.S.C. 703-711) and California Dep~ment of Fish and Game (CDFG) Code sec~orxs
3503, 3503.5, and 3800 whkh prohibits take, po~ion, o~ destn~ction of bLrds, their nes~ or
eggs. As such, specific ~mrvey protocol and mitigation guldelL~es (CDPG 1995) have been
developed to reduce project-related impacts to burrowing owls.
in order to avoid violation of the MBTA or California Fish and Game Code, the above-
mentioned guidelines state that project-related disturbances at active nesting territories be
red~ced or eLi~nJ, nated dm-lng ~ ne~ting cycle (February to August 31). Should eggs c~ '
fledglings be d. iscovea'ed in any owl burrow, the burrow cannot be disturbed (puzsuant to CDFG
protocol) until the yo~g have hatched end fledged (mab..~ed to a stage that they can leave
the nest on their own). Mitigation measures should be carried out from September 1 to January
31 (nesting'time is regionally variable). Preconstructic~ surveys of suitable habitat shtuld be
conducted within 30 days prior to construction to ensure no owls have established terri}ories m
site.
Me~o~
Literature Search
Documentation pertinent to the biological resources near the site wu reviewed and analyzed.
In/ormation reviewed included: (1) the Federal Register listing package for the federally
listed endang~i D~3F; (2) literature pertainiiag to habitat requirements of sensitive species
potentially occurring cn the project site; (3) the California Natural Diversity Data Base
(ClxVDDB 1999) in/o~vaHn~ regarding sensitive species potexxttally ~ c~ the pro~ect site
in a computer ~port format for the "Guasti" USG5 7.5-minute quadrangle map, and. (4) review
oI availabl~ reports/rom this and othm' project~ located in the general vicinity of the project
~te (e.g., biological reports, soils reports, Phase I reportS).
Field Surveys
The site was exarr~ed m foot by w~llttng a series of ~ramects across the su~jec~ property at
approximately 30 foot intervals- ' Senior Biologist Scott D. Camei~n a~t Project Biologist
David G. Cr~w~ord concluded surveys of the site. As mentioned, the primary objective of the
c~-te-~ay field visit was to evaluate the site's potential to support the 5BKR and BOWI.~ and
~0 ~d S~5~E~i3S ID~c~qI OPt~'~tLBBI8 £~:gI
generxlly evaluate habitat suitability fo~ othe~ 'potentially. oc~ sensitive, wildlife :' "i'.
species based on existing site conditions. General plant and .wflJlife ~pecle~ present at' the sit'~ ' '
were identified to assess the overall habitat
SBKR Habitat $~ta~illty Analysis ' ·:
Scioncls biologists have extensive experience with Hetero.myid~.ln '.~.uthern' California,' and
have ~ ccumulated over 60,0~O small manvnal h'apnlgh~ ov~ the pas{ nine years. Thes[te~as '"' "'
generelly evaluated for the suitability of habitat .to S~pl~rt ?BIER. by an .examination. of . · . .
substrate type, disturban~, vegetation composition ~nd' cover, and a s~arch, for diagnostic ·' ..'
k~ngm oo rat activity such as burrows, scat, ~ drag,~, ~,osl: baths, ~,,~4 mn.ways. ". ·"
BOWl. Analysis :.' ..
A survey for the BOWL was condu~'d ,~:ording to 1995 CDFG Stdf' Report aa Borro~g O. wl "
Mitigation cn February 18, 2000. Impact $ciences biolo~ts have c°nduc~. '~ surv~l~
for this ep~ciea, and have implemented passive reloc~tion techniques c~'multipl~ sites '.
following CDFG p~0tot-~ Pu~uara to CDFG survey pr?tocol, the subject. ~ea ]x~:~os,,-4 ~
use suth as the pr~sen~ o£owl ~.Ims, ~ tt~,~.~, ~r f~att~s 'at .the buzrow ar~ance.
Suitable burrows (burrows that a_~ ope~ zrai ~i~te enot~h for owl use regardless ff ovid ~,'gn is
preen0 ~ observed for owl activity a,,~ the sppr6pria~e tirae'ot d~y (a~ s6nrise ar
~uns~) during wkir_h owls become active. · ".' .
Exlsl:fl~g Conditions on the 4.12-Acre Site
The sit~ hm been historically rough g~acled (detailed below). In addition, 'deep clisklng rows
and tr~.'tor tires were evidence of ~h~ sites' exposure to'routine ~e~d .abatem?t acifvities. ThC . ·
eastern porlions of the site contain a truck tumont and conc~te washout a~ea. I~ addilion, this' ..
area w~s recently sc:raped and contains debgs and soil pile~..Both native .~nd non-natlye plant .... .
species are present ~ the site. Soils m the site. are predominantly ~omp.ac~. and little 'to no .' '
areas ot; the site ?urranfly support friable soft types. - ....
Vegetationi · . . . . .
Approximately B0 pe.~mt of the site i~ 'de,ely vegetated with' ~ ~¢mbination ~f non-native '....
ruderal (weedy) he~b, and g/asses and i~ative plant Sl>edes; Moaerat~ly. d~.~e tel~graph weed .
· ' ' 'p$ilos~achy'9 aze pt~nt ' .
with elements of annual bur-sase ~nd western ragW~'ed (Ambrosia . . ....
over rl~t ~f the site. Native mule fa~ (Baccharis * sMici~Olla) 'is' alAo. pre'it iix a small. ..
depression. '" ·. '.
Ruderal introduc~t plmat SlV~i~ comprbe the mostly den..~* understory . Nob-native. sprites
present on site include horehoui3d (Marrubi~m mdgare), ripgut grass (l~r~'nus diahdrus); foxtail
chess (Broraus raadritcnsi$ ssp. rubtn~), Bermuda gra~S (C!m~d0a d'~CtYlo~), filaree (ErOdiura
clcutarlum), mustard (Brasslca o~ Hirschf~Idia spp.), and Russian ~histle ($al$ola' t{~g,$).. ' . .
Vegetative cover on the site is a~proxima~ely 70-80 percent. . ..
l~kd ~pecie~ observed during th~ recormaiss~mce-level field survey mc{uded only ~e
~w (C0~u~ brachyrhy~chos). M~[ ~P~ of whl~ ~ wa! de~t~' ~u~ Botta's
p~t g~h~ (~omom~ botta~), d~ea co~ont~ (Sylv~l~s a~duboni), ~d C~ornia'".. .
~ squat (Spe~ophilus beeche~i)~ No ~araCtefis~c ~ ~ ~g~ rat ac~ ~ '
~t b~o~g owl ~e w~ de~ on ~ ~. '
p~b. ~d~g acfl~6es ~ oa ~e s~t p~sel ~ we~ ~ on s~o~g p~c~. ~e
~ ~cate6 ~t ~ ~te, ~ong wi~ adjust parcel, ~m ~ad~ ~u~g 199~ ~ t993 by .
remov~ d ~led fi~ ~d 1~/~ ~u~ wl~ ike dep~ ~ apprO~ately 15 t0
~ ~, ~d comp~ted by hea~ comic ~ P . ' · ; ' '.
90 ~t. S~ analys~ ~dicates that ~ gte s~a~ mat~i~ (top .12 ~) ~.of'
meffi~ d~e~ ~p to shg~tly momt ~ ~c~l gr~vel. '
The iub~ Pr0Eerty ia located in a mixed industrial/conunercial area of the City of Rancho
.Cu~mo~ga. '.The property is borde~t by Anew Route and office and.light industrial
development tO the north; Wltite Oak Avenue (previously Iruicent Avenue) and mai'v'dacturing
ami '~.trehouse develolm~ent to the west; a vacant lot, shnflar in surface appearance to the
surv~2' site (graded cm'~m~mtly with the s~ject parcel), followed by light industrial
devcl,~pmen~ to tt,,e east; and Tacoma Street., followed la~ ~ d~b,~I~d vacant I-,t, currextfly
pr°P°~ed f0r a warehouae dish'ibution facility (also graded conamently with the ~ '.
pa~e}) to the ~outh. Along the southern and western bc~le~ ot the si~e (White Oak Avenue · ·
and Taccana Street); sidewalks~ curb and g~tter, and ornamental trees are present.
ExistLn$ Conditions on the 4..25-Acre Site
Poflilxx~ of the sit~ al~pear to have been historically rougtx graded ~ described above cxt the
4.12 a~e. site. In. additi~m, ~urface evidence of disking rows'is p~esent. Moreover, ~:ticr~ of the ·
site h~lve beim scraped, conc~ h-ucks have used the site to wash out thelz Irucks, and
extensive' amounts olt ~l soil and other d~bri~ h~ve ~ dumt:~ en site. Large boulder,
cobbk~, and gra,~'el are scattered throughout the site. In addition, s,~phaltlc debris Is dispersed
th~0ughout much ~I~ the sits as well. A new ~ewer ~ appears to have been recently
constn ~ted along the southern me bounda~-y.
Veget~tion
A majority of the site (>85%) is densely vegetated with non-native ruderal (weedy) herb~ ~nd
gxmse:~. Moderately d~me telegraph weed with e!~,,aent~ of armual bur-sage~ Spanish clover
(L~tu~ ,~ur~h/anus) are present over pofliora of the site. No ~'a'ub~ ar~ pr~.~nt on site.
Ruderld 'introduced plant species comprise the mostly ~ ~mderstory, and sc{~ por'dons of
the si~: apl~oach 100 pe~ent vegetation cover (e.g., gra~ thatch). Non-native species present
m site 'inr. lude horehound, rlpgut grass, foxtail chess, Mediterranean grass ($chismus sp.),
filaree, .muStard, and Russian thistle. Non-native grasses and herbs constitute eppro{imately
,55 percent of'the vegetative Cover present on the site.
Bkd species observed during the reconnaissance-level field surve~ iridud~l cmly the American
crow. ~,t~al ~ect~ of whi~ ~ Wa~ ~let~otec~, inct~xte B6tt~'e po~t S~{~r, ~l~e~
cottontail, and California g~mnd squirrel. No characteristic sign of kangaroo rat a~tivity o~ .. '.
recent burrowing owl use was detec~d on the site. .. .
Tho subject property is located in a mixed indi~stri~./commercial' area of the City of Ran~h~ ..- ..
C,,,,,'~anga. The property is bordered by a disturbed and parttaily graded vacant lot tO the '
west; a vacant lot, similar in surfac~ appe~ran~ to the surv~' site (graded ~:an~tly ~,vith ' .
lot 16 oi the subject parcel) is located north of the site (no~,.h of Tacoma S~reet); commercial ' .
development ia located to the northwest, northeast, east; south, southwest, and southe~t of
th~ site. Along the western ~ northern b(uder' of the 'site (Wb~te .'Oak'ahd 'Taconm),' '
sldew~,l¥% c'uxb and gutter, and ornamental ~rees are pliant. · '
Conclusions "'
Based an our cursory site analysis, the site d°es not contain habitat.likely to.support SBKR, and. .
the ccc,al~e potential for SBKR on the properS/woul;:l .be considered low. SBI~R is strictly
associated with alluvial scrub habitats with appropriate vegetative cover, and subswate '
compositlan; characteriatics which a~ not collectively pi'~,~'..n~ aa tl~ s~ect site. Althougl~"
suitabl~ soils ccc'ur in several locatim'~ ~n the site, factors such as. Lbs abience of appropriate
vesetative 'eesociatior~ (c.s., o~ ec~ habitat),' stm~nmding land us~t'diskl~g, gradirtg~
exi~.naive Ifil material placement have lilcely rendered the [ate.unstutable t~ ~upp0rt SBI(R, . ·
view of the lack of sattabl'' habitat a.nd evidence of kanga.ro~ rat activity, the subject parcel . .'.
cloe~ not likely support a SBKR population. "... .. · ' ·
In addition, it ia cantz-ary to expectation that SBK. R wo~ld have Persiated en site' iif'
historically present) during grading, topsoil ~'emova]t placement .o! :fill .material, .and soil . .'
compaction activities conducted ~ 1992-1993 du~ to the l~ghly destnlctive nature (relative .th .
impact~ ~o habitat) of these activities on potentially occurring SBKR..!t. ~s ~iso unlikely tha.t · .
SBKR (if historically present) disbursed onto the subiecl site -from the adjacent vacant, parcels '
(proposed warehouse complex a~ea) following ~rading of the site because th'¢ acljac~t parcels
~ conc'o~'~'~tl¥ ex'posed to gradEng anti soil disturbances iiunng s~te E~epsration (~ the . .' .
Impac'~ Sciences. Inc. . .
ad~o/:~n§ warel~ouse complex (approx/mat~l¥ 50 total' acres).'. No' potentially suitabl~' SBKR .
habilat L~ l~cated directly adjacent to the sit&. Prior to site prePa~aiion/t~e e~t. ife 'co~plex~.
~c.]~'.Jve o£ the sub}ect parceb, w~ comp~ed 0f.a~v~. yard Ctqo~c~l E~g~.~-e.-~8;, 2991). . . .
No d'~ct observations c~ buttow~g owl ~ (feather~, pellets~ 'fecar material,, p~-~ t~mal~ ' '
etc.) '~,as observed at any of the potential buJ~ow entrances p~n~ ~..~te. '.C~y
· uitable ~ were receded du~ t~e ~ite ~m'vey cc~l~l :tn'~Febt'ua~g. :C)~y' a few -.
mough to a~modate owLS were LLmited. Motioning of ~ dur~g'pea~ ~urrowing owl
activity fimas d!d hoe reveal any indication tF, at th~ s~ecles, was c'~'tenfly pr. ds~nt in ~e area.
Nor~e of t~e ~ aquL,~l buno~ e~a~r~d dur~g the sur~ey effect..Conta~ec~ any .current
sign of owb, eggs, m nest~g activities. However, due to the mJgfatory nature o(,the BOWL,
so~e j~otent~al does exit for t~s 'species to occ~ c~ ~lte; ' A~ ~, with~i '30 days p~ic?~ to. ·.
constr,~tto~, an additional burfoW~n§ owl sun'ey may be wa~anted to er~s~'e Chat 'BO~VL did.
not mica-ate onto the site from he,by a~eas v, rhere ~ spe~es is kno~ to occur.
It ~as bee~ ~ pleasu.,'e conducting th~s habitat-based evaluation o~' t~e s~b)~ct pa.,'ce~ located. ~ .'
Rancho Cucam~.6o, Sa~ 13emafd~o County, C~Ufomta. If yc~'hivei any questt°n~ ~gard~g '
the re:tults presente~t in th~ rep6rt, please don't hesitate to ca. L1. . ' · ' "'
Vet/truly yourS, '.'
Senioz Biologist .... '
References "~ '
California Burrowing Owl Consor~um. 199~. B~o~ ~1 S~ey p~f~ol ~d Mi~a~on
C~o~a ~pa~ent of ~ ~d G~e. 1995.
C~o~a Natural ~ve~siW DataBase (C~DB). j ~ ~ ~' Com~ m~s f~ the
1~8. F~h ~d W~dlife
j~ 27. · '
Fly' Habi~t~,~ed Ev~ua~O~
~p~ ~ien~S, ~. 1998. Resulm of D~ S~s ~o~-Lo~ ~ga~ San
Co~d ~ ~e 4.1~~e ~te ~k Argue site~ OW ~ ~o
~d~o ~W, C~o~. FobS.. - '
of Hab,tat Breed ~eys f~ ~ ~De~ ~ ~lo~er-lo~ .
' es 1~. ~ ~ east ot white oa~
Cuc~o~a, C~o~. Pr~ ~r ~ - · ·
~ - ~g Repoa. of"Gra~g 'for P~p~d'
Av~, G~ of ~o Cuc~onga, Callfo~. A~St 11.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 9, 2000
TO: Chairman and Members of the Plan'ning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: ,:{udy Zeledon, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ~NVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-63 -
CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES - The development of a 70,620 square foot
industrial building on 4.25 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea
13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Tacoma
Drive and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-11. Related File: Development
Review 99-62
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Surroundia¢:l Land Use and Zonir,,q:
North Vacant; Indusbrial Pa~k {'Subarea 8)
South - Existing Manufacturing bui~d~.~7; Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial (Subarea 9)
East - Warehouse building under construction; General Industrial (Subarea 8)
West Existing Manufacturing building; General Industrial (Subarea 8)
B. General Plan Desiqnations:
Project Site - General Industrial
North Industrial Park
South - Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial East
West General industrial
C. Site Characteristics: The site is a previously rough graded pad within a Master Planned
Industrial Park approved by the Planning Commission in 1992. No significant vegetation and
no structures exist on the property. Curb, gutter, and driveway approaches exist along the
entire property frontages. Sidewalk and street trees, which have only been marginally
maintaine¢I and will be replaced with development, exist along certain portions of the property
frontages. The site slopes minimally from north to south.
D. Parkinq C~[Iculations:
Number of Number of
Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces
of Use Footaqe Ratio Required Provided
Office 5,620 1/250 22
Warehouse 65,000 1/1000 (1 st 20,000) 20
1/2000 (2nd 20,000) 10
1/4000 (40,000 plus) 6
TOTAL 70,620 58 68
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 99-63 CAPELLiNO AND ASSO.
February 9,2000
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
A. General: This review is for consideration of environmental clearance only. The City Planner
will take final action following the environmental clearance. The applicant is proposing to
develop a 70,620 square foot warehouse and office building. The building is oriented so the
main office area and most embellished elevations face White Oak Avenue and Tacoma Drive
and the truck loading and storage area is located behind screen walls away from major
thoroughfares. The existing drive approach on Tacoma Drive will be used as shared acce'ss
with the existing warehouse building on the east side of the project site. The proposed drive
approach on the southwest corner of the site will be utilized as the access for trucks and the
existing drive approach on White Oak Avenue will used as a public and employee access.
The overall architectural scheme is consistent with other existing buildings within the Master
Planned Industrial Park. The proposed building design incorporates secondary material
accents of sandblasted concrete and brick veneer areas, consistent with the established
design elements used on existing buildings throughout the industrial park. The secondary
materials, along with areas of glass with brick veneer accents, are being used primarily to
frame the main entrance area at the northwest corner of the building, the area visible from
White Oak Avenue and Tacoma Drive. In addition, other areas of the building will receive
sandblasted concrete banding.
B. Desiqn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Fong) reviewed
the project on December 14,1999, and recommended approval of the project subject to
conditions contained in the attached Design Review Committee Action Comments
(Exhibit "G").
C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical and Grading Committees have reviewed the
project and recommended approval subject to conditions.
D. Environmental Assessment: Part i of the Initial Study was completed by the applicant. Staff
completed Part II of the Initial Study, the Environmental Checklist, and found that there could
be a significant effect on the environment relative to drainage patterns and potential lost
habitat for the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSF). The site is identified on maps prepared
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as potentially having the appropriate Tujunga-Delhi soil
classification to support DSF. A Habitat Assessment Survey was prepared by a federally
certified biologist to assess the soils, vegetation, and species composition on the site. Based
on the reconnaissance-level habitat evaluation of the site's existing environmental conditions,
the project site does not provide high quality habitat for DSF due to: (1) lack of substantial,
open sandy areas; (2) relatively dense coverage of invasive, non-native vegetation; (3) lack
of native plant communities; (4) exposure to grading and scraping, top soil removal, placement
of import fill material, and soil compaction activities; (5) recurring exposure to an on-site weed
abatement program (discing); and (6) Iow habitat tinkage value due to surrounding land uses
(e.g., Industrial development). No other potentially significant environmental impacts are
identified in the Initial Study. The issue of potential drainage pattern impacts generated by the
project has been addressed by requiring that sufficient drainage/flood protection facilities be
provided to the project area. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 99-63 CAi~ELLINO AND ASSO.
Februaq! 9, 2000
Page 3
RECOMMENEATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission issue a Mitigated Negative
Declaration fo~ Development Review 99-63 through minute action.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:RZ:mlg
Attachments: Fxhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map
Fxhibit "B" - Approved Master Plan
Fxhibit"C" - Site Plan
Exhibit "D" Landscape Plan
I-'xhibit "E" Grading Plan
Exhibit "F" Building Elevations
Exhibit "G" Design Review Committee Action Comments dated December 14,
1999
Fxhibit "H" Initial Study
LIo°U UO
IIIIIIIllllllll ~ Jlllllllllllllll { ~. ; :2
i' ~ ~ ~
-- -- 2.. J~JIIJlU IIIIIIIIIIU IIIIIII
--, IIIIII1~1111111111~11111111 u."
............ i~l~ ~. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
~'-- I ~ r 1 I ,-
IllllllllUlllllllllllUlllllllllll~llllllllll IllllllllUlllllllll~llllllllll. ~ , J <~
IIll~llllllllllllIlllllllllllllllll Illllll~lllllllll~lllllll ~-L J I ~
' -- ~L~, ~. 0
' .............. - ...... ' .... '" .~.' . r_.:.:.l ~.F~.. ~.--
'.:..: ..... , ........ .. '-" ..... ~ -' I',-""-I..'---,'1 I I 'I :~
~ .................. MASTER 51TE PLAN
SCALE
HEIGH~ CURB D~AIL~ i ',
.... [.F.'
............... GRADING P~
ARROW PARK
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:', 5 p.m. Rudy Zeledon December 14, 1999
ENVIRONMEHTAL ASSEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-63 - CAPELLINO AND
ASSOCIATES - The development of a 67,620 square foot industrial building on 4.25 acres of land
in the General Industrial Distdct (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the
southeast comer of Tacoma Drive and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-11.
Desiqn Paremeters: The project site is part of a Master Planned Industrial Park originally approved
by the Plannin~.l Commission in 1992 and as shown in Exhibit "A,' The site has been rough graded
previously and contains no significant vegetation. The perimeter of the site is improved with curb
and gutter, driveway approaches and no sidewalk or street side landscaping. The site slopes from
north to south at approximately 2 percent.
Staff Comme~ts: The following comments are intended to provide ant outline for Committee
discussion,
Maior Issues: The following broad issues will be on the focus of Committee discussion regarding
this project:
The proposed industrial building incorporates painted tilt-.u~ concrete accertted with sandblasted
concrete band, brick veneer, arid fluted concrete materials, it is desigrted to be consistent with the
architectural state established in the indust,'~ park. Therefore, ~ere are ne major issues. However,
the applicant should address the following secondary issues to further enhance the design of the
project.
Secondary Iss~es: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Provide sandblasted concrete banding, along the middle and top of the building plane at the
east an,'l south elevations. Continue the same sandblasted concrete banding along the top
of the building plane of the south elevation.
2. The employee plaza area shall be relocated to an area, easily accessible to employees. The
plaza area should be designed to be an integral part of the site design. Consider locating
the employee plaza area along the north elevation of building and incorporating a walkway
from th~; main entrance to the plaza area.
3. Redesign the existing ddveway approach on Tacoma Ddve to provide a more convenient
commo~ ingress and egress, between the project site and the existing industrial building to
the easL
4. The screen wall on the east side of the building should be setback approximately 17-feet
from the; proposed location, to provide a sufficient truck turning radius out of the rear trailer
court or,to the common drive on the east. In addition, the proposed trailer parking spaces
along the rear property line and at the southeast comer of the building, should be eliminated
and redesigned as angle parking along the rear property to provide better truck circulation.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 99'-63 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES
December 14, 1999 "
Page 2
5. The screen wall design on the west and east sides of the site, should consist of sandblasted
concrete with a reveal detail along the top portion of the wall, to tie in with the building design.
6. Undulating landscaped berms should be used in'the streetscape areas to provide visual interest
in areas exposed to public view, such as the parking lot along the west side of the project.
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the
project subject to the con~litions as recommended above.
Attachment
Desiqn Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Lar~y McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner, Rudy Zeledon .
The Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to staffs comments, In
addition, the Committee recommended that the northeast entrance of the proposed building shall
be architecturally enhanced to be consistent with the main entrance on the norlhwest comer of the
building.
No 09-99 lO::_~7A
P.12
ENV~RONMENTA
"=" - INFORMATION FORM
.~.~,~go~. .... art I -.Initial Stu
The purpose e,f ~ls fo~ Is to Info~ the Cl~.gf ~e basic ~omponen~ o[ the proposed
project so that ~e CI~ may revlew'~e p~oje~t'p~a~t t0 CI~ P.oll¢les, 0rdln~nOes, and
guidelines; ~e California Environmen~l Quali~ ACt; and ~e ci¥s' Rules and Procedurss
to Implement CE~. It is Impo~nt that the information requested in ~is application be
IIV~OMPLETE APPLICATION$ W1LL NO l'EE ~ROCE$$FD. Pteese note that it fe the fesl;onalbillty of the applicant to ensure
that the application ia complete at the ti'me of lubrr~l; City staff w~l not ~e available to peffoml work required to ptDwde mi&sing
information.
A~l)licatlon Number fo," the project to which this tom1 pertains: . DR 9 9 - R '~
Project Title: A ~'~"~ P= r~
Name&Adclm$$ofpn)jectowner(s): Caoellino & Associates
2020 De[ Amo Blvcl.f Suite 105f .?o~ance~ CA
... q f)~,~l
Name & Address of (levaloper or project sponsor. Same
ContaclParson&Addres$: Mark Capsllino
Telephono Number: ( 310 ) 32 O- 1234
Name & ; '~$s of pet~on prepaMng this fon'n [if different from atJove]:
TelaphoRe Nurnber~
P.13
Nov-Og-g9 10:28A
·. ' nformetlon indicated b~'esten'sl( ('~ I$ nl~ ~quImd of non..con~tn~ction CUP's unte~ othem, fse requested by staff.
'1~ Provide a full scale (8-1/2 x ~ 1) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project site, and indicate the
site boundaries.
Provide s sat of color photog~lphs whiCh .~hew representative views Into the site from the noflh, south, east end west;
views ~.~ end ~ the site from tt~a pttmaty access points which serve the site; end representative views of significant
features ~i'gql the ,~ita. Include e map shOWir~g location of each photograph.
"~e coma Drive
4) A~as~ors Paroel Number~ (attach additional sheet if necessarY):
0:~0946111
',5) Gn~s Site Area (ec/~q. lt).' _ l Ft R : 'l R 4 ~ 'F
· ~) Net Site Area (total site ~lze minus ama of public streets & proposed dedications): Same
?) Oescdfle any prol~o, sed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site la,ach additional sheet
if necessary:
None
include e descdptlo~ of all pem~ila which will be necessarY from the City of Rancho Cucamonge end other governmental
agencies in o~er to fully implement the pn~ject;
Nov-09-99 10:;!8A P.14
Desc~fbe the physical setting of the siJe aa it exists before the project including infon'naUen on topography, soil staDilily, plants
and animals, mature trees, trails and ~ad3, dmlnage ~u~es, end soen~; a~pects. Descdbe any exi~ng st~ctu~s on ~ite
(including age aha condition) and the u~e of the s~s, .AEa~ phot~mph~ of significant ~atumS described. In addition,
site all souses of [nfo~atiot~ (i.e., geological anWof hyd~gic Studies, biotic and amheological ~uweys, traffic ~tudies):
improved with all subdivision improvements is pl.ace~
existi~q buil~fngs ~m ~rrow Park which ~ncorporat. ~and
blasted concrete~ ~rick ~eneez an~ gla~s com~pents.
10] Desc~De Ihe known cultural end/or hl~fodcal aspects of the site, Site all sources of information {Dooks, puDlisl~e~ reports end
oral hi$1ory):
! 1] Desc~fbe any noise sources and their levels that tTgw affect the site (aircraft, roadway noise, etc.) an¢~ how they will affect
propor, ed
___ ~;1~,
P.I~
Nov-O9-99 10:29A
Describe the proposed proja~ In detail. Thle should provide an e~lequeta description of lt~e site In ten~s ~! ultimate use which
will result from the prosed preje¢~. Indicate if there ere l)rop~sad phases for c~evelopment, Ihe extent of deYelopment to occur
with each phase, and the anticipated ¢c~nplelion cf each increment, Aflach additional sheet(s) if necessen/;
distribution ~
Describerhe ~urr~unding preper~e~ ~nc~u~ing inf~n~net~n ~n p~ante ~nd ~nima~ and any Gu~tum~' hist~nce~ ~r $~enic aspect~
Indicate the type of lend uae (residential, commercial, afc.), Intensity of land use (one.family, apartment houses, shops.
department .~foree. etc,) and scale of development (height, fmnlege, setback, rear yarcl, etc.);
The surro n
14) Will the proposed project change tt~e pattern, scale or character of ~t~e surmuncling general area of the project? NO
Nov-Og-gg lO:~:gA P. 18
15) Inclicala the ~,pe of shorf-tenw end Iong-tem~ noise to De geneMte~, Incl~in~ souse end amount. How ~11 the~e noise levels
~ffect ~dj~cent p~pe~ie8 and on.3ite u~e~. ~et methoda Of SO~n~ p~oflng B~ pm~3eo?
Indicate proposed removals ancYor mfllacement$ of mature or scenic trees; N/A
17) ~ndi¢ate any b~ies ~f weter ~nc~u~1~ng d~mes~ic water suppfies) ~nt~ wh~ch the si~e dr~ns: N/A
18) Indicate ex~ected amount of weter usage. ~See Affachment A for usage a~tlmates], For further ctafificaflon, please contact
tt~e Cucamonge County Water Distdct et 987.259 t.
a. Re.':identlal (gal~day) Pee~( uae (gel/Day)
~;. Commerolat lncl. (gaV~tay/a¢) (~ .. 3~37 Peek use (geVmtn/a¢) . 1 ~' ~ R1 4
Based on General Industrial for 4.2 ac.
19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal, __ Septic Tenk ~ Sewer. If septic tanks ere proposed, attach
percolation test.'~, ff discharge to a sanitary sewage system ia proposed indicate expected deity ~ewage genaregon: (See
Attachment A for usage estimates). For further dafilication, please contact the Cucemonga County Water Di~flct at 987.259 t.
a. Residential (gab'day)
O. Commefcial~lild.(gal/¢;ay/ac) 8:400 Ra~d on ~,n,~l Tnc]n~..t't"tal ~:'~" 4-7 a~.
_RESI~)_ENTIAL PROJE~T~;
20) Number of re$id~.ntial units:
Oe~ache(~ (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size enct maximum lot size:
~AttaChed (indicate whether units am rental or for sale units):
21) Antlcipate~i tange of sale pricest enc~'or rents:
Sale Price(s) $ tO
Rent (per month) ~. to
22) Specifynumberofbadroomsbyunittype:
23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit
24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be maldin9 within the project: Contact the appropriate School
Districts es shown in Attachment B:
a. E~,ementaOf:
b. Junior High:
C. Senior High
COMM.~RC. IAL. INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS
25) Desc~e type ~f use(s) ~nd m~j~rfuncti~n(s) ~f oommercia~ ~ndustri~ ~r ~nst~tuti~na~ use$!
The buildin~ will allow manu~a~t~r~ng: ~.~m~ly: ~
and distribution uses.
26) Total floor area of commerc al, industrial, or institutional uses by type:
67,000 s~
INITST~,I.WPD · 4/96 Page ,5.
28) Number of ernplgyee$: Total:
Maximum Shi[t
Time of Ma~t~m Shift:
29) pr~v~de br~akd~wn ~f ~patee~s~c~t~m~ j~`--!?~-~-"?~ie~age and $a~ar~ e$ we~ a3 ~n indic~i~n ~f ~he rate
of hire for ~actl ¢Ja~.iflcatlon
~o be p=o~r~ded by the bu.f. lcl~.nq 9ccaDant
30) Estimation of the number of wor~e~ to I~e hired that currently res/de In the City:
?~ be prov:l, ded by the but~.d£ng occupant:
· 31) For commercial end industrial u~es only, Indicate the $oume, type and amount of airpollutlon emissions. (De(a Should be
vedfled through t,~e South Coast Air Quality Management District, al (a 18] 572.6283):
ALI PR~JJECT~
32) Have the water~ $~;wer~ ~m~ and ~ c~nt~ agencie$ $e~Wng ~he pr~ject been c~ntacfed t~ dete~?nine their abi~ib/ t~ pmvide
a~equate =ervice to tf~e propo.~ed proJect? If ao, please indicate their response.
will provide adequate services for the Pro_Dosed build,nos,
NiTSTD1 W~D - 4'96 Page ?
33l tn the ~"~own h~story of Ibis pmpeny, has there been any use, storage, or discharge Of hezs~ous and/O~ toXiC malerfel3 ?
{~xsmples of hezar~ot~$ an~o~" loxic materials include, but sm not limited lo PCB'S; r~dioa¢five substances; pesticides and
.. ha~i¢t~es; fu~ls olls, ,solvents, and cffier fl,*mme~le liquids en~ gases, AISC note unde~lnd sloreg8 of any of t~e above
Please list the maleriels and describe their use, stor,~ga, ,~nd/or dis~haqle on the p~operl'y, aa well as Ihe dates of use. it'
known.
34) V~5~ the p~p~sed pmja~t inv~ve the tamp~ra~Y ~r ~ng-term use~ st~mge ~r di$¢harge ~f h~za~u~ 8nd/~f t~xic
materials, including but not limited lo those exernplea listed above ? If yes, provide sn inventory of eli such materials to be
used end proposeo method of disposal. The location of aucn uses~ along wfth the storage and shipment areas, ahall be
shown end labeled on the application plans.
t~O
I hereby ced/f/that the statements fumlahed above and in the attached exhibits present the data end information required for
adequate evaluation of this pmJect lo the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information pmsenled sm Irue end
correct tot he best of my knowledge and belief. I fu/'lher under, tend that e~diti~lal tnfon'natl~n may De required lo be submitted
adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonge.
Title: Ns:ok V. Cape]*]-J. not ow]3et-
INITSTD1 .WPD. 4icj6 Page ~ '
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-63
2. Related Files: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-62
3. Description of Project:
The development of a 67,620 square foot industrial building on 4.25 acres of land in the
General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the
southe;~st corner of Tacoma Drive and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-11.
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Mr. Mark Capellino
2020 D{;I Amo Boulevard, Suite 105
Torrance, CA 90501
5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial
6. Zoning: General Industrial (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan
7. Surroullding Land Uses and Setting:
The site is a previously rough graded pad within a Master Planned Industrial Park with
similar buildings already constructed south and east of the site.
8. Lead A!jency Name and Address:
City of F',ancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
9. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner
(909) 477-2750
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-63 Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
) Land Use and Planning ( ) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services
Population and Housing (X) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems
(X) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics
(X) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources
( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation
( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
(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
iGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
MITIG,~
Signed: ~//~ ~
'l~udy~'2 ;ledon, Assistant Planner
Januar ' 12, 2000
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)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucemonga
DR 99-63 Page 3
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) Disp,ace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. WouJd the proposal result in
or expose people to potential ~mpacts ~nvolving:
a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Landslides or mudfiows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
f) Erosion changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
g) L~ubsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
h) The General Plan indicates th° Tujunga-Delhi soil association for the site which "May
have soil bearing cepacit~ hat could limit some development. Structures
proposed on this soil type sl .~ be permitted only after a site specific investigation
has been prepared that indicates that the soil can adequately support the weight of
the structure." A soils report will be required by the Building and Safety Division
p,'ior to the issuance of building permits. The impact is not considered significant.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-63 Page 4
4. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) (X) 0 ( )
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)
0 Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations, or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) (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 is expected to result in changes to absorption rates and drainage
patterns. New inundation areas (separate document) will be recorded and old areas
vacated, prior to the issuance of building permit. As mitigation, drainage/flood
protection facilities will be provided for the project area to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer as follows:
· The run off (Q100) from the site shall not exceed the capacity of the
existing public storm drain system to the south. The amount of on-site
detention shall be based on a proration of available capacity of the
undeveloped parcels on a per acre basis for the area tributary to the cul-
de-sac at the south end of Vincent Avenue, just north of the A.T.S.F.
railroad main line. Reference the hydrology/hydraulic study prepared for
Parcel Map 12959 to the east on file with the City.
· Easements shall be delineated and inundation rights dedicated,prior to the
issuance of building permits.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-63 Page 5
,, No public water shall be tributary directly to the inundation areas.
In automobile and truck parking and maneuvering areas, ponding depths
shall not exceed 12 inches and 18 inches, respectively, and shall not
exceed 6 inches for more than 4 hours.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposak
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( (X)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( (X)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) (X)
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
propos~l result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
;~lternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-63 Page 6
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, ripadan and vernal
pool)? ) ( ( ) (X)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ) ( ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identifies the project area soil type as Tujunga-
Delhi Sand Soils which is a type of soil that is associated with the endangered Delhi
Sands flower-loving fly (DSF). A habitat assessment was prepared (Impact
Sciences, January 25, 1999) by a biologist permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to conduct surveys for DSF. In summary, results of the habitat-based
survey indicate that the site does not currently support optimal DSF habitat.
According to the study, the site clearly is unsuitable for DSF due todiscing (destroys
surface crust), dense vegetation (greater then 60% cover overall), unsuitable soil
types (fill material, gravel), and lack of indicator plant species (greater than 85%
non-native). Based on the reconnaissance-level habitat evaluation of the site's
existing environmental conditions, the project site does not provide high quality
habitat for DSF due to: (1) lack of substantial, open sandy areas; (2) relatively dense
coverage of invasive, non-native vegetation; (3) lack of native plant communities; (4)
exposure to grading and scraping, top soil removal, placement of import fill material,
and soil compaction activities; (5) recurring exposure to an on-site weed abatement
program (discing); and (6) Iow habitat linkage value due to surrounding land uses
(e.g., Industrial development). In addition, the study indicated that potentially
occurring sensitive small mammal species, such as Los Angles pocket mouse and
San Bernardino kangaroo rat, are not expected to occur on the site because of the
site's exposure to grading, soil removal, filling and compaction. No diagnostic sign
(burrows, fecal pellets, and tracks) of the aforementioned small mammals species
were recorded on-site dudng the survey. Based on the information provided above,
the proposed development of the 4.25 acre site will not likely result in adverse
effects to DSF. No other unique, rare, or endangered animal speciesare known to
be potentially located on the project site.
Initial Study fcr City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-63 Page 7
San Bemardino kangaroo rat and burrowing owl:
In a letter received by staff on Februa~ 8, 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
raised'issues about potential habi~t ~or the'San Bernardino kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys merriami par~us) on lhe project site and potential impacts to the
burrowi~j owls (Athene canicularia) by the proi~.ct construction. A habitat
assessment was prepared (Impact Sciences, February 21, 20~O) by a biologist
per~.;~ed by tt~e U.S. Fish artd Wi[d[i. fe Service to conduct surveys for San
Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR) and the burrowing owls (BOWL). In summary,
results of the habitat-based survey made ~ fl3~owk~g t~ndin~s:
The project site does not contain habitat likely to supportSBKP, and the occurrence
poter~i for SBi(R on flr~e properb/wou{d be considered Iow due to: 1) Lack of
alluvia;1 scrub ~ts wfrrt appropriate vegetative cover compositk~ o~ s~e. 2) Soil
disturbance from previous grading and discing, extensive fill material placement and
surrounding land uses have rendered the site unsuitable to support SBKR, 3) No
potentially suitable habitat is located directJ, y adjacent to the site.
No direct observations or burrowing owl signs (feathers, pellets, fecal material, prey
~emains, etc.) were observed at any of tb~ burrow entrances present on the site.
Monitodrtg of burrows du~ing peak ba~ ow~ a~ times did not reveal any
indicatfon that Ihe Sp~c~as wa~e ~ preseW[ ~ ~.a~a. Fl~wever, due to the
migrate~y ~ o[t~fle ,~amm~%'~j owl, some pot'entia~ does es~s~ ~ this species to
occur on site. 'l~fore, a.s mitio.,,,3tion, a burr~w~ owt sur~ey ~f the site shall
be conducted within 30 days prior to construction, to ensure that burrowing
owls have not migrated onto the site from nearby areas where species is
known to occur.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
propos~l:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manne~ ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
';:he region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Initial Study for Page 8
DR 99-63
9. H,~_..ARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( (X)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( (X)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( (X)
Comments:
a) In conjunction with the manufacturing activities within the building, materials such as
oil and other chemicals may potentially be used. Use of any such hazardous
substances will require special permits to ensure safe handling, storage, and
operation. The impact is not considered significant.
10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon or 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)
Initial Study fc.r City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-63 Page 9
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) Manufacturing activities may include use of hazardous chemicals which would
require special permits for the Fire Prevention District. The impactis not considered
significant.
12. UTILI'HES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations to the following 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)
f) 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) ( )
Comments:
b) New light and glare will be created on the property with development of the vacant
,';ite. A condition of approval requiring an on-site Lighting Plan, including a
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-63 Page 10
photometric diagram of the entire property, to be required for review and
approval of the Planning Division and the Rancho Cucamonga Sheriffs
Department, prior to the issuance of building permits. The plan will be
checked to ensure that it meets City policies relative to avoiding the casting
of excess light and glare onto adjacent properties.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change,
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred u§es within
the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Affect existing recreational oppodunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (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 histor'/or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
]4¢5
Initial Study fo' City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-63 Page 11
b) Short term: Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, enviror~mental goals? iA short-term
impact on the environment is one which occurs
in a relatively bdef, definitive pc, dod of t~me.
Long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Cumul=~tive: Does the project have impacts that
are individual, ~ed. but c~mulative~
considerable? ('Cu'mu~ativety c~:~siderable"
means that the ~cremental' 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 direcay or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
EARLIER AN.Z[LYSES
Eadier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiedng, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
one or more ef[ects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per
Section 15063(ic)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and
adequately anslyzed in the following earlier document(s)pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
such effects w~;re addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following
earlier analyse,.; 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 Apdl 6, 1981)
(X) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115. certified January 4, 1989)
(X)Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR
(Certified September 19, 1981)
(X) Initial Study/Negative Declaration for Development Review 91-08
{Certified January 8, 1992)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-63 Page 12
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study, I acknowledge that I
have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the
project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would
Occur.
Signature: Date
Print Name and Title:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the
California Environr~t~ ~)uality Act ~eclion 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File Nc,.: Development Review 99-63 Public Review Period Closes: March 8, 2000
Project Name: Project Applicant: Capellino and Associates
Project Locati~)n (also see attached map): Located at the southeast corner of Tacoma Drive and White
Oak Avenue - ~kPN: 209-461-11.
Project Description: The development of a 70,620 square foot industrial building on 4.25 acres of land in
the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Related file: Development
Review 99-62.
FINDING
This is to advi~;e that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an
Initial Study re, determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is
proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
r-] 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
p,'oposed 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 am available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic
Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847.
NOTICE
The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period.
March 8, 2000
Date of Determi~ation Adopted By
MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III)
Project File No.: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-63 Applicant: Mark Capellino
Initial Study Prepared by: Rudy Zeledon Date: February 29, 2000
· The runoff (Q100) from the site shall not exceed the CE B\C As Necessary A\C 3
capacity of the existing public storm drain system to
the south. The amount of on-site detention shall be
based on a proration of available capacity of the
undeveloped pamels on a per acre basis for the
area tributary to the cul-de-sac at the south end of
Vincent Avenue, just north of the A.T.S.F. railroad
main line.
· Easements shall be delineated and inundation rights CE B As Necessary C\D 2
dedicated, prior to the issuance of building permits.
· No public water shall be tributary directly, to the CE B/C As Necessary CID 2
inundation areas.
· In automobile and truck parking areas, ponding CE B/C As Necessary C/D 2
depths shall not exceed 12 inches and 18 inches,
respectively, and shall not exceed 6 inches for more
than 4 hours.
Biological Resources
· Within 30 days prior to construction a survey of the CP B As Necessary D 2
site shall be conducted to ensure that burrowing
owls have not migrated onto the site.
Kex to Checklist Abbreviations
CDD - Community Development Director A - With Each New Development A - On-site Inspection I - Withhold Recordation of Final Map
CP - City Planner or designee B - Prior To Construction B - Other Agency Permit I Approval 2 - Withhold Grading or Building Permit
CE - City Engineer or designee C - Throughout Const~..lction C - Plan Check 3 - Withhold Certificate of Occupancy
BO - Building Official or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submittal (Reports / Studies / Plans) 4 - Stop Wod( Order
PO - police Captain or designee E - Operating 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds
6 o Revoke CUP
FC - Fire Chief or designee
I~AN CII 0 C U CAH 0 N GA
Staf:f Re rt
DATE: March 8, 2000
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Warren Morelion, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-17 -~
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR - The development of a wireless communication facility
consisting of a 65-foot stealth monopole on 3.34 acres of land in the Flood
Control District, located 8248 19th Street (CCWD Well No. 24) - APN:
201-201-40.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zonin.q:
North Vacant land, Future Route 30 Freeway
South - Single family residence, City of Upland
East Single family residence, Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
West Vacant land, Flood Control Channel
B. General Plan Desiqnations:
Project Site - Cucamonga County Water District (Well Site No. 24)
North Future Route 30 Freeway
South - Residential, City of Upland
East Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
West Flood Control Channel
C. Site Characteristics: The antenna site is located on 1,600 square feet of leased space
within a 3.34 acre Cucamonga County Water District well site (CCWD Well No. 24). The
site is visible from the north, south, and east from single family residences. Directly north
of the site is an existing 45-foot Pac Bell monopole wireless communication facility.
Further north is the Route 30 Freeway, which is expected to be completed by late 2002. A
chain link fence surrounds the well site separating it from adjoining development.
ITEM B
PLANNINC COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 99-17 -,~,IRTOUCH CELLULAR
March 8, 2000
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
A. General: The applicant is proposing the installation of a 65-foot wireless communication
facility located approximately 450 feet north of Base Line Road. The facility will be visibly
prominent from areas surrounding the CCWD well site because of the height of the
antenna, and its location. To make the facility more aesthetically pleasing to the public,
the applicant has proposed a number of antenna designs. These designs include a Pine
tree, a Palm tree, and a tower. The attached computer generated photos show the
designs ;~s seen looking west from Garden Court (Exhibit "C").
The wiretess communication facility will incorporate 1,600 square feet of leased space at
the base of the proposed antenna. The space will include the antenna and a 240 square
foot equipment room surrounded by landscaping. A 6-foot high chain link fencewill be
construct.=d around the entire communication facility site. Staff has reviewed the project
and has found that the project is consistent with Ordinance No.570 governing wireless
communication facilities and with ~ requirements of the district in which it is located.
The proposed facility is one of three proposed Aid'ouch wireless communication facilities in
the City. Currently, facilities are also proposed at the Brethren in Christ Church on 19th
Street east of Hermosa Avenue, and at Barton Plaza on the corner of Foothill Boulevard
and Haven Avenue.
B. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was held on November 20, 1999, and
again on December 4, 1999. A total of four residents attended the meeting. The residents
asked that the City consider a Palm tree antenna design rather than other proposed
options.
C. Desitin Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart,
Dan Coleman) recommended approval of the project provided the applicant stealth the
proposed facility by developing a "monopalm" antenna design surrounded by a minimum
of 6 real ;3aim trees for additional screening. The Committee also asked that the utility
room underneath the facility be built of decorative gray block or stucco, rather than using a
veneer m~terial. No barbed wire will be allowed on top of the chain link fence around the
utility roor,3 (Exhibit "E" and "F").
D. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Committee reviewed the project and
recommended approval with conditions.
E. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study was completed by the applicant and
staff completed Part 11. The facility will be visually prominent, particularly as viewed from
residence,.; to the north and east. To reduce the negative aesthetic effect of the wireless
communication site, the applicant is required to use a "monopalm" design, which mimics
the appe~rance of a Palm tree, and plant a cluster of 6 real Palm trees around the
proposed ,'nonopalm. With the mitigation measure identified above, the potential impact of
the proposed wireless communication facility is reduced to a non-significant level.
PLANNINC COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 99-17 - AIRTOUCH CELLULAR
March 8, 2000
Page 3
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valle), Dail)'
Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners
within a 300-foot radius of the project site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use
Permit 99-17 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and
issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Respectfully submitted,
0red Bullet
City Planner
BB:WM:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "^" - location Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Plan/tease Area Plan/South Elevation
Exhibit "¢" - Proposed Antenna Designs
Exhibit "D" - I_otter from GCWD dated September 9, lg98
Exhibit "E" - Design Review Committee Comments dated January 4, 2000
Exhibit "F" - ^ccepted Final Antenna Design
E×hibit "G" - Initial Study
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
...... (~ , ,,,r
EXISTING
PROPOSED
JM CONSULTING GROUP, INC.
Campus
Cucamonga County Water District
9641 San Bernardino Road
Rancho Cucarnonga, CA 91729-0638
BOX 638 · (909) 98'7-2591 · FAX (909) 941-8069
ROBERT A. DeLOACH
Secfeta,%, / General Manager
September 9, 1998
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Community Development Department
10500 civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, california 91730
Re: Authorization and Acknowledgement
Filing of Conditional Use permit
Application by Air Touch Cellular
Gentlemen:
I certify that Cucamonga County Water District is the legal owner
of the property identified as Assessor's Parcel No. 0201-201-40
(Well No. 24, 8248-!9th Street), and hereby authorize Air Touch
Cellular and its planning consultant, Richards Mueting wilkes,
to file a conditional use permit application for a wireless
communication facility on said parcel.
Said authorization does not constitute or imply a consent by the
Cucamonga County Water District for any future development within
the subject site until such time as the necessary lease agreements
are approved.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact
the undersigned.
Yours truly,
CUCAMONC~A COUN~YWATF~R DI~ICT
/~ames H.~line, ~r.
~/Director of Engineering and Inspection
JHC:b
ROBERT NEUFELD GEORGE A. KUYKENDALL JEROME M. WILSON DONALD J. KURTH HENRY L. STOY
President Vice President Oireclor Director Director
CONSENT CALENDAR
7:". 0 p.m. Warren Morelion January 4, 2000
ENVII~ONMEHTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-17 - AIR TOUCH
CELLULAR - 'i'he development of a wireless communication facility consisting of a 65-foot steal[l~
monopole on 3.34 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2..4 dwelling units per acre), located
at 8248 '19th Street, Cucamonga County Water District Well No. 24 - APN: 201-201-40.
Desiqn Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Lam/McNiel, Para Stewart, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner:. Warren Morelion
The Committee recommended app,:oval of the project provided the applicant build a monopalm tree
with 6-7 real P;~lm trees grouped around the facility as additional screening. The Committee also
asked that the utility room underneath the facility be built of decorative block or stucco (gray in
color), rather than made of a veneered material. No barbed wire will be allowed on top of the chain
link fence around the utility room.
ENVIRONMENTAL
..... INFORMATION FORM
c,~o,.o.:hoo.c,.o.,, (Part i -Initial Study)
The purpose of this form isto'inform the City ofth~~b~sic components of the Proposed
project so that the City may reView'the project pQ~'~:~nt to City policies, ordinances, and
guidelines; the California Envir~nrnental Quality ACt~ ai~d the City's Rules and PrOcedures
to Implement CEQA. It is important that the information requested in this application be
provided in full.
IN~QMPLETE APPLICATIONS t,~LL NO T BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant lo ensure
that the appfication is complete at the time of submittal; City staff will not be available to perform work required to provide missing
information.
Application Number for the project to which this form pedains:
ProjeclTitle: ~irTouch Campu~ cell Site
Name&Addres$ofprojectowner(s): AirTouch Cellular, by Joe Richards RMW
6529 Riverside Ave. #115, Riverside, CA. 92506
Name & Address of developer or project sponsor:. Same as above
Contact Person & Address: Same as above
909-276-8010
Telephone Number:.
Name & Address of person preparing this form (i! different from above):
Telephone Number:
Information indicated by asterisk (') ia not required of non-construction CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff,,
· 1) Provide a full scale (8-1,t2 x 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project site. and indicate the
site boundat¥es.
2) Provide a set of color photogrephs which show representative views into the site from the north, south, east and west;
views ~nI¢ and frgm the site from the pHmaP/ access points which serve the site; and representative views of significant
features fro__m, the si,'e. Include a ~p showlng location of each photogreph.
3) ProjectLocatlon(d~,scdbe): 8248 19the Street, [gth Street, west o£ Saph±re Street
4) Assessor's Parcel'lVumbera (attach
'5) Gross Site Area (ac/sq. ft.): 1600 S. f.
'6) Net Site Area (total ~ite size minus area of public streets & propo$,ed dedications):
7) Oescn'be any proposed genera/p/an amendment or zone c~ange which would affect the project site (attach additional sheet
N/A
8) Include a de.~ctfption of all permits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other govemroental
agencies in order to f~lly implement the project:
Calif. P.U.C.
INITSTOtWPD-4196 ~L~ ~lC~L
Describe the physical setting of the site as il exists before the project including infon'nation on topography, soil stability, plants
and animals, mature trees, trails and reads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on site
(including age and condition) and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of significant featurea described. In addition.
site all sources of inforTnation (i. e.. geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and aroheological surveys, traffic studies):
SEE ATTACHED
· I0) Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Site all sources of infon~alion (books. published reports and
oral histo~'):
N/A
Describe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site (aircraft. roadway noise, etc.) and how they will affect
proposed uses:
N/A
Page 3
12) Describe fha proposed project in detail. This should provide an adequate description of the site in terms of ultimate use which
will result from the l;rOsed project. Indlcate if there are proposed phasea for development, the extent of development to occur
with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessa~:
SEE ATTACHED
13) Describe the sun'oun ding properties, including infon'nation on plants and animals and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects.
Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family. apartmenl houses, shops,
deparlment slores. ~ lc,) and scale of development (height. frontage, setback, rear yard. etc.):
SEE ATTACHE[)
· 14) Mil the proposed p~/ect change the pattern, scale or character of the surrounding general area of the project?
N/A
15) Indicate the type o! short.term and long-tern1 noise to be generated, including sou~T;e and amount. How w~{I these noise levels
affect adjacent properties and on.site uses. Wi3at methods of sound proofing are proposed?
Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic trees:
17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains:
18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact
Ihe Cucamonga County Water Distdct at 987.2591.
~? ~Residential (gal/day) Peak use (gal/Day)
b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) Peak use (gal/m/n/ac)
19) Indicate proposed method of.sewage disposal, .~ Septic Tank , Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach
percolation tests. If discharge Io e sanitaq/ Sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (See
Attachment A for usage estimates). For further cladlTcation, please contact the Cucamonga County Water Diat/~ct at 987-2591.
a. Residential (gal/day)
b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac)
RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS:
20) Number o[ res[dential un#s:
Detached (indicate range o! paroel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size:
[NITSTDl.WPD-4196 ~ Jq Page~,
Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units):
21) Anticipated range ef sale pfices and/or rents:
Sale Price(s) $ to $.
Rent (per month) S to $
22) Speci[y number of bedrooms by unit type:
23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type:
24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project: Contact the appropriate School
Districts as shown ir~ Attachment B:
a. Elementary:
b. Junior High:
c. Senior High
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTI~IAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS
25) ~e$cdbe type ~f use(s) and maj~r functi~n(s) ~f c~mmercia~~ indust~a~ ~r institutiona~ uses:
SEE ATTACHED
20) Total floor area of commercial, industrial, or institutional uses by type:
Indicate hours of operalion: 24 hours
Numberofemployees: Total:--Unmanned facility
Maximum Shift:
Time of Maximum Shift:
Provide breakdown of anticipated job classifications, including wage and salary ranges, as well aa an indication of the rate
of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary):
N/A
30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that cun'ently reside in the City:
'3 I) For commercial and industrial uses only, indicate the source, type and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be
ve,'ffied through the South Coast Air Quality Management District. at (818) 572-6283):
ALL PROJECTS
· 32) Have the water, sewer, tim, and flood control agencies serving the project been contacted to determine their ability lo provide
adequate service to the proposed pro]ect? If $o, please indicate their response.
In the known history of this property, has there been any use. storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials?
Examples of haza,rlous and/or toxic mate~fals include, but are not limited to PCB'$' radioactive sub~t~nc,, · ·
.......... S; peshczdes and
herbicides: fuels, o~ls. solvents, and otherflammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage of any of the above.
Please list the male~al$ and descdbe their use. storage, and'or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use. /f
known.
14411 the proposed [~roject involve the temporaq, or long-term use, storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic
materials, including but not limited to those examples listed above? If yes. provide an inventoo, of afl such materials to be
used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses. along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be
shown and labeled on the a~plication plans.
Batteries ~[thin enclosure
I hereby certify that the :;tatements furnished above and in the altached exhibits present the data and information required [or
adequate evaluation of Ihis project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and
con'ect tot he best o! my ;(nowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted
before an adequate evalc,ation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
ATTACHMENT TO INITIAL STUDY
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR
CAMPUS CELL SITE
CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT WELL SITE NO. 24
8248 NINETEENTH STREET
9. Physical Setting: The project is located on a well site operated by CCWD. The
parcel has been graded, and water service facilities exist on the site. The parcel is
accessed from 19~h Street.
12. Project Description: AirTouch Cellular proposes to install a wireless
communication facility on the grounds of the CCWD Well Site at 8248 19th Street.
The facility will be a co-location project with Pac Bell Mobile Services (PBMS).
PBMS has an existing site on the parcel. AirTouch will construct a monopole and
new facility adjacent to the existing site, then remove the PBMS monoploe and
relocate the antennas and equipment to the new facility. The new facility will
consist of the following:
12' x 30' x 10' prefabricated concrete enclosure to house
te[ec~atmunicat~o~ arid e~ecb'ical equipment, the smaller PBMS enclosure;
Cellular, PLUMS, and miv~wave antennas will be installed on a 75-foot steel
monopole;
· The site will be enclosed within a chain link fence.
13. Surrounding Properties: The fenced CCWD parcel is located at the west edge of
the City, adjacent to the proposed Foothill Freeway, and the Cucamonga Creek
Channel. An improved trail exists between the subject parcel and the channel.
There are residences to the east, north, across the proposed highway and south
opposite 19th Street. Land to the west is vacant.
25. See No. 12.
RICHARDS MUETING WILKES
pLANNING AND ENGINEERING
City of Rancho Cucamonga
, ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Projec! File: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-17
2. Related Files: NONE
3. Description of Project: Installation of a wireless communication facility (i.e., 65-foot
monopole) on the grounds of a Cucamonga County Water District well site, located at
8248 1.qth Street, on 3.34 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units
per acr~;). APN: 201-201-40. The facility will be adjacent to Pac Bell Mobile Services
which h as an existing 45-foot monopole facility on the parcel.
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
AirTouch Cellular
Joe Richards
6529 Riverside Avenue, Suite 115
Riverside, CA 92506
5. General Plan Designation: Low Resident~l
6. Zoning: Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
7. Surrour~ding Land Uses and Setting:
North - Route 30 Freeway
South - Existing single-family residential homes
East - Existing single-family residential homes
West - Flood control channel
8. Lead A.qency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
9. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Warren Morelion
Assistant Planner
(909) 477-2750
10. Other a.(lencies whose approval is required:
None
initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
CUP 99-17 -AirTouch Cellular Page 7
I Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ~
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the p~oposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
'15. RECREATION. Would the proposah
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.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (×)
Initial Study far City of Rancho Cucamonga
CUP 9g-17 - Air'touch Cellular 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 Imnact Potent' ,,
,- , ally .~,~,,,,,,.o.~ ,-,F',~. Unless
Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
Il() Land Use an::f Planning ( ) Transportation/Circulation
( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources () Public Services · .
( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems
Il( ) Geological Problems ( ) Hazards (X) Aesthetics
I1( ) Water ( ) Noise ( ) Cultural. Resources
I1( ) Air Quality ( ) Mandatory Findings oi' Significance ( ) Recreation
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
(X) I find that although the proposed pro~ect could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measured described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to,
by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Signed: ~'J' 1V~
~Narren Morelion
Assistant Planner
,January 26, 2000
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
CUP 99-17 - AirTouch Cellular Page 3
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: .o~,,.t~.,v un~o.. Th~
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 ( ) (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)
2. POPULATIONANDHOUSING. Would the proposah
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( ) ( ) (X)
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( ) (X)
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)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
CUP 99-17 -AirTouch Cellular Page 4
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Po~.,~,y uo~,. Th~
4. WATER. Will the proposaJ result in:
al) 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, eith~
through direct additions ~ withdrawals, or
through interception of an acluJfef by cuts ~'
excavations, or ttt~ ~_~stantta~ loss of
groundwater ~ _~-~p,3t~Jty? { ) ( ) (X)
g) A~tered d~ec:t'~:m or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) (X)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) (X)
i) Substantfal reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public
water supplies? ( ) ( ) (X)
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? (X)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (X)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? ( ) (X)
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) (X)
6. TRAN.~;PORTATIONICIRCULATION. Wouldthe
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 ( ) ( ) (X)
bicyclists?
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
CUP 99-17 -AirTouch Cellular Page 5
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: s,~,,t M,,,~
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) (X)
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or
their habitats (including, but not limited to:
plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ( ) (X)
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees,
eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and
vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
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 ( ) ( ) (X)
radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) (X)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (×)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
CUP 99-17 -,a.irTouch Cellular Page 6
10. NOISE. Will the proposal resutt ~n:
a) Increases in existing noise levers? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would,ne proposal have an
effect ~/pon or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Police protectior~? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Uakqtena~ce of p~b~ fac~i~ ~r~ctud~ng ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
reacLs?
e) Ortner g-ovemmenta~ se~,~:es? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
12. UTI, UTIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Vl/ou[dthe
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies
or sub~.;tantial alterations to the fo/lowing 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 proposak
a) Affect a scenic vista Or scenic highway? ( ) (X)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? (X) ( )
c) Create light or glare? ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) The project is located on a vacant CCWD well site where it exceeds the 35-foot
height limit allowed in residential districts. The application proposes a 65-foot
tall monopole with cellular antennas mounted at the top. The facility will be
visually prominent, particularly as viewed from residences to the north and east.
To reduce the negative aesthetic effect wireless communication site, the
applicant will be required to use a "monopalm" design, which mimics the
appearance of a palm tree, and plant a cluster of a 6 real palm trees
around the proposed monopalm.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
CUP 99-17 -AirTouch Cellular Page 8
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: s~,,,~ M~t~
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) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
CUP 99.-17 -,~,irTouch Cellular Page 9
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 !o the proposed mitigation measures to avoid
the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects
would occur.
Signature: ~'~
Print N a m e a~/~Ti;e .'-' -r-~,.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: Conditional Use Permit 99-17 Public Review Period Closes: March 8, 2000
Project Name: Project Applicant: Air Touch Cellular
Project Location (also see attached map): Located at 8248 19th Street. APN: 201-201-40.
Project Description: The development of a wireless communication facility consisting of a 65-foot stealth
monopole on 3.34 acres of land in the Flood Control District.
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.
March 8, 2000
Date of Determination Adopted By
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 99-17 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A WIRELESS
COMMUNICATION FACILITY CONSISTING OF A 65-FOOT STEALTH
MONOPOLE ON 3.34 ACRES OF LAND IN THE FLOOD CONTROL
DISTRICT, LOCATED AT IN 8248 19TH STREET (CCWD WELL NO. 24),
AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-201-40.
A. Recitals.
1. Airtouch Cellular has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit
No. 99-17, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 8th day of March 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said hearing
on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above-
referenced public headng on March 8, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to the installation of a 65-foot stealth monopole on 3.34
acres of land in the Flood Control District, located 8248 19th Street (CCWD No. 24) with a street
frontage of 240 feet and lot depth of 910 feet and which is presently improved with one existing Pac
Bell wireless communication facility; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is the future Route 30 Freeway, the
property to the south consists of single family homes (City of Upland). The property to the east
consists of single family homes zoned Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), and the properly
to the west is pad of the Flood Control District; and
c. The proposed "monopalm" antenna will be located approximately 450 feet north of
19th Street and 180 feet west of single family homes; and
d. The proposed "monopalm" antenna will exist just southeast of an existing Pac Bell
wireless communication facility, which has a 45-foot high monopole.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 99-17 -.~,irtouch Cellular
March 8, 2000
Page 2
a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the
Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
c. The proposed use comptie, s with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code.
4. Based upon the facts and info~w~ation contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration, together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for
the application, the Planning Commission finds that them is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the
findings as follows:
a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines
promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared
therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this
Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative
Declaration with regard to the application.
b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant
environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been
reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the project which are listed
below as conditions of approval.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the
proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon
which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated
Negative DecLaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning
Commission dudng the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of
adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below
and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Planninq Division
1) Approval is for a 65-foot wireless communication facility.
2) The antenna shall be maintained at all times, including making
necessary repairs as needed.
3) The antenna operation shall not cause interference with any other
communication users within the surrounding area.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 99-17 - Airtouch Cellular
March 8, 2000
Page 3
4) The monopole shall be removed within 6 months after the use is
abandoned.
5) The equipment room at the base of the antenna shall be built of gray
decorative block or stucco.
Environmental MitiRation Measures
1) The monopole shall be treated as an artificial Palm tree with 6
additional live Palm trees planted around the leased area, to the
satisfaction of the City Planner.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2000.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
A'FI'EST:
Brad Bulter, 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 March 2000, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM
Project File No.: CUP 99-17
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
progresse.';, 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
performincj monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant.
2. A 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
CUP 99-17 - AIRTOUCH
February 23, 2000
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 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 appficant 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 requiting 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 Cib/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.: CUP 99-17 Applicant: AirTouch Cellular
Initial Study Prepared by:. Warren Morelion Date: February 23, 2000
J ................ Illl'll .................... I1 ..................................................
Aesthetics '.'" ' :, ) ,,,,,.,,~,, ., ?. , ;.. ', . , '' :"'" ·
· the applicant will plant a minimum of 6-7
palm trees around the proposed CP D As Necessary A/C 2/6
monopalm and existing Pac Bell
monopole to the north.
?Key to Checklist Abbreviations
Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification Sanctlon~
CDD - Community DeveJopment Director A - With Each New Development A - On-site Inspection 1 - Withhold Recordation of Final Map
CP - Cily Planner or designee B - Prior To Construction B * Olher Agency Permil / Approval 2 - Withhold Grading or Building Pb
CE - City Engineer or designee C - Throughout Construction C - Plan Check 3 - Withhold Certificate of Occupancy
BO - Building Official or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submittal (Reports / Studies / Plans) 4 - Slop Work Order
PO - Police Captain or designee E - Operating 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds
FC - Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: Conditional Use Permit 99-17
SUBJECT: Wireless Communication Facility
APPLICANT: Airtouch Cellular
LOCATION: 8248 '19th Street, CCWD Well No. 24
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. General Requirements co,.p~e~on 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. 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, and
the Development Code regulations.
2.Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all
Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
SC -2-00
1
Project No. CUP 99-t7
Completion Date
3. * All sitE;, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or
approved us ~ has commenced, whichever comes first.
4. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development I I__
Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in
effect at the ':ime of building permit issuance.
5. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be I I__
located out ~f public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of
concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City
Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in
underground vaults.
6. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, I
including prcper illumination.
D. Landscaping
1. A detailed landscape and irrigatioa pJa~n, im:i'-,.~ding slope planting and model home I
landscaping in the case of reside~,~,~ develop~ s~all be prepa'ed by ~ ~censed
landscape arohitect and submitted for City Planr~e~ ~ and approva~ imior t~ ~he ~suance
of building p~.~rmits or prior final map approval' in the case o~a custom lot sabdivisior~.
E. Environmental
1. Mitigation m,.~asures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of __
implementin!;I 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 .~;hall be considered grounds for forfeit.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477o2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
F. General Requirements
1. Submit four complete sets of plans including the following: __ __1__
a. Site/Plot Plan;
b. Foundation Plan;
c. Floor Plan;
d. Ceilin!] and Roof Framing Plan;
e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and
size o[ 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., 'FI' #, CUP #, DR #, etc.) clearly identified on
the o~tside of all plans.
SC -2-00
Project No. CUP 99.17
Completion Date
2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils I
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.
5. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by
the Building and Safety Division.
G. 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.
Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or
addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the
established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development
Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. Applicant shall provide a
copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance.
H. New Structures
1. Exterior walls shall be constructed of the required fire rating ~n accordance with UBC Table
5-A
2. Openings in exterior walls shall be protected in accordance with UBC Table 5-A.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
I. Dedication and Vehicular Access
1. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured
from street centerline):
44 total feet on 19th Street.
Jo Street Improvements
1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
Curb & A.C. Side* Drive Street Street Corem Median Bike Other
Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Il I I Trail
19th Street x X Trees Tra s and
SC -2-00
Project No. CUP 99-17
Comple~on Oate
2. Improvemen:: Plans and Construction:
a. Stre~:t improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety __1__ __
lighb; 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
impr.3vements, pdor 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 I I__
con.,.trucfion permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to
any other permits required.
c. Paw:ment striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, __1 I
and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
3. Street imprcvement 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.
4. A permit shall be obtained from Caltrans for any work within the following right-of-way: __1__ __
19th Street.
K. General Requirements and Approvals
1. Permits shsll be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way: __1__ __
Caltrans.
2. 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 per, nit issuance if no map is involved.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTiON/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT,
(909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
L. General Fire Protection Conditions
1.Fire Districl fee(s), plus a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho
Cucamongs Fire Protection District as follows:
$132 Condi[ional Use Permit Fee.
2. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1997 UBC,
UFC, UPC, UMC, and RCFD Standards 32 and 15 and 1996 NEC.
SC -2-00
of
I~!ancho Cucamon8a
Staff Report
DATE: March 8, 2000
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- 00-03 MCALAN'S PUB AND GRILLE - A request to
establish a bar in conjunction with a restaurant that offers entert.~inment, in the
Neighborhood Commercial District of the Haven Village Center, located at 6321
Haven Avenue- APN - 201-271-69.
ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 00-01- MCALAN'S PUB AND GRILLE - A request to
offer entertainment consisting of a small acoustic trio and Karaoke in conjunction
with a bar and restaurant within the Neighborhood Commercial District of the Haven
Village Center, located at 6321 Haven Avenue - APN-201-271-69.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Site Characteristics and Surrounding] Land Use: The site is fully improved as a Neighborhood
Commercial Center. The anchor tenants in th~ center include a Top Valu Market, McDonalds,
and a Unocal station. In addition there are twenty other small retail stores, including a dry
cleaners, hair stylist, beauty supply store, and insurance company. The property to the east
of the site is developed with apartments and the property to the west is a small shopping
center on the southwest comer. The property to the south is the Route 30 freeway and to the
north is zoned Single Family Residential. The center is not fully leased.
B. Parking: The Haven Village Shopping Center was built prior to the current parking regulations.
The previous tenant was the "Willie and Pies" pizza parlor, which was in operation for a
number of years as a sit-down restaurant. The new tenant is not requesting any expansion
of the building; however, entertainment and a bar is proposed with the restaurant use. Haven
Village Center currently has a total of 485 shared parking spaces. Parking for the pub and
grille will not exceed the spaces used by the previous tenant.
ITEM C & D
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 00 - 03, I:_P 00 - 01
March 8, 2000
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
A. Proposed Uses: The applicants, Mr. Alan and Ms. Campero, propose to take the 4,500
square f¢ot building and establish a grille and pub that offers primarily dinner and full bar
service with entertainment and dancing. The bar and grille hours are Sunday through
Thursday from 11:30 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. and Friday and Saturday from 11:30 a.m. to
2:00 a.m. According to the applicant, the business will be an upscale restaurant/pub serving
light fare, refreshments, and cocktails in a white tablecloth/piano ambiance style environment
(See Exhibit "E" for menu). No entertainment is proposed on Monday and Tuesday.
Thursday through Sunday the entertainment proposed is a singer, guitarist, and/or a piano
player in the evenings. Wednesday evening is the proposed Karaoke evening. Exhibit "C"
is a detailed description of the proposed entertainment schedule for Mc, Alan's Pub and Grille.
B. Compatibility of Use: The proposed pub and gdlle is located on the northwest corner of Haven
Village Center. The site is surrounded by existing homes to the north and east, and a
shopping center to the west, across Haven Avenue. The shops along the east side of Haven
Village Center act as a buffer for the neighboring residential district to the east. The use is not
expected to disturb existing residences to the north because Lemon Avenue runs between
the homes and the shopping center and the pub and grille sits approximately 14 feet below
Lemon Avenue.
The proposed pub and grille is not expected to conflict with other business activities in the
center. Most of the other tenants close at 6:00 p.m. with the exception of the three anchor
tenants. Top Value market is open until 11 p.m. seven days a week, Mc Donald's is open until
12:00 a.m. seven days a week. The Unocal service station is open until 10:00 p.m. These
anchor te,~ants are compatible with the surrounding uses and the proposed pub and grille.
Currently, no other entertainment permits exist in the Haven Village Center.
C. Public Safety Concerns:
1. Police and Fire Safety:. The Police Depadment has been reviewing the proposed uses.
Their comments will be given at the public hearing. The Building and Safety Division
and the Fire Prevention Unit have also reviewed the proposed uses. A condition of
approval has been included that requires the applicant to meet all applicable codes for
interior modification and improvements and that the building be inspected prior to
occupancy.
2. Security Plan: A condition of the entertainment permit requires the applicant to provide
a sE,curity guard for the restaurant if the dance floor exceeds 150 square feet. The
applicant stated at the most, the dance floor would be 12x12, or 144 square feet.
Therefore, the square footage of the dance floor would not constitute the use of a
separate security guard for the restaurant. The landlord has stated that there is
currently a security guard for Haven Village Center with shift hours of Monday through
Friday from 3:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday security hours are
%
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 00-03, EP 00-01
March 8, 2000
Page 3
3:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. There is no outdoor entetainment proposed. Staff believes
that the addition of a restaurant with a full bar and a small amount of entertainment will
not conflict with the surrounding uses and that it would be compatible and cohesive with
the nature of the other Neighborhood Commercial uses.
Conclusion: Based on the above analysis, staff believes that the proposed uses would be
compatible with the surrounding uses and comply with the objectives of the Neighborhood
Commercial Center and the Haven Village Center.
FACTS FOR FINDING: The Commission must make all of the following findings to approve the two
applications:
A. Conditional Use Permit:
1. That the proposed use is in accordance with the General Plan, the objectives of the
Development Code, and the purposes of the Neighborhood Commercial Distdct in which
it is located.
2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code and the Neighborhood Commercial District.
B. Entertainment Permit:
1. That the conduct of the establishment or the granting of the application would not be
contrary to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare.
2. That the premises or establishment is not likely to be operated in an illegal, improper,
or disorderly manner.
3. That the applicant, or any person associated with him/her as a principle or partner or in
a position, or capacity involving partial or total control over the conduct of the business
for which such a permit is sought to be issued, has not been convicted in any court of
competent jurisdiction of any offenses involving the presentation, exhibition, or
performance of any obscene show of any kind or of a felony or of any crime involving
moral turpitude or has not had an approval, permit, or license issued in conjunction with
the sales of alcohol or the provision of entertainment been revoked within the preceding
five years.
4. That the granting of the application would not create a public nuisance.
PLANNING CC, MMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 00 -- 03, E!P 00 - 01
March 8, 2000
Page 4
5. Thai: the normal operation of the premises would not interfere with the peace and quiet
of a,~y surrounding residential neighborhoods.
6. Tha'.: the applicant has not made any false, misleading, or fraudulent statement of
mat,.=rial fact in the required application.
7. The applicant shall get all permits necessary, including an Alcohol Beverage License
prior to commencement of building permits.
Staff could find no evidence contrary to the required findings.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in thelnland Valley Daily
Bulletin newsp~per, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within
a 300-foot radius of the project site and all the tenants within the Haven Village Center.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the bar and entertainment through adoption
of the attached Resolution. Staff recommends a six-month review after the entertainment has
commenced.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:EV'AIs
Attachments: Exhibit"A' Site Plan
Exhibit "B" - Applicant's Letter
Exhibit "C' Entertainment Schedule
Exhibit "D" ~ Floor Plan
Exhibit "E' Menu
Resolution of Approval for CUP 00-03
Resolution of Approval for EP 00-01
2. chlrop£actor
~~u .~ / [ $9. Ch[nes~ Vaat.',~j
~ ~ .." // 14. Uaircutterm
~ ~ .' ~ 15. video
16. College Clean
,1~- Denkimt
-' : 2. Available
One Store <3
Pad fi. Lease Pending . .
B. Available 3,600 Sf /
Pad A Pad C C. McDonald's Remtaucant
~ PAD ~: Up To M.6~SF Bull~ ~blo McDonald's Open~ 12/g~ PHASE I1: Up To 1 1.2~S~BulI~o For Sale
For ~1~ ' In ~scrow
O~G. ARB 120,821 S.F. .
STA'rEM]~NT OF PURPOSE
The purpose ofthi~ document is to formalize a plan to launch a new restaurant/pub to be
called "McAlan's Pub and Grill". The principals, Mark Alan and Vivian C. Campero
have entered into a partnership to launch this endeavor. At present, the principals, who
will be actively involved, will fund the pmjectjointly.
THE BUS)[NESS
McAlan's will be an upsuale restaurant/pub serving lig~a, t faire, refreshments and cocktails
in a white tablecloth/piano ambiance style environment. It is anticipated that McAlan's
will host it' s Grand Opening and be open to the public in the winter of 1999. Operating
hours will be Sunday through Thursday from 11:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and Friday and
Saturday from 11:30 a.m. to closing, (no later than 2:a.m.)
BACKGROUND OF TNF~ BUSENESS
AccordlnS to our interviews, w~thln the City of Rancho Cucamonga and adjoinin~
East/West cities, there is a verified need for dining/cocktail selwiges at Or above Baseline
Road. Presently, residents of these communities must travel south to Foothill Blvd to
find a restaurant with an atmosphere that is only close to those that will be available at
McAlan's. Typically, restat~rants offering the facilities planned for McAlan's will attract
customers in the 25-55 year age range. Current demographics provided by Grubb & Ellis
indicate that in 1998 there were over 9000 target customers within One mile of the
proposed Iv[cAlan's location and over 84,000 target customers within 5 miles. Of
targeted cu~,'tomers within one to five miles, 56% and 50% respecfiveiy, generate annual
household income of $50,000+. In addition, the extension of the 30 freeway just south of
McAlan's ~.t Highland Blvd. should serve to augment customor traffic.
MISSION STATEMENT
To provide an atmosphere of comfort and well-being in which our customers can enjoy
quality food and refreshments at a fair and equitable price.
co, cyan'
McAlan's xfill be an upscale restanrant/pub establishment. The entrance will be accented
at either side of the door with neatly trimmed, potted "poodle bushes." The double door
will be com,~xucted of heavy cherry wood accented with brass kick plates. The interior
will be furnished in red leather, cherry wood bar/stools/tables and accented with brass
fixture~. The fireplace, wall furnishings, pictures and carpets will all be consistent with
library mot'~f. The key to the success of McAlan's will be quiet comfort in a living room
envifonmelit. F~tertainmellt will include a piano in the Happy Hours and easy listening
combo's in the evenings. (No blaring music or loud bands.) The menu will consist of
gourmet hamburgers, hot sandwiches, quesadillas, french fries, etc.
LOCATION
McAlan's will be located at 6321 Haven Ave. in the Haven V'dlage Shopping Center at
the northeas~ corner of Haven Ave. and Highland Ave. in Rancho Cucamonga, which
comprises approximately 4500 square feet. Anchor tenants in the center include Top
Value Supermarket, McDonald's and Unocal. According to Donnelly Marketing
information in May of 1998, Haven Ave. supports daily auto traffic of 21,123 cars.
Highland Ave. supports daily traffic of 2,916 cars, which is projected to grow over the
next three years, as Haven Ave. is a future access to the new 30-freeway extension.
OBJECTIVES AND FINANCIAL F-~PECTATIONS
Short term it is anticipated that McAlan's will be open for business 7 days per week.
Weekly customers are e~imated to be 938 at an average food/beverage ticket of $14.50.
This equates to $13,618.78 aweek of $710,122.10 annualized. Long term, McAlanis
hopes to build a neighborhood clientele that will enjoy McAlan's as a local gathering
place for friends and neighbors to get together for good food and company.
COMPETITION
Salsitas Mexican Restaurant CoCo's Coffee Shop
Mc Donald's Noble House Chinese Restaurant
MARKETING STRATEGY
McAlan's will use traditional marketing methods (i.e., fliers, newspaper advertisements,
billboards, etc.). Given the hospitality and atmosphere that McAlan's intends to provide
word of mouth will also become a highly effective marketing tool.
MINI3~IZING RISK FACTORS
McAlan's will implement a plan of contiauous education to employees regarding refusal
of service of alcoholic beverages to underage and intoxicated patrons and abide by all
ABC guidelines.
CAPITAL
Partners are personally funding this project. It is anticipated that no loans will be
required.
SUMMARY
McAlan's hopes to provide the community with a local establishment that provides good
food, in a relaxing environment close to home.
!
Zo: ~2i~/ot'Rsz~.ho ~monga
R~: ]~mposed ~em Scl~dule ~or Mc Alan's Pub nad Grille
L
APPETIZERS
MCALAN'S HOT WINGS
Spicy chicken wings served with celery sticks and ranch dressing
CHICKEN QUESADILLA
Large flour tortilla filled with grilled chicken, Jack and cheddar cheeses
served with spicy salsa and tasty guacamole
CHICKEN TENDERS
Breaded chicken tenders deep fried to a golden brown served with
ranch dressing and barbecue sauce
BEEF TAQUITOS
Served with spicy salsa and tasty guacamole
ONION RINGS
Lightly battered and seasoned
CHIPS AND SALSA
SALADS
MCALAN'S FAMOUS COBB
Mixed greens with diced turkey, ham and crisp bacon, tomato, cheese,
avocado and egg
CAESAR SALAD
Romaine lettuce tossed with fresh caesar dressing, toasted croutons and
parmesan cheese
add grilled chicken
GARDEN SALAD
Mixed greens
E"
Pi0
FROM THE GRILL
Each selection comes with choice of steak fries, potato
salad or onion rings and chilled dill pickle.
MCALAN'S BURGER
Juicy charbroiled patty, served with cheese, lettuce, tomato and onion
MUSHROOM BURGER
Charbroiled patty topped with saut6ed mushrooms, Swiss cheese, lettuce & tomato
CHILI BURGER
Charbroiled patty smothered with chili, topped with cheese, lettuce, tomato & onion
GREAT BACON AND AVOCADO BURGER
McAlan's burger topped off with bacon and avocado
ITALIAN BURGER
Charbroiled patty topped with pizza sauce and mozzarella cheese
CHARBROILED BBQ CHICKEN
Boneless chicken breast on toasted bun with lettuce, tomatot onion and tasty
barbecue sauce
CAJUN CHICKEN
Boneless chicken breast on toasted bun with spicy Cajun seasonings, Jack cheese,
lettuce & tomato
CALIFORNIA CHICKEN
Boneless chicken breast on toasted bun topped with avocado, Ortega chiles,
lettuce, tomato & onion
SPECIALTY SANDWICHES
Each selection comes with choice of steak fries, potato
salacl or onion rings and chilled dill pickle.
BEEF DIP
Thinly sliced roasted beef piled high on a French roll, topped with Swiss cheese,
served with au Jus
PASTRAMI SANDWICH
Thinly slice~l, pastrami piled high on a French roll~ topped with Swiss cheese, served
with mustar4 and pickles
HAM STACK
Premium hain piled high on choice of bread with cheese, lettuce & tomato
TURKEY MELT
Generous portion white breast meat, Swiss cheese, lettuce & tomato, grilled to
perfection; choice of bread
PATTY NIELT
Fresh ground beef patty, served with Swiss and cheddar cheeses, sauteed onions
on rye brea~l, grilled to perfection
DESSERTS
NEW YOI~K CHEESECAKE
APPLE PIE ALA MODE
ICE CREAM SUNDAE
'P. CD
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 00-03 FOR A BAR WITHIN A RESTAURANT, LOCATED AT
6321 HAVEN AVENUE, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN:
210-271-69
A. Recitals.
1. Mark Alan and Vivian C. Campero have filed an application for the issuance of
Conditional Use Permit No. 00-03, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 8th day of March 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing
on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on March 8, 2000, 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 6321 Haven Avenue, on the
southeast comer Haven Avenue and Lemon Avenue with a street frontage of 161 feet and lot depth
of 455 feet and is presently improved with the Haven Village Center;, and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with single family
residential (Low, 2-4 dwellings per acre), the property to the south is the Route 30 freeway, the
property to the east is developed with Medium-High residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre), and
the property to the west is a small shopping center on the southwest comer; and
c. The proposed use, a restaurant with a full bar and entertainment, is consistent with
the Neighborhood Commercial District, and the sun'ounding Haven Village Center.
d. The commercial center has sufficient parking spaces to accommodate the
proposed use based on parking calculations from the site plan; and
e. The proposed use would be compatible with the surrounding center.
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:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 00 .- 03
March 8, 2000
Page 2
a. The proposed use is in accordance with the General Plan, the objectives of the
Development (;ode, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materfally injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code.
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. Ba~ed upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth
below.
_Planninq Division
1) Approval is for a 4~5~0 square foot restaurant and bar. Expansion or
intensification ol' Ore ha' faculty shall require a modification to the
Conditional Use Permit.
2) Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if
building permits are not issued or the approved use has not
commenced within 24 months of this date.
3) Approval of this request shall not wave compliance with any sections
of the Neighborhood Commercial District, State Fire Marshal's
regulations, Uniform Building Code, or any other City Ordinances.
4) 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.
5) The facility shall be operated in confon'nance with the performance
standards as defined in the Development Code including, but not
limited to, noise levels.
6) Any signs proposed on the facility shall be designed in conformance
with the City's Sign Ordinance and the Uniform Sign Program for the
Haven Village Center and shall require review and approval by the City
Planner prior to installation.
7)A separate Conditional Use Permit is required if there are more than
three coin operated amusement devices on the premises.
8) Pdvate parties with or without bar service may be allowed during the
day and must end before the regular bar opens.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 00 - 03
March 8, 2000
Page 3
Buildinq and Fire Safety Division
1) Occupancy of the facility shall not commence until such time as all
Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal's regulations have been
complied with. Detailed plans shall be submitted to the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire District and the Building and Safety Division for review
and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The building
shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy.
2) Any modification to the approved plans after occupancy of the building
may require additional review and/or permits from the Fire District and
the Building and Safety Division.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2000.
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 March 2000, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
I
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION Of THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ENTERTAINMENT
PERMIT NO. 00-01, A REQUEST TO OFFER ENTERTAINMENT
CONSISTING OF A SMALL ACOUSTIC TRIO AND KARAOKE IN
CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT AND BAR WITHIN THE HAVEN
VILLAGE CENTER, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT,
LOCATED AT 6321 HAVEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-271-69.
A. Recitals.
1. On May 21, 1986, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Ordinance
No. 290 providing for the regulation of entertainment.
2. Mark Alan and Vivian Campero have filed an application for the issuance of
Entertainment Permit No. 00-01, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Entertainment Permit request is referred to as "the application."
3. On the 8th day of March 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said hearing
on that date.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, deten'nined, 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 forih 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 March 8, 2000, 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 6321 Haven Avenue with a street
frontage of 161 feet and lot depth of 455 feet and is presently improved with Haven Village Center,
and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with single family
residential (Low, 2-4 dwellings per acre), the property to the south is the Route 30 freeway, the
property to the east is developed with Medium-High residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre), and
the property to the west is a small shopping center on the southwest corner; and
c. The proposed activity addresses local demand for the proposed entertainment
activities that are safe, convenient, and accessible.
pLANNING CO.~IMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EP 00 - 01 - MCALAN'S PUB AND GRILLE
March 8, 2000
Page 2
d. 'rhe proposed activity is consistent with General Plan objectives to provide a broad
range of land uses and business opportunities.
e. The proposed use consists of full bar service, restaurant, and entertainment.
f. The proposed uses are consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial District.
§. The commercial center has sufficient parking spaces to accommodate the proposed
uses based on the parking count records.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above-
referenced public hearing, and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the conduct of the establishment and the granting of the application would not
be contrary to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare; and
b. That the premises or establishment is not likely to be operated in an illegal,
improper or dis.orderly manner; and
c. That the applicant, ar any pers~ associated with him as Principal or partner °r in
a position or capacity involving pa.,lie~ ac total co~tra~ overate conduct of the business for which such
permit is sought to be issued, has not been convicted in am/court of compelent jurisdiction of any
offense involving the presentation, exhibition, or performance of any obscene show of any kind or
of a felony or c,f any crime involving moral turpitude or has not had any approval, permit, or license
issued in conjunction with the sale of alcohol or the provisions of entertainment revoked within the
preceding five years.; and
d. That granting the application would not create a public nuisance; and
e. That the normal operation of the premises would not interfere with the peace and
quiet of the surrounding commercial center and surrounding residences; and
f. That the applicant has not made any false, misleading, or fraudulent statement of
matedal fact in the required application.
4. This Commission hereby finds and determines that the project identified in this Resolution
is categorically exempt from the requirements of the Califomia 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 paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application.
Pl~nninq Division.
1) This approval is only for the following entertainment uses: dancing; a
small acoustic trio; and one night of Karaoke. Any change of intensity
or type of entedainment shall require a modification to this permit.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EP 00 - 01 - MCALAN'S PUB AND GRILLE
March 8, 2000
Page 3
2) The days and hours of operation for the entertainment shall be limited
to Wednesday and Sunday between 7 p.m. until 11 p.m., Fdday and
Saturday from 7 p.m. until 12:30 a.m., and Thursday from 6 p.m. until
11 p.m. Any expansion of days and/or hours shall require modification
to this permit.
3) No adult entertainment, as defined in the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal
Code, Section 17.04.090, shall be permitted.
4) Entertainment shall be conducted inside the building.
5) When entertainment is being conducted, doors and windows shall
remain closed for noise attenuation purposes.
6) Exterior noise levels shall not exceed 65 dB during the hours of 7 a.m.
to 10 p.m. and 60 dB dudng the hours from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
7) Access to the lounge/entertainment area must be from the main
entrance to the primary use and not from a separate extedor entrance.
Other exits shall be for ~Fire Exit Only."
8) If operation of this Entertainment Permit causes adverse effects upon
adjacent residences, businesses, or operations including, but not
limited to, noise, loitering, parking, or disturbances, the Entertainment
Permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission for
consideration and possible suspension or revocation of the permit.
9) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections
of the Development Code, State Fire Marshal's regulations, Uniform
Building Code, or any other City Ordinances.
10) This permit shall be renewed annually by the applicant per Municipal
Code Section 5.12.115.
11) The dance floor shall be less than 150 square feet. Any dance floor
larger than 150 square feet shall require modification to this permit.
Fire District/Buildinq & Safety Division
1) The maximum number of occupants shall not exceed building and fire
codes. The maximum occupancy for each room shall be posted as
determined by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and/or
the City's Fire Prevention Unit Division,
2) Occupancy of the facility shall not commence until such time as all
Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal's regulations have been
complied with. Detailed plans shall be submitted to the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire District and the Building and Safety Division for review
I
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EP 00 - 01 - IVCALAN'S PUB AND GRILLE
March 8, 2000
Page 4
and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The building
shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy.
3) Submit complete plans for review of Assembly Occupancy.
4) Any modifications to the approved pta~s after occupancy of the building
may require additional review and or permits from the Fire District and
the Building and Safety Division.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2000.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNieJ, Chaim3an
AT-rEST:
Brad Bullet, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, ,'Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the l'oregoing 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 March 2000, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
~' H E C ~ T Y OF
~ANCHO C~CAMONCA
DATE: March 8, 2000
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-62 -
CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES - The development of three industrial
buildings totaling 82,376 square feet on 4.12 acres of land in the General
Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located
on the south side of Arrow Route, approximately 300 feet east of White
Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-02 and 209-471-03. Related File:
Development Review 99-63.
BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission continued this item from the
February 9, 2000, meeting to allow the applicant time to respond to concerns from the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFVVS). The USFWS letter received by staff
on February 8, 2000, (Exhibit "A") made unsubstantiated claims regarding supposed
environmental impacts associated with the project. No scientific evidence of impacts
was provided. However, the applicant's biologist has conducted a Habitat Assessment
Survey of the issues raised by USFWS (potential San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and
Burrowing Owl habitat) and provided fact-based responses to the USFWS letter. Staff
believes the applicant has addressed all pertinent issues. Please refer to the attached
applicant's response (Exhibit "B") dated February 21, 2000 for further details.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The applicant has completed Part I of the Initial
Study and staff has completed Part II. Supplemental information provided by the
applicant's biologist in response to the USFWS claims has been added to the
discussion portion of the Initial Study. With implementation of a mitigation measure
requiring an additional Burrowing Owl survey within 30 days prior to construction,
potential impacts associated with the project can be mitigated to a less than significant
level. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration would be in order.
ITEM E
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 99-62 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES
March 8, :2000
Page 2
RECOMIvlENr)ATtON: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approval
Development I~eview 99-62 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of approval
with conditions and issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
City Planner
BB:RZ\ma
Attachments: Exhibit "A"- Letter from United States Fish and Wildlife Service, received
by staff on February 8, 2000.
Exhibit "B"- Impact'Sciences Inc., Habitat Assessment Survey response,
dated February 21, 2000.
Exhibit "C"- Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 9, 2000
Exhibit "D"- Revised Initial Study Part II
Resolution of Approval with conditions and Mitigation Monitoring Plan
United States Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecological S -vices
Carlsbad Fish and W'fldlife Office
2730 Lokcr Avcnu~ West
Carlsbad, Catifomia 920011
FEB 0 8 Z0 0
Rudy' Zeledon
Associate Plamaer
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
P.O. Box 807
Rmacho Cucamon~a, Califumia 91729
Subject: Developme~ P~eview 99-62 mad 99-63, in the City of Rancho Cucmnonga, San
Bemardino Comaty, California
Dear Mr. Zeledon:
This letter provides our comment~ on the Notices o£hatent for Development Review 99-62 and
99-63, rec~ved by the U.S. Fish a~d Wildlife Serdce (Service) on Janua~ 20, 2000, for the
development of Industrial buildings in the General Industrial Disrdct (Subarea 8). We
uz~ter~and that the proposals nfo to develop 4.12 acres located south of Arrow Route and east of
White Oak Avmue, a~d 4.25 acres locatecl, at the southeast comer of Tacoma Drive and White
Oak AYenue in thc City of Rancho Cummonga (City), Sa~ Bernardi~.o County, respectb~ely. A*
indicamd previously in our letter of May 5, 1998 (attached), we arc concerned about the potential
impacts to the federally endangered Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (RImphiomidas terminatua
abdomtnali~, "DSF") ~ is tmown to occur witl.fin sand-/soils witlaln the proposed project
vicinity. Thc DSF is fully protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as
mended.
We provide the following comments ha keeping with our asency's mis~icm to work "w/th others
to co,eryc, protect, and ~hance fish, wildlife, a~d plant~ and their habitats for the confirming
benefit of the .Amerinma people." Moreover, we provide comments on publ.i¢ notlce,~ issued fur a
Federal perm/t or license affecting the Nation's water~ p~t to the Clean Water Act. We also
~d,-~;nlster the AcL Sec~tion 7 o£the Act requires Federal agencies to consult with us, the
Sorvice, should it be determfned that their actinm may affect feclcmlly llatecl specie& Sectloa 9
of the Act prohibits the "take" (e.g., harm. hxra~memt, pumfit, injury, kill) of federally listed
wildlife. "Harm" is furtl~r defi~aed to include habitat modification or degradation where it kills
or injures wildlife by impairing essential behavioral pattem~ including breed~g, feeding, or
sheltering. Take ha¢idental to otherwise lawful activities can be author/zed under sections 7
(Federal consultation) and 10 0aabimt conservation plar~) of the Act.
Rudy Zclcc!on 2
We have reviewed the habltat-ba~ed evaluations'conducted by Scott Camown of Impact
Science. i~s indicated in thc report, DSF arc capable ofoccupy/ng sub-op~,~I h=hitats and
definitive c,)nclusions relative to thc presence or absence c~nr~ot b~ asceV~-¢d absent
conducting focused surveys for DSF. Therefore, v~ dis~!~ree with Mr. Cam~on's conclu~io~
that thc pro~osed development will not likdy result in adverse effects to the DSF. Thus, w~ am
providing thc following comm~mts and r~co~r-endat/ons to e-~ble the City and the project
proponrmt t~ take proper action with regard to the endangered species concerns on the proposed
project sitc~.
We conduct:d site visits from the side of the road on April :28, 1995, and again on February 3,
2000, and d~:~rm;-e..d that both sites contain appropriate soils that could su~. ort thc DSF and
n~tive plant species associated with DSF-occupicd s~s. Wc concluded that the sim had thc
pot~ntia] to support DSF ~. our prcvlous lct~ ~,~ site conditions do not a~pear tn have changed
sinc~ ~at thee, therefore, we still we recommend that protocol survcys for thc DSF bc conducted
by a pcrmirt,~ biologis~ or that approp~a~.c authorization pursuant to the Act bc obtnined prior to
.any d~sturb~cc on the site. In addition, a habitat assessment should be conducted by ;~ qualified
biologist to dcu;~,,,;,c [fth~ site co-~,~ cnd,~ngered San Bern~dino kangaroo rat (Difodorny~
rnerrtomlp~.~.us; "SBICR'~) ~o~ or burrows. J.f so, thc sit~ should bc trapped by · permitted
biologist to dct~Jne the status of the SIBK~ on the project site.
Sites that co~,t~;, unconsolidated soils in the area arc s~,i~cant because they play a critical
in the recover), of thc DSF in this recovery unit The mcove~ plsn for the DSF identified thc
c~tabl~shrnc~.t o£a recovery urfl~ in thc Onu~io ~ca, wherein a secure habit~ basc will nccd to be
conserved ~d restored to ach~ve population stability and r~covcr)' of thc species. Further
habitat loss in this recovery trait by this project and others will increase thc lJkehhood of
cx'tinc~on of thc DSF in the On~io Recovery Un/t. Wc am now working with several c~t/es
~dth~ San Bcrn;u~dlno County to adckcss i~suc~ r~lahng to DSF regionally, includ;-g the ci~s of
P, zncho Cuc~monga and One,do. TMs regional solution would identify l~nds that would be
con.scrvcd fo;: DSF and lands that could bc dcvcloped outside of thc reserve arems. Although thc
plan is still b,;ing developed, thc ultln~tc plan may provide a solution for Properties such as the
subject si~es in thc ncas future.
Wc arc also concerned about thc potcntlal L. npacts of the propos,~l project to thc s~msitive
burrowing owl (,4ehcne cantcu[arta), ~,~ other sensitive species that occur in the genc'~al ~
and ~ptors tI:.~t usc the area as foraging habi~t. Duc to urban and industrial development, DSF,
SBICR, end burrowing owls have clcc~ined throughout this are~ of San Bemardlno County. Issues
related to significant biological resources on thc proposed project site, such as dcvclopmcor and
loss ofDclhl ~nds that either support or l~ve the potential to support the DSF, SBK.R,
burrowing owl, and usc of thc site by for'~ging ~ptors, should bc adequately addrc-sscd under thc
Callfomia En~imnmcntsl Qu~ty Act (CEQA).
Wc ap?rcci~; the opportunity to providc comments on thc proposed projects and are ava/lablc to
work with thc City and project propo-e-t to avoid, rnh~;m~?,~, and m/tigs~ 3xnpacts to £edcraIJy
listed ~ sc'nfltive species. We request that final approval of the proposed project be deferred
]~dy Zcledon 3
until the issues raised i~ this leuer been r~,olved. If you have aay questions regazddmg this le~er,
please coniact Mary Beth Woulfe o£this o~¢e al: (760) 431-9440.
~act el~'Sincerely, ~
~' ~s~aut Field Supervisor
1 -d-00-NlrrA-197
· cc: City of P. amcho Cucam~nga, CA (Attn: Brad Bullet/LaiTy Henderson)
CDFO, Chlao, CA (Arm: l~bha MaLoaey Rames)
Torraace, CA (Att~ Mack Cap~lli.o)
Impact Scieaces, Aguora Hills, C_~ (Atta: Scott Camerou/Keith Babcock)
i',~ P A CT SCIENCES ., " "
"' * F~ 2~, ~
Cap~U~o & ~iates
~ ~':.. · ,
~acre Site, (Developmen~ R~ ~ ~. ~),' Ci~ .0f R~cho
Cu~on~, S~ Bemardi~ Co~, ~li~omia '-
~ ~. CapcU~o: . ..
~ letter ~o~ p~ ~ o~ a ~0~olc~el s~ey'~ ~ evaluate
po~aUy sui~ble habitat to suppo~ ~ ~ ~ar~~ ~o '~t (D~omy~ m~rr~nm~ '
~) ~ ~e bunow~g owl (~ ~) ~ ~o ~it~ l~t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o
Cuc~nonga (O~), Co~ o[ ~ ~r~, Sta~ o~ C~o~.' '" . ·
In~duction
~pact ~ ~ ~at ~e Ci~ h~ r~ ~at a habitat ~m~t '~
~or~ on ~ au~ ait~ to ~ evaiua~e ~e port,al ~r~ o~ ~ifivc biologic~
(~WL). ~e ~12-a~ ~ Is l~at~ ~u~ of~ Ro~ ~ e~t of ~e '~ Av~ue,.'.*
~d ~e 4.~ac~ ~ite ~ I~a~d at ~e sou~east ~ o~ T~a ~ve *'~d ~ite.' oak
d~s~ate ~ a~lk~Fs color.ce to ~e C~omla'~~ .~i~ AO (CEQA)
provide ~e pr~ applic~t wi~ 8ener~ biol~k~ ~fo~afi~ ~a~ potentially .."
s~tabh~ h~itat to ~pp~ ~siflve s~ for ~ ~ ev~u~ pot~ti~ ~ of' ,
· PR( CATION
.Backs~o~ind.
San ~.~mardin. o
Onlar..uary 2~,.1998, the SBI~ was emergency listed as a federally, eitcia.ngered species. The
Servia,: admln~ter~ the A~t, ~nd Section ~'of the Act requix~, federal agencies to cortsm~ with
'" the Service should it be detezznined that their actions may affect a fedezally listed threatened
o~,,~;e~i...L.u~. ~red spe,,i~ Section 9 of. the Act prohibits the "take" of listed species. The tczm
"iake# means to harass, harm. pl. aSUe, hunt, shoot, wco-'~L kill,
attempt to engage in any such coruluct. The tram "harm" is further defined to :Luclude habitat
modili,:ation wl'~r¢ it kills or in~-tres wtlcflife by impaizing essentJa/behavioral pattecns.
At iesue irt the area is the SBICR (and its habitat) that could be adversely affected by project
development. Urban and a~ricultural developments have :ccsulted in both thc loss and
~ra~mentation of natural habitats. Because these loses have contnbu~d to the decline cE the
SBICR'in the region, pro~t prOl~Crmnts must demo~tzate to reviewing a~ncies that potential
project-related impacts to 5BICR are avoided or mintntlied.
Only sinall isolated populations of SBKR aze }mown bom the vicinity of the site, and the
. la, t~ez !;I~ICR populailcm_s are stzictiy associated with hydrolosical ~yatems (alluvial fana) and
· flooct plains on sandy loam substrates. Th.is taxon pre.fcr~ elam, sparsely vegetated habitats and
oecuas ¢:~iefly in a variety of sage smib pLznt community types, typically in early to
. interme~iiate stages of alluvial scrub. However, because t}~ project site is located witl'tin tt~e
historic .range oi $SKR, and some portions of the site contain an element of poterttial habitat
(e.g., sandy roils), a more detailed biological analysis of the pro~ect site relative to this ~x~n
wac rtClUested.
The buzrowing owl is a Species of Special
Ceneezn as well (Iormerly a candidate species). Guidelines/or t~ Implementation of CEQA
provide Ii, at a ~es be considered a~ e~d,mgez~d or ~e z,~ardless et appearance an a formal
Ibst for the l:nU-poses of CEQA (Section 153~0~' ambeectio~' b and d). CEQA requires a ma,ndatcu-,/
tindin§ of sigzttficance it impacts to threatened cz e~dangered sF~ies are likely to oo:ur
(Section:; 21001{c}, 2103; Guidelines I~.380~ 15064, 15065). To be legally adequate, mitigation
measure:; must be capable of avoids§ the impact, minimizing the impact, tectifyin§ the
impact, .~ redt:dn~ or eliminating the impact over time by preserVation (Guidelines 15370).
Avoid~r~ce or mitigation to zeduce impacts to less than sigz~.ficant levels must be included in a
p~cgect o: the C.~QA lead agency n, atst w~l~e and ~Lfy find~gs of ovetricLi~& con!6de~'atior~
]mp~:~ Scherzos,, I
· While this sensitive species is n~ protected by state or federal endangered ~ci~ acts like
the SBK1L burrowing owls are protected under the federal Migratory Bizd Treaty Act (MBTA)
of 1910 (16 U.$.G 703-711) and California Department of Fish and Game (C. DFG) Coc~ sections
· 1~.~3, 3503.5, and 3~00 which prohibits t~,e~ po~.,~r,~ or destruction of birds, their nests or
eggs. ~ such, specific survey protocol and mitigation g~idelh}es (CDPG 1995) have been
developed to reduce project-related'impacts to burrowing owls.
.tn order to avoid violation of the MBTA or California Fish and Game Code, the abov~-
men~-~d guidelines state that project-related disturbances at active n~ting territories be
r.~d~'ced or eliminated during th~ nesting cycle (February to Aught 31). Should egg~ ~' '
fledglings be discovered in any owl burrow, the ~ cannot be disiurbed (pursuant to CDFG
protocol) until the young have hatched and fledged (mahared to a stage that they can leave
the nmi an their own). Mitigation measles should he c~rried out from ~epte~ber 1 to ]anuary
31 (nesting'time is regionally variable). Preconstm~an surveys of suitable habitat shdrdd
· conducted within 30 days prior to cor~stmctic~ to ~ vo owls have established territories
site.
Mcthod~
l~itcTatu.re Search ,.
Doctlmantation p~rtlnent to the biological r~ources near the site wes reviewed and analyzed.
Lnl'ormation reviewed included: (1) the Federal Register li. sffng package fOr th~ fcdcrally
listed endang~d IXSF; (2) literature pertaining to habitat req~irement~ of semsirive species
pot~ntially occuning cr~ the projec'~ site; (3) the California Natural Diversity Data Base
· (CNDDB 1999) inforxnation regarding senritive specle~ potentially ~ c~ the pro~ci site
in a computer report format for the #Guasti~ USGS 75-minute quadrangle map, and (4) review
of availabl~ ~eport~ from th~ and otter projects located in the ganaral vicinity of the projec~
site (e.g., biological reports, soL!~ reports, Phase I xeports).
Field Surveys
The site was examined cr~ foot by w~!~'t~g a seties of transects across the subject l~roperty at
approximately 30 Ioof intervals. ,Senior Biologist Scott D. Calll~oll al~ Project Biologist
David G. Craw{oral conducted surveys of the rite. As mentioned, the primary objective of the
o!~--~tay field visit was to evaluate the site's petentlsi to support the gBI'Q~ and BOWL, and
genendly evaluate habitat suitability fo~ o~hei' 'potentially. o~-tu:ring sensitive, wildlife ,'
specle~ basc'd ~m existing rite condition. General plant and .wildlife .~pecle~ pre~ent at' th~ slfi '
were identified to asse,~ the overall habitat vel.u~. ..
SBK. R Habitat Sultabilit~ A~alysis ' ·:
Sdena~ biologists,have extensive, experience with H~tero.myid~.tn [squth~m' Calltornia,' and
have a:~ulated over 60,000 small mammal trapnights qv.~ th~ pas{ r~ years. .The si{e was
generally evaluated /or the suitability oi habitat .to s~pport .SBIG~. by en.examinatien::oI ..
substr,,te type, di~turban~, vegetation composition and cover, and a s~'~h. for diagna~6c "
kmtgar oo rat activity such as burrows, sca!, tail drags, dust:baths, ~.nd runwayS. . ." .
BOWE A~alllsis ."
A survey for the BOWL was conducted according to 1995 CDFG Staff' R~Port an Burrow'mg~ Old'lc
Mitigation cn February 180 2000. Impact Sciences biologists have condu~, numen~s su.,~y~
/or thh sEectas, end have tmpl~n~nt~d passive relocation techniques ~"multiple. sites
following C'DBG protocol. Pursuant to CDFG survey pr. otocol, ~he subject. ~rea prvpos~d for.
development was surveyed (as indicated above) to locate burmw~ .t~,~t 'could be po'ten~al'ly. "
uaed by bun~wing owls. Potentially suitable burrows were ~ximlned for ~gn ~ burrowing 0wl ..
use such as the pr~am~e oI owl pellets, prey remains, or £~athe~s 'at .the 'b~mo,e entre{ce. :.
Suitable bun'ows (burrows that ate ~ and wide enough got owl u.~ regardless ff owl ~ign is ' ' ' 'i
pre~ent) w~ observed for owl activity ,4v,-~g the appwpriabe time'of a,~y (~x,~t sc~ise ~r
~un~t) during which owls become active. -"
Existing Conditions on the/.12-Acre Site
The site has been historically wugh graded (detailed beloW). In adcUtion, 'deep dirking ~
and tratior 'fires were evidlmce of the sites' exposure to routin~' {er'ed .abatement ac{lvifles. The . .
eastem:.vortionsofthesitecontainatrucktumoutand.coocretewashout area. Ir{addilicra, this' ..
area wa~ r~centl7 scraped and contains debris and ~i] pLlei..Both natiye .knd non-natiye plant
~peci~s are present ~ the site. Softs cn the site are predominantly ~omp~c~ and little 'to ro ' '
areas of the site currently support/rlable soft types. · .... . ..
Vege~attoni
Approximately 80 pe~-ent of the site is 'densely vegetated with' d ~'~mbination 0{ nOn-native .. ·.
mderal {weedy) herbs a~t glasses and native plant s?des~ Mode~ately~de~se telegraph weed
with elements of annual bur-sage and western ragw~ec~ (Ambrosia ps/los tachya) are pre.,s~at · '.
over n~mt of the site. Native mule fat (Baccharis. salicifolia) 'is' al!io, present in a small :
Ruderal introduce~ plant species comprise .the mostly' den.se' ur~l .e~stor,/. Noh-natiYe- species · .
present on lite include horehound (Marrubi~m tudf?e}, rip§ut gra~(Br~nu$ dla'ndrus); foxtail
chess (BrOmuS maclriten$is ssp. rubens), Bermuda gra~ (C!o~don dactylon), filaree (£rodiura
cicutarium), nvostard (Brasslca or Hirschfrldia s'pp.), and Russian thistle (Sals01~ t[.a.g~s). · ·
Vegeta~ve cover on the site is a~proxima!ely 70-80 percent.. '
Bird ~l:~ie~ observed during the reccrmaissance-level field
crow (Cor~u~ ~rachyrAynchos). Mammal sp~ie'i of which si~n was detected, ~clude Botta's "
pocket gopher (Thomomys b0~tae), desert cottontail (S!tlvil~g~s a;~dubont), and CaLLfomia"
8round squirrel ($permophilus beceh¢~i)~ No charactertsiic 'si&n ol kangaroo rat activity or '"
recent burrowing owl use was detected on the site. ' · · -
Disturbance History and Soils Anal¥~is · .' ' . .
A Softs ~gfaccrlng Repot wa~ prepared for tl~ pro, ct.and adjacen! ~arcel~ by Sazn~ &
Associete. s (1992). The su~ect parcel is located l~'ithin a iazser.'~i~ ~o~pzised' of 'multiple
percels. Grading activities occurred on the subject parcel as well as on surrounding parcels. The ' :
zepott h~dicated ~t the site, along with ad,scent parcels, ~a.~ ~ta~ed. ~iurtt~g 1992 imct 1993 by
removal of tmcertifted fill and loose/soft alluvium within ihe depth c~ apprbXimatel¥ 1-5 to
3.0 feet and arounci the perimeter of the footprint of the pk~posed b~lldings. Pridr to gmdi~ '
operations, all vegetation and trash was'deazed and stockpiled for dLsposalloff site. Fill...
materials placed on the site Were deened of ors'arucs and ~ash, mx~sture Cend~tioned, spread in' ·
thin lifts, and comp~ted by heavy construOao'~ equipment.to a.mmimum ~_laUve compaction of. '.
90 perc~mt, soils analysis indicates that c~ site subsurface matefiais (top .12 incheS) ~t of
fill, characterized by loose,, damp' ~and, fine to medium grained, slight silt content, b,<,~vn, '
medium dense~ dzmp to slightly moist with occasional gr~vel.. '
Impe~ S~:ienc~s, Inc. F ~a~/21. 2000
LO 39~d S3~I~IDS ID~I O~IB/BOlB El
The ~ub~ect pr~Eezty ia located in a mixed industrial/commercial area of the City of Rancho .-
C~,~nOgga. '.The pzol~rty is bordered by .4~ow Route and office and light industrial
'd~velopment-t~ the north; White Oak Avenue (previously Wuicent Avenue) and maru~actuzing
and ~tarehouse development to the west; a vacant lot, similar in surface appearance to the
surver site (gracte~;~ concth'?,e~3,,..tly._.with the ,.s~. 'ect.~a,r,,c~.l,), followed by ligh~ industrial
devcl~l:,men~ to tl~ eaet; and. Tacoma gtreet, followed by a cli~turbed vacant l~t,
pr°i°Csed for a warehouse cL~tn'~ution facility (also graded conenrre~tly with the sL!bject "..
pa~eD to the 'south..*dong the ~outhem and western bezdezs of the site CW~ite Oak Avenue ·
and '[acoma Street), sidewalks, curb and gutter, and ornamental trees are present.
E~.isiln8 Conditions on the 4.25-Acre Site
Portion,~ of the sit~ appear to have been historiczlly ro~. graded aa descrtbed above ~zx the
4.12 aLee. site- In. eddi~n, surface e~dence of dlsking rowdis present. Moreover, sec~c~u of the
site have beim scraped, concrete truck~ have used the site to ~ out their truck~, and
exten.qve'amount~ of ~l soil and other dtOorb have been dumped en site. Large boulders,
cobb~, and g-ra~,el are scattered throughout the site. In addition, azphalffe debris is cLispets~l
thr~ul,,hout much of the site az well. A new ~ewer ~ine appcazs to have been recently
col'~u~.., alo~g the southern site boundary.
Vegetation
A majority of the site (>85%) iS densely vegetated with non-native ~detal (weedy) herb~ and
g:r~se~. Moderately dome telegraph we~ with .4~'~ent~ of at,ual bur--sage~ Spanbh dover
(Lotu~ ~mr~hianus) ar~ present ov~ portiom of the site. No t~m'ub~ ~ pr~nt c~ site.
Ruderal 'introduced plant species compri~ the mo~dy dense und~mory, and ~ potions of
th~ sit~ apl~o~ch 100 percent vegetation cover (e.g., grass that~c.h). Non-naive ~l:mcies present
m site'indude horehound, rlpgut grass, foxtail chess, Mediterranean gra~ (Schismus sp.),
'filaree, .muStard, and Rupiah th~tle. Non-native gr~,~es ~md herbs cons~tute approximately
85 perz~nt of'the vegetative ~over preta~nt on tl~ site.
Capdlino &
Impact Sclene¢~ Inc. February 21, 2000
Wildlife
Bird species obs,?ed during the reconnaissance-level field survey in'dud~d only the Am~ican
c=ow. Masiun~l ~pecie~ of which ~n wa~ cWtecte~l, include Sdtta's poc.~t $~tr, cte~rt
cottontail a~d Ca.lifornia ground squirrel lq'o characteristic sign .of kangaroo rat activity or
recent burrowing owl uae wa~ detected on the site. . '.
Sun~mdlng Lind U~e '.
The subject property is located in a mixed industrial/commercial' are~ of the City os' Ranch~ ... ..
C,e~monga. The property is bordered by a disturbed and partially graded vacant lot tO the ·
lot 16 of the subject parcel) ts located north of the site (noz:th of Tacoma Street); commercial
development is located to the northwest, northeast, east; south, southwest, and southe~t., of
the site. Along the western and northern border' of the ~ite (White .'Oak '.a~l 'Tacorn~),' '
sidewalk.% cuxb and gutter, a.r~cl ornamental ~rees ar~pr~sanL . '
Conclusions · ~
Based on our curso'o/site analysts, the sit~ d°es not co~tai~ habitat !i~ely ~o.suppor( SBIC,, 'and;
the ~ poten~a~ for 513~ a~ thc prop~r~ we''~ .~ ce~ered io~. 'SB~ ~ strictly
~sociated with alluvial saab h~bitats with appropriate ve~ttve cover and subs~ate
compes~6ort; ch~:acterbtic~ which ~ not coilecti¥¢l¥ prc~cn~ a'~ .t~. ~:~ect ~it¢. Altho.~l~' ·
suitabh' soil~ o~ar ~n several Iocat~:u~ c~the ~ite, factor~ ~ch as~the absence of appropriate
vegetative a~ocia~on~ (c.g., o~m ~ habitat),' ~$1,~nd...u~ ~.~,~ng` grading, ~?d .
e×t~.r~ve f~ martial placement have li~e~¥ rende~ the ~te.~'~tab]e t~' s~pport SB~:~ In.
view of the ~ack o~ s~able habitat an~ evic~ce of kan§aro~ r~ acrylic, the ~ec~ parc~ '
do~ not likely support a SBKR population. . : ' . · . . . .
In edditton, it is confi'azy to expectation that SBKR w°Uld have P~rsis.ter! crt site' itl '"
historically present) duz~g grading, topsoil i'emovalt placement p! ~f!ll .material, .and
compaction act/vtties cora:lucted tn 1992-1993 due to the h~ghly d~t~ctive nat~e (reiative ,th . .
impacts to habitat) of these activitie~ cn potentially occun~g $BKR..It.. ~s also unlikely that. '
SBKR (if historically present) disbursed c~-tto the sub~ec~ site 'from the adIacent vacant parcels ' ' '
(proposed warehou,~ complex ~ea) following grading of the site because th'e adjacent parcels . .
were concurrently' exposed to grading and soil ddsturbances .:turLng ~ite ]~reparat~n ~f the
..
68 B9~d S~[~I~ .L~dWI 6~16L88T8 ET:ET
adjo/~n§ w/m'el:~ouse complex (approximately ~0 total- acres).'. N6~ pot~ s~]~' SBKR .
habilat ~ l~a~d d~ adjacmt m ~e ~it~. ~ to ~te p~b~a~on; ~e ~e 'compl~ "
No d~ ~ ~ b~ owl ~ (fearers, p~sj 'fec~' mamhh, .p~ r~s;
~h ~ m~te ow~ were ~ited: Moffi~ of ~ d~g'pe~ ~g.owl . . . ..
~'~ ~es d~d not r~w~ ~ ~di~fion ~t ~ ~eci~s.w~ ~fl~ p~nt ~ ~ ~r~a.
N~e of ~ ~ *~1 ~o~ e~ d~ ~h~ ~ e~. ~n~ .~ m~ .' ~ .
~ of owh~ e~, ~ ~g ac~vlfle*. Howe'er, d~ m ~e ~ato~ na~ of ~e BOWL,
~ po~ d~ ~t ~r ~ '~p~ to ~ m ~lie: "~ ~ wl~ ~ d~7~ p~r to . . ..
c~ ~ ~ddifio~l b~g owl *~ ~y ~ w~ ~o ~ ~ 'BO~ did .. ~
n~ ~m onto ~ ~it* ~m ~by ~ ~ ~ ~pec~ ~ ~o~ to o~. .
Rm~o ~,, ~ ~o ~, C~fo~. It ~ h~ve~ ~7 ~~om ~g~g ~
· e ~e~ml~ pr~en~ ~ ~ ~, plebe don't h~ita~ to c~. · ' · '
Ve~ truly ~ou~, . ·
~~NC~,~C ..... .. 2.} · .. '.'~ . .'
~o~[). CamiOn . . .. -
S~or glolog~t ..
References " '. ·
California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 199~. Burrowing Owl sUrVey p~ot0col and Mitigation
Guidelines. April 1993. 12 pp. . .....
California Depati~ent of l~i_~h and G~,me. '1995. S~tff Report on Bo.rrq.wi~g OWl Mitigation.
P. l~ay~brooklnterimDirec~or. October 17, 19952 7pp. . . ..
~'~6rrda'l~at;atal Diver~iV/' DataBase (C. NDDB).-! t99~ ~d '1999, compu~ .p,~p~-ts:f~.t~e Ontario and Guastl uSGS 7.S-rain, am ~u~&~mSYe m~ps.
Depar~nent of thc Interior. 1998..Fish and Wildlife Service, F~n~gency Rule to List the Sen
Bernardino Kangaroo Pat, ,S~ Be~narcllno a~d Riverside Counti~ irt Southern CaILf0mia a~ . '. . .
End~ngeted, Federal Register, Volume 63, Numbs' 17. 50 CFR Part 17, RI~ 10IS-AEsg.
]a_,xuar~ 27. ' ."
Imprint Sciences, Inc. 1998. ResultS of Delhi sands Flow~-Loving Ply'Habi~:at-Ba~ed Evaluation
ConduCed on the 4.1~-acre White O~k Avenue site, City ~ P,,xncho O,r~monga, Sa~. :
Bernardino Count, California. Fcbrua~'. : "'
Imp~"t Scier~es, ]nc. 1999. l~.esultS of ~' Habitat-bas~cl Deth~ Sandr~ ~k~wer-lov'L, xg Fly S~'vey
Conducted on the Subject ~-~.0-acre Site (4.25 acre), Southeast Cornet of WIxlt¢ Oak
~nd Tacoma Drlv¢. Dec,bet. ' · :
Itnpa~t Sciences, ~c. 1999. Results of Habitat Based Surveys for tl~e ,Delhi Sd.,xc~ l~lower-1ov~ng
Fly o~the n~bject :/r.4.0-~tc~e Site (4.12 acre), South of ./~:ow Route ~ east of Whi~e Oak
Avenue. January. ' '
Norcal Engineering. 1991. SoIls Investiga6c~-Propo~ed Commercial/Warehouse Development
Located on the Southeast Corner of Arrow Route and Vincent Avenue, in the city of ~
Cuca:mor~ga, Ca~d~orrria. Projec~ Number 3228'91, M~cl~ 29. ' ' · '. .
Sampson & Associ~tc~.. 1992. Soils E~gi~eering Repgr~. of'Grad~g for' Proposed'
Commetc~alfW'~house locat~-'d on the Southemt Corr. et of' Arrow Roul¢ m~d Vincent. .
Avenue, City of Rancho Cucamonga, C~lifOlT~i~. August ~.1. ..
I' H E C I T Y OF
t~AN ClIO ~..UCANONGA
Staff Report
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner
DATE: February 9, 2000
SUBJECT: P-NVIRONMENTAL ASSEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-62 -
CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES - The development of three industrial buildings
totaling 82, 376 square feet on 4.12 acres of land in the General Industrial District
(Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of
Arrow Route, approximately 300 feet east of White Oak Avenue - APN:
209-461-02 and 209-471-03. Related File: Development Review 99-63.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq:
North Existing Office/light industrial buildings; Industrial Park (Subarea 7)
South - Existing Warehouse/manufacturing building; General Industrial (Subarea 8)
East Existing Warehouse/office building; General Industrial (Subarea 8)
West Vacant; General Industrial (Subarea 8)
B. General Flan Desiqnations:
Project Site - General Industrial
North Industrial Park
South - General industrial
West - General industrial
C. Site Characteristics: The site is a previously rough graded pad within a Master Planned
Industrial Park approved by the Planning Commission in 1992. The original Master Plan
(Exhibit "E',") consisted of 13 industrial buildings, and specifically, 2 buildings on the parcel
where these new buildings are proposed. No significant vegetation and no structures exist
on the property. Curb, gutter, and driveway approaches exist along the entire property
frontages. Sidewalk and street trees, which have only been marginally maintained and will
be replaced with development, exist along certain portions of the property frontages. The
site slopes minimally from north to south.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
. - DR 99-62 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES
February 9, 2000
Page 2
D. Parkinq Calculations:
Buildinq A
. :' __ :: ........ = ~ . Number of blumber of
Type Square Parking Spa'ces Spaces
of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided
Warehouse .15,912 1/1000 (1 st 20,000) 1._~6
TOTAL: 15,912 16 33
Buildinq B
Number of Number of
Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces
of Use Footaqe Ratio Required Provided
Warehouse 31,324 1/1000 (1 st 20,000) 2.~.6
1/2000 (2nd 20,000)
TOTAL: 31,324 26 55
Buildinq C
Number of Number of
Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces
of Use Footaqe Ratio Required Provided
Office 8,928 1/250 36
Manufacturing 6,075 1/500 12
Warehouse 20,137 1/1000 (1 st 20,000) 2_.~0
TOTAL: 35,140 68 74
ANALYSIS:
A. General: The applicant is proposing to develop three industrial buildings, totaling 82,376
square feet. All three buildings front onto Arrow Route, which is a Special Boulevard, and
are oriented so that the main office areas and most embellished elevations face Arrow
Route. In addition, all truck storage and loading is located behind the buildings away from
Arrow Route. There are three existing drive approaches on Arrow Route that will be
utilized as shared access by all three buildings and an existing office building on the
southwest corner of Arrow Route and Oakwood Place.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 99-62 - CP, PELLINO AND.ASSOCIATES
February 9, 2000
Page 3
The project site is part of a Master Planned Industrial Park originally approved by the
Planning Commission in 1992. The overall architectural scheme is consistent with other
existing l:.uildings within the Master Planned Industrial Park. Buildings A and B incorporate
secondary design material accents such as sandblasted CO.n(;rete, brick veneer, and fluted
concrete. Sandblasted concrete banding, high rectangular windows, and two pop-out
flutted furring design elements that extend above the roof line, are proposed along the
north elevation of the buildings (area visible from Arrow Route). In addition, pop-out flutted
furring design elements, along with areas of glass with brick veneer accents, are being
used to frame the entrance on the northwest corner of Building A and the northeast corner
of Building B.
Building C also incorporates secondary design material accents such as sandblasted
concrete, and brick veneer. Sandblasted concrete and glass windows (with brick veneer
accent b~tnding above the top and bottom of windows) are proposed along the north
elevation of the building. The secondary materials, along with areas of glass with brick
veneer accents and columns of sandblasted concrete, will be used to frame the building
entrances on the northwest and northeast corners of the building.
B. Desiqn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Fong)
reviewed Ihe project on December 14, 1999, and recommended approval of the project
subject to conditions contained in the attached Design Review Committee Action
Comments (Exhibit "G").
C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical and Grading Committees have reviewed the
project and recommended approval subject to conditions.
D.. Environmental Assessment: The applicant completed Part I of the Initial Study. Staff
completed Part II of the Initial Study, the Environmental Checklist, and found that there
could be a significant effect on the environment relative to drainage patterns and potential
lost habitat for the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSF). The site is identified on maps
prepared i~y the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as potentially having the appropriate
Tujunga-Delhi soil classification to support the DSF. A Habitat Assessment Survey was
prepared by a federally certified biologist to assess the soils, vegetation, and species
compositic, n on the site. Based on the reconnaissance level habitat evaluation of the site's
existing er~vironmental conditions, the project site does not provide a high quality habitat
for the D,~;F due to: (1) lack of substantial, open sandy areas, (2) relatively dense
coverage of invasive, non-native vegetation, (3) soil disturbance from previous grading,
and (4) Iow habitat linkage value due to surrounding land uses (e.g., commemial
development). Based on this information, the proposed development of the 4.12-acre site
will not lil~ely result in adverse effects to the DSF. No other potentially significant
environme~tal impacts are identified in the Initial Study. The issue of potential drainage
pattern impacts generated by the project has been addressed by requiring that sufficient
drainage/flood protection facilities be provided to the project area. If the Planning
Commissicn concurs, then issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 99-62 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES
February 9, 2000
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approval Development
Review 99-62 through the adoption of th__e attached Resolution of approval with conditions and
issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:RZ~ma
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "B"- Approved Master Plan
Exhibit "C" - Site Plan
Exhibit "D"- Landscape Plan
Exhibit "E"- Grading Plan
Exhibit "F" - Building Elevations
Exhibit "G"- Design Review Committee Action Comments, dated December 14,
1999
Exhibit "H"- Initial Study
Resolution of Approval
CENTER DRIVE ...... ~ -- Gov'l. LO/ 2 "]
--~ I~ -~ ~:.: __ 'L. ~_F~
~ ~z '~' ~ ~' ..........
L.. ~1~ ~ , . ; l
i ""'~ '~'~ ~ I I~ ~ "'" ~ " · ~ ~ '
.... ~_. ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~../ .///~ , .. ~ .. , t ~ ' _..-~..,,.,.
.... .j.. .
_ [E .. /' '"'
~.i~ ~. /,~ ,"'/ './" ,.
.).
Por. lO~ .." · ' ,' ~ . ....
M~P 804.36.7~
r. 9 EASEMENT. //,'.,. / ,' , /','/' , /' ,, ,", , /,//(
' .
Pot. ~AN
Pot. 4
6o~' ~u~_~p_ .o.c~: .... ~.,~:,.
I~ r~l
Illllllll~llllllllllllllllllllllll~lllllllllll Illllllll~lllllllll~lllllllll .,. ~ 'l <~
~.. .... "~: ' 0
L
J
.......................... ' ..... ' ..................... MA~TE~ ~ITE PLAN
city of Rancho Cucamonga, California 1~'
INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS ..-
CAP BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO. :
'"
SITE PLAN --,~,'.--.~'
SIERRA PRECISION BUILDING
Aiti;t O'W PARK ..,
city of Rancho Cucamonga, California
by
C_.A,P BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO.
~.r.? F-4r.~
~ -r--~-~--'~,~ __ [-:2511
A~OW R. OUT~
S I T E P la N .... ..~.
Pt. AIN'~ING LEGEND
C~rz: .....
Ill SOUTH ELEVATION
I~ NORTH ELEVATION ~T ~9~
I I,,,,, i,V' I Rli i~;1i ~ WEST ELEVATION J,
EAST ELEVATION I~[I
°
SOUTH ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
~1~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:15 p.m. Rudy Zeledon December 14, 1999
~AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-62 - CAPELLINO AND
ASSOCIATES - The development of three industrial buildings totaling 82,376 on 4.12 acres of land
in the General Industrial Distdct (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the
south side of Arrow Route, approximately 300 feet east of White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-02
and 3.
~: The project site is part of a Master Planned Industrial Park originally approved
by the Planning'Commission in 1992, and as'shown in Exhibit "A." The site has been rough graded.
previously and contains no significant vegetation. The perimeter of the site is improved with curb
and gutter, ddveway approaches, sidewalk and street trees. The site slopes from north to south at
approximately 2 percent. ~ ~
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:
The three proposed industrial buildings incorporate materials of painted tilt-up concrete and
accented with sandblasted concrete band, brick veneer, and fluted concrete. The three buildings
are designed to be consistent with the architectural style established in the industrial park.
Therefore, there are no major issues. However, the applicant should address the following
secondary issues to further enhance the design of the project.
Seconda_._~ Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Provide sandblasted concrete banding at the middte and top of the building plane on the nodh,
east and west elevations of all three proposed buildings to provide additional architectural
enhancement to the building. Continue the same sandblasted concrete banding at the south
(rear) elevation on the top of the building plane only.
2. Provide a landscaped strip (5 feet wide inside dimension) on the east and west sides ~)f all three
proposed employee plaza areas for buffedng between the parking spaces and the plazas.
3. Provide undulating landscaped ben-ns along Arrow Route in the streetscape areas to provide
visual interest.
4. The perimeter landscape stdp along the rear property line shall be a minimum of 5 feet (inside
dimension).
5. The site plan for Building "C" indicates a proposed dust collector, a 50 feet by 8 feet compressor
shed and a 25 feet by 20 feet storage building, all of which are not shown on any of the
elevations. Therefore, approval of these structures will be subject to a Minor Development
Review at a future time. At the time of Minor Development Review process, the structures will
be required to be architectural compatible with the building design and screening will be required
for all exposed equipment.
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the
project subject to the conditions as recommended above.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 99-37 -. LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS
December 14, 1999
Page 2
Desiqn Review Committee Action:
Members Fresent~ Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong · -
Staff Plann,.~r:. Debra Meier
The committee re~-(~rhitiended approval of the project,with,the following condition.s.:
1. Provide vine pockets at the north elevation.
2. The property owner shall provide an additional trash enclosure closer to Pad A when deemed
necessary by the City Planner.
ENVIRONMENTAL
INFORMATIONFORM
....... (Part I -.Initial Study)
(gCg) 477-215o ~ .
The purpose of this form Is to Inform the City of the basic components of the proposed
project so that the City may revieW the project pumuaht to City policies, ordinances, and
guidelines; the California Environmental Quality Act; and the City's' Rules and Procedures
to Implement CEQA. It is important that the Information requested In this application be
provided In full. · .... . -; .... '"'
INCOMPLETE ApPLIeATION$ VVlLL NOT BE PROCESSED, Please note that it la the responsibility Df the al~licant to ensure
that the apr~lication ia com~)lete at the time of Sut~mittal; City staff will not be available Io peffornl work required to provide missi/lg
information.
AppllcatlonNumberfortheproJecttowhtchthlsformpertalns: DR 99-62
Project Title:
Name&,~ddm$$olpmjectowner($): Caoelli~o & Associates
2020 Del Amo Blvd., Suit.~ 105, ~'orr~nce CA 90501
Name & Address of developer or project spon$oIT.
ContactPerson&Actdmss: Mark Capellino
Same
Telephone Numb¢K' ( 3 1 0 ) 3 2 O- 1 2 3 ~
Name & Addres,~ o/person preparing this Form (if different from above):
Telepho,3e Number:
' ' Infon~etion Indicated by este~ (') I$ nH required of not~cortstruclion CUP's unle$,4 otherwise requested by =taff.
°1) Prov~de ~ fu~ sca~e ~$~1~ x1~ ) ~py ~f the U~GS Qu~dmnt $heet($) which inciude$ ~he pr~je¢t ~$ite~ anci indic~te the
site boundaHe$.
2) Provide a set of col~;r photograph$ which show representative views Into the site from the no,lb, south, east and west:
, ~ ~Wa~$ blt° a~d fr°m ttte site fr°m the prlmary acces$. . ~ pomts which ~etve the $1te' and repm~nta#ve view$ of ~ignificant' . ,
features from tile si $. Include a map shoving tecatlon of each photograph.
3) ProjectLocallot~(descrl~e):. A=ro~ ~ou~e beC~een Oak~ood ?[ace and
White Oak Avenue, north of Tacoma Drive.
Assessor's Pamel N,Jmber~ (attach additional eheet ff necessary): .
........ Parcel 2 020~46102
Parcel 3 020947109
'~) G~os$$1teArea(ac/,,:q. ft.): Parcel 2 78.108sf
Parcel 3 103~162 sf
'~) Net Site Ama ~total ~;te size minu~ ama of public ~et~ & p~pos~ dedl~ations); S ama
7) De$cdbe any ptopo=e ~ general Dian amendment or zone change wDlch would effect the project site (attach additional sheet
if necessary.
Include a descn~tion of ell permits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucemonga and othor govern,men:a!
agencies in order to fully implement the project:
INITSTO1.WPD - 41~15 Page 2
Describe tl~e ~hysicel se~in~ of ~he $i~ ~$ i! exists befo~ t~e p~jec~ including info~on on Iop~phy, ~i~ $t~b~li~, p~en~
anlmal~, mature t~e~. t~il~ 8~ ~d~, ~l~age coupes, and $cenl~ a~c~. De~c~e any existing st~ctums ~n site
(i~c~udingageand~nditi~n)~nd~heuse~fthe~ctum~achph~t~phs~f~igni~cantfeatumsdescdbed Ina~it~n.
ell ~oume~ of info.etlon (i.e., geological an~or fly~mlogic ~tudies, biotic and a~eofogical ~u~eys. t~c sludie~]'
on ~arcels 2 and 3 of par~l Mmp 1~9%9-1 The Darcel~ arm
style of the existinq~ldinq~ in Arrow Park which
qla~ comoonmn~m.
1 O; Des cdbe the known cultural anWor historical aspects of the site. Site ell soume$ of infotTnatlon {books, published reporfs end
oral history):
N/A
Describe any noise sources end their levels that no__w_ effect ti~e site (air~r~l'~, Poadwey noise, etc.) and how they w#l effect
N/A
IHITSTD1 L'~PD - 4/§~S Page 3
12] Oesc~be tfl,e pfol~se(~ ~f~Jact in i:~etsll. Thls sflould p~DWde an a(~eq~a[e ~lescfipEon of ll~ $#a ln N;rm$ of ultirna~e use which
v~ll msuit fmm the pn~sed pn~/ect. Indicate if ~e~ e~ p~p~e~ pha~es for developmen~, tfle extent of development to occur
wit~ each phase, ~ nd t~e anticipated ~mplefl~ of each in~ment. A~ach additional sheet(s) if nece~a~:
32tOO~_~f. {~d 15,870sf,
Th~ 35.000el buildtn~ will be ~ec~d
a company..q~rre~t!y in Rancho Cu~amonsa' Sierra Precision
a~mbl~ anH ~f~n~m pressure Gauqes.
.... mh~ ~,000st buildin~ is planned ~ a ~nmm bni~dinn ~r
manufacturing, assembly, and distribution.
Disc~ a company ~lso located in Rancho CucamonGa.
13) D~sc#bethesun~un(~ngpr~per~ies~nc~udinginf~rm~ti~n~np~an~s~ndan~ma~s~nd~nycu~tura~hi$~ric~r$cen~ce$~)ects~
In~icale Ihs lype of land use (residential, commercial, etc,), intensity of land uae (one-family, epatlment houses, sllop$,
~apa~tment stores, sic.) and scale of development [heigllt, frontage, setback, rear ya~cl, arc. J!
The surroundinq
South - Industiral
North - Industrial
West - Industrial
East - Industrial
14) V~II IDa proposed pro~ecl change the pattern, scala or che~¢ter o! Ihs surrDundiDg general area of fh$ project?
NO
15) Indicate the ~ype of sho~t4erm end long-term noise m be ~enefated, including sou~;e and amount. How will fhe&e noise levels
affect adjacent pmper¢ies and on.$ite use$, Wflat methods of $ound pPooflng sm pmposed?
NO significant noise level'~ will' be produced.
·; 6) Indicate proposed removela end/or replacements of mature or scenic trees: N / A
1 ?) Inclicete any ~oOiea of water (Including domestic water Supplies) Into which the $ile drains: N / A
18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage esl/metes), For fu~her clarification, please contact
lite Cucamonga Coun~ Waler Dlst~ct at 957.2591,
e. Residential (gaVday) Peak usa gga~ay)
D. Comme~ia~nd, (geVday/ac) 6~24~ Peakuse (gaEmi~ac) 1 9.4R~
Base~ on Gene=a]- Inducible[ ~o~ 4.161 ac.
lC) Indicate proposed ~thod of ~ewage disposal Sep~l~ Tank ~ Sewer. If aeptic tanks am pm~sed, eEach
percolation te~t~. If di~cha~e to a senita~ sewage ~y~tem Is pmpose~ t~icate expected daily ~ewege generation: (See
A~acnment A for usage esb~a~e~). For ~r ~affF~egon, please conta~ the C~a~ga ~ Weter Dl~td~ at 987-2591.
a Resider~lial (gaFday)
b. Comme~ia~nd.(gaYday/ac) 8~322 R~d nn ~n~zl Tnd~l fm~ 4 1R1~
RESIDENTIAL ~ECTS:
20) ~umber of ~sidential units:
Detached (indicate ~nge of pa~et sizes, minimum lot size an~ maximum lot 3ize:
!NITSTD1 .VV~D - 4!96 Page
All,chad (indicate ~vl~ether units ere rental or for sale units):
21) Anticlpeted.renge c,f sele pdcea and/or mnts:
Sate' PtfCe(s~ ......... $'.. t~ _ $. : .... ,
Rent (per month) $ tO $.
22i Specify number of l~edn~m'ns by unit.type;
23J Indicate anticipated household size Dy unit type:
24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project: Contact lhe appropriate School
Districts as shown in Attachment
a ElementaOc
b. Junior High:
c. Senior High
COMMERCIAL. INDUS?RIAl. AND INSTITt~TIONAL PROJECTS
25) Descrit~e type of us,~(s) and maJor fuflction(s) of commell:i~i, {nEustflal or institutional uses: __
an~ ~tst~ibutton uses.
26) Total floor roma of
27) Indicate hour~ of operation:
sa; NumOerofempioyees: Total: Estimated to be 80' for the three buildings
Time of Maximum Shi8:
29) Pmvide bm~kd~wn ~f ~nti~pate~ j~D c~a~c~fi~na~ Inc~u~ing w~ge ~n~ ~a~ mnges~ ~ w~ ~s ~n indicati~n ~f the m~e
of him for each classification {a~ach additional sheet if nece~a~):
30) Esfimetion of the numOer of wo~em fo be hlmd thal cunently mside in the City: To be provided by
'3 t) For commercial end indust~al uses only, Indicate the source, type and amount of air pollution emissions, (Data ~hould be
vedflacl tnlougll the South Coast AIr Quaflty M~negement DislNct, at (818) 57~.6283):
None
ALL PROJECTS
32) Have the wale& sewer, tim, sn~J floocJ control agencies serving the pmject been contacted to cletermine tt~eir at~ility to provide
adequate service to the p,'oposed project? If $o, p~eese indicate their response.
"Oh~ m.~-~t' ?l~n ~nl~,,~,~:,~n 4m~-~_~_~ F~_ A~Ot.~ D~k
will orovtd~ ~qu~t~ ~o~v~ F~w ~ho ~rO~c~ ~n~9~.
In ~he known hislo~ of this properS, has #~era been any use. &torage, or discha~e o! haze~ou$ and/or totic
Examples o! haz~rdou$ and/or toxic materiels InGlucle, but am not limited to PCB 's; radioactive substances; pesticides and
herbicides; fu~, l% ~lls, .tolvent$, end other flammable flquid$ and gases. Also note underground atorage of any of the abo
Please list the m,;tedal$ end describe their use, storage, ancFof discharge on the pmpe~fy, as well as the dates of use. ir
known. '
34) Will Ihe proposed project involve the temporary or long-term use, Storage or discharge of hezerdous ancfl'or to~,lc
materiel.,, IncludlnU but not limited to tho~e examples listed above? If yes, provide an inventory of all such materiels tO be
used end proposed method of disposel. The l°cetion of such useso elong with the storage and shipmenl ema$, shall ba
shown and tabele~ on the application plans.
I hereby cetlify thai the ~tatement$ furnished above and in the effached exhibits present the data and information required for
adequate evaluation of this praject to Ihe best of my ability, that the facts, statements, end information presented ara t~e end
correct tot he best of my knowledge and belief, I further unde~tand that additional information may be required to be submitted
before an adequ, te evaluation Can be made by ,he City of Ran~..~uca~~~~
Title: Mark V, Capellino, Owner
iNiTSTD1.WPD.4/96'; ~('~'(~ --'
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: Development Review 99-62
2. Related Files: Development Review 99-63
3. Description of Project:
The development of three industrial buildings totaling 82,376 on 4.12 acres of land in the
General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the
south side of Arrow Route, approximately 300 feet east of White Oak Avenue- APN:
209-461-02 and 209-471-03.
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Mr. Mark Capellino
2020 Del Amo Boulevard, Suite 105
Torrance, CA 90501
5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial
6. Zoning: General Industrial (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The site is a previously rough graded pad within a Master Planned Industrial Park with similar
buildings already constructed south and east of the site.
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
Initial Study for ~ City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-6;! Parle 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 page,.;.
( ) Land Use and ~lanning . (..)~TransportatioNCirculation ( ) Public Services
( ) Population an,:l Housing (X) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems
(X) Geological P~oblems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics
(X) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources
( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation
( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis el this initial evaluation:
(X) I find thai 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, er agreed to, by the applicant. A
MITIGAT,~NE.~ATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Signed:
IR/~Jdy/Z'el~c~on, Assistant PI,anner
I~'ebrdary~, 2000
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation
is required for ~11 "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 UIBE 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)
initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-62 Parle 3
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
established community?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in
or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( (X)
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)
Initial Study fo' City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-62 Page 4
C__omments:
h) The General Plan indicates the Tujunga-Delhi soil association for the site which "May
have soil bearing capacities that could limit some development. Structures proposed
on this soil type should be permitted only after a site specific investigation has been
prE,pared that indicates that the soil can adequately support the weight of the structure."
A .,;oils report will be required by the Building and Safety Division prior to the issuance
of building permits. The impact is not considered significant.
4. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
thE, rate and amount of surface water runoff? ) (X) '( ) ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) DiE.charge into surface water or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved
ox3,gen, 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
wa~:er movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
intE.rception 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
oth~,~nNise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) The project is expected to result in changes to absorption rates and drainage patterns.
New inundation areas (separate document) will be recorded and old areas vacated,
prior to the issuance of building permit. As mitigation, drainage/flood protection
facilities will be provided for the project area to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer as follows:
· The runoff (Q100) from the site shall not exceed the capacity of the existing
public storm drain system to the south. The amount of on-site detention shall
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-62 Parle 5
be based on a proration of available capacity of the undeveloped parcels on
a per acre basis for the area tributary to the cul-de-sac at the south end of
Vincent Avenue, just north of the A.T.S.F. railroad main line. Reference the
hydrology/hydraulic study prepared for Parcel Map 12959 to the east on file
with the City. ' ~
· Easements shall be delineated and inundation rights dedicated, prior to the
issuance of building permits.
· No public water shall be tributary directly to the inundation areas.
· In automobile and truck parking and maneuvering areas, ponding depths
shall not exceed 12 inches and 18 inches, respectively, and shall not exceed
6 inches for more than 4 hours.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposah
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( (X)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( (X)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ( ) ( (X)
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( (X)
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
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)
Initial Study fer City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-62 Parle 6
f) C~)nflicts~with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
recks)?
g) R ail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
h~bitats (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)
Commeltts:
a) Delhi Sands Flower-Lovinq Fly:
Th~; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identifies the project area soil type as Tujunga-Delhi
Sand Soils which is a type of soil that is associated with the endangered Delhi Sands
flower-loving fly (DSF). A habitat assessment was prepared (Impact Sciences,
December 16, 1999) by a biologist permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
conduct surveys for the DSF. In summary, results of the habitat-based survey indicate
that the site does not currently support optimal DSF habitat, and that the biological
ch~racteristics of site are not consistent with areas occupied by the DSF.
In addition, the site is located in a relatively isolated area that does not provide
canspicuous connection between identified potential or known DSF reserve areas due
to adjoining development and regional site location. Based on the reconnaissance-
level habitat evaluation of the site's existing environmental conditions, the project site
dces not provide high quality habitat for the DSF due to: (1) lack of substantial, open
sandy areas, (2) relatively dense coverage of invasive, non-native vegetation, (3) soil
di.'~turbance from previous grading, and (4) Iow habitat linkage value due to
surrounding land uses (e.g., commercial development). Based on this information, the
proposed development of the 4.12-acre site will not likely result in adverse effects to
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-62 Parle 7
the DSF. No other unique, rare, or endangered animal species are known to be
potentially located on the project site.
San Bernardino Kanqaroo Rat and Burrowinq Owl:
In a letter received by staff on February 8, 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
raised issues about potential habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys
merriami parvus) on the project site and potential impacts to the burrowing owls
(Athene canicularia) by the project construction. A habitat assessment was prepared
(Impact Sciences, February 21, 2000) by a biologist permitted by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to conduct surveys for San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR) and the
burrowing owls (BOWL). In summary, results of the habitat-based survey made the
following findings:
The project site does not contain habitat likely to~pport the SBKR and the occurrence
potential for the SBKR on the property would be considered Iow due to: 1) Lack of
alluvial scrub habitats with appropriate vegetative cover composition on-site, (2) soil
disturbance from previous grading and disking, extensive fill material placement and
surrounding land uses have rendered the site unsuitable to support the SBKR, (3) No
potentially suitable habitat is located directly adjacent to the site.
No direct observations or burrowing owl sign (feathers, pellets, fecal material, prey
remains, etc) was observed at any of the burrow entrances present on the site.
Monitoring of burrows during peak burrowing owl activity times did not reveal any
indication that the species were currently present in the area. However due to the
migratory nature of the burrowing owl, some potential does exist for this species to
occur on-site. Therefore as mitigation, a burrowing owl survey of the site shall be
conducted within 30 days prior to construction, to ensure that burrowing owls
have not migrated onto the site from nearby areas where species is known to
occur.
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)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-62 Parle 8
9, HAZAR DS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to:
" (~il:'i~ii~:l~e~'(~t-i~fl'ic-~l§,"or"r~i~'[is'r~)? ........... ( ) ( ) (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) E):posure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Commellts:
a) In conjunction with the manufacturing activities within the building, materials such as oil
and other chemicals may potentially be used. Use of any such hazardous substances
will require special permits to ensure safe handling, storage, and operation. The impact
is not considered significant.
10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
11. PUBLICSERVlCES. 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)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-62 Page 9
· d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments: .....
a) Manufacturing activities may include use of hazardous chemicals which would require
special permits for the Fire Prevention District. The impact is not considered significant.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Wou/dthe
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations to the fo/lowing 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)
f) 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) ( )
Initial Study fol City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-62 Parle 10
CommelltS:
c) Ne~v light and glare will be created on the property with development of the vacant site.
A condition of approval requires an on-site lighting plan, including a photometric
diagram of the entire property, to be required for review and approval of the Planning
Division and the Rancho Cucamonga Sheriff's Department, prior to the issuance of
building permits. The plan will be checked to ensure that it meets City policies relative
to avoiding the casting of excess light and glare onto adjacent properties.
14. CULTUFIAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah
a) Di.~turb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Di.,;turb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change,
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
15. RECREATION. Would the proposah
a) Incl'ease the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Aff~;ct existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
16. MANDA'I'ORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the
pot(.~ntial 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
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-62 Parle 11
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal, or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-
term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact
on the environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term
impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have
environmental effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an eadier 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):
(X) General Plan EIR
(Certified April 6, 1981)
(X) Master EnvironmentalAssessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
(X) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR
(Certified September 19, 1981 )
(X) Initial Study/Negative Declaration for Development Review 91-08 (Certified January 8, 1992)
Initial Study fo~ City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-62 Parle 12
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 o,' proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the
effects or mitigate the-effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would
occur.
SignaturE:: Date:
Print Name and Title:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for pubfic review in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code.
;[~;~)i~'~:i~=iie-i~o.': Development Review 99-62 Public Review Period Closes: March 8, 2000 r ,,
Project Name: Project Applicant: Capellino and Associates
Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the south side of Arrow Route, approximately 300
feet east of White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-02 and 209-471-03.
Project Description: The development of three industrial buildings totaling 82,376 square feet on 4.12 acres
of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Related file:
Development Review 99-63.
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 am 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.
March 8_~2000
Date of Determination Adopted By
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW 99-62, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT THREE INDUSTRIAL
BUILDINGS TOTALING 82,376 SQUARE FEET ON 4.12 ACRES OF LAND
IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 8) OF THE
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
ARROW4~,OUTE, APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET EAST OF WHITE OAK
AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
APN: 209-461-02 AND 209-471-03.
A. Recitals.
1. Capellino and Associates has filed an application for the approval of Development Review
99-62 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 February 8, 2000, the Planning Division received a letter from the United State Fish
and Wildlife Service, which raised issues, related to endangered threatened species.
3. On February 9, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
continued the application to allow the applicant to respond to issues raised by the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service.
4. On February 24, 2000, the applicant submitted a fact-based response to the issues raised
by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
5. On March 8, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date.
6. 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 dudng the above-
referenced meeting on February 9, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission
hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located on the south side of Arrow Route,
approximately 300 feet east of White Oak Avenue, with an Arrow Route street frontage of
approximately 776 feet and lot depth of approximately 243 feet, and is presently improved with curb,
gutter, drive approaches, and street trees in streetscape areas along the site's street frontage; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with light industrial/office
buildings, the property to the south is developed with three industrial buildings, the property to the
east is developed with an office building, and the property to the west is vacant; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 99-62 CAFELLINO AND ASSOCIATES
March 8, 2000
Page 2
c. The application contemplates the construction of three industrial buildings totaling
82,376 square feet on a portion of an approved Master Planned Industrial Park site where two
buildings were originally shown; and
d. The proposed buildings are designed with the same primary and secondary exledor
materials as all other existing buildings within the Master Planned Industrial Park; and
e. The application contemplates the vacation an(J"~:e-establishrr",~i of On-site
inundation areas for drainage purposes.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above,
this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and
b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code
and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and
c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of
the Development Code; and
d. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
e. That the vacation and re-establishment of inundation areas on-site is in
conformance with the General Plan.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration, to.c. ether with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for
the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the
findings as follows:
a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines
promulgated th,~reunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared
therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this
Commission h~Js 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 99-62 CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES
March 8, 2000
Page 3
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the
proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon
which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning
Commission during the Public hearing, the'Planning commission hereby rebuts the presumption of
adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below
and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Plannin.q Division
1) The sandblasted concrete banding, along the middle and top of the
building plane on the north elevations of all three proposed buildings,
shall be continued along to the east and south elevations to provide
additional architectural enhancement to the building. Along the rear
elevation (south), the sandblasted concrete banding shall continue
along the top of the building plane only.
2) A landscaped strip (5 feet wide inside dimension) shall be designed on
the east and west sides of all three proposed employee plaza areas to
provide a buffer zone between the parking spaces and the plaza.
3) All elements of the streetscape design (landscaping, berming, and
wails) shall be coordinated for consistency and reviewed and approved
by the City Planner, pdor to the issuance of building permits. Undulating
landscaped berms along Arrow Route should be used in the
streetscape areas to provide visual interest in areas exposed to public
view.
4) The perimeter landscape stdp along the rear property line shall be a
minimum of 5-feet (inside dimension).
5) Catalog cuts of the proposed outdoor amenities within the outdoor
eating/plaza area (benches, tables, etc.) and construction details shall
be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, pdor to the issuance of
building permits.
6) The site plan for Building C indicates a proposed dust collector, a
50-foot x 8-foot compressor shed, and a 25-foot x 20-foot storage
building, all of which are not shown on any of the elevations. Therefore,
approval of these structures will be subject to a Minor Development
Review (MDR) at a future time. At the time of the MDR process, the
structures will be required to be architecturally compatible with the
building design and screening will be required for all exposed
equipment.
PLANNING C()MMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 99-62 CAF'ELLINO AND ASSOCIATES
March 8, 2000
Page 4
Er, qineerinq Division
1) Street trees shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
including areas where driveways will be removed. Dead or dying trees
shall be replaced with current tree species for respective streets. An
.. assessment, by a certified arbodst, to determine the viability of any tree
....... the applicant would like to preserve shall be required.
2) R26S "No Stopping Any Time" signs shall be installed or protected in
place on all frontages.
Environmental Mitiqated Measures
!) As proposed, the project will encroach on the recorded inundation
areas. New inundation areas described by separate document shall be
recorded and old areas vacated pdor to the issuance of building
permits. Drainage/flood protection facilities shall be provided for the
project area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer as follows:
a) The runoff (Q100) from the site shall not exceed the capacity of
the existing public storm drain system to the south. The amount
of on-site detention shall be based on a proration of available
capacity of the undeveloped parcels on a per acre basis for the
area tributary to the cul-de-sac at the south end of Vincent
Avenue, just north of lhe A.T.S.F. railroad main line. Reference
the hydrology/hydraulic study prepared for Parcel Map 12959 to
the east on file with the City.
b) Easements shall be delineated and inundation rights dedicated,
pdor to the issuance of building permits.
c) No public water shall be tributary directly to the inundation areas.
d) In automobile and truck parking and maneuvering areas, ponding
depths shall not exceed 12 inches and 18 inches, respectively,
and shall not exceed 6 inches for more than 4 hours.
2) A burrowing owl survey of the site shall be conducted within 30 days
prior to construction, to ensure that burrowing owls have not migrated
onto to the site from nearby areas where species is known to occur.
6. The :Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVEiD AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2000.
PLANNING COIMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 99-62 CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES .
March 8, 2000
Page 5
A'CrEST:
Brad Bullet, Secretary
- Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of'Rancho Cucamon~'~,~lo~ereb'y
~ertify 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 March 2000, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM
Project File N,:).: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-62
Th~s M~tigation =Vlon~tonng Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation
measures idenlified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above-listed project. This program
has been prep;3red in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are
implemented (,~;ection 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 ara recoi"ded with the action and
the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval
are contain~.~d 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, assign,gd by the City Planner, shall coordinate enfomement 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 (miti.ctation) that relate to that department.
Procedures - T;'~e 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 R(~porting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its
correspondirlg 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 repoding documentation will
be kept in th,9 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
DR 99-62
January 26, 2000
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 wdtten approvals to the project planner.
4. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the
corrlpletion of.each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each
measure is vedfied for compliance, no further a(~tion is required for the specific phase df .....
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 pr°vide 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 pdor
to the issuance of building permits.
MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III)
Project File No.: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-62 Applicant: Mark Capellino
Initial Study Prepared by: Rudy Zeledon Date: February 29, 2000
· The runoff (Q100) from the site shall not exceed the ] CE ] B\C I As Necessary A\C
capacity of the existing public storm drain system to I I
the south. The amount of on-site detention shall be
based on a proration of available capacity of the I I
undeveloped parcels on a per acre basis for the ~ ]
area tributary to the cul-de-sac at the south end of I I I I
Vincent Avenue, just north of the A.T.S.F. railroad ] ]
mainline. / I I I
· Easements shall be delineated and inundation rights I CE/BIAs NecessaryIC\D
~'~1dedicated, prior to the issuance of building permits. I I
· No public water shall be tributary directly to the ] CE I SiC ] As Necessary ] CID
~ inundation areas. ~ ]
· In automobile and truck parking areas, ponding / CE ] B/C ~ As Necessary / CID
depths shall not exceed 12 inches and 18 inches, ! ! ! " |
respectively, and shall not exceed 6 inches for more ] !
than 4 hours. / / / /
· Within 30 days pdor to construction a survey of the ~ CP / B ] As Necessary / D
site shall be conducted to ensure that burrowing ! !
owls have not migrated onto the site. / ]
Key to Checklist Abbreviations
,ResponsibePerson{,~.r~ ~.,:~j,,{,! ...... '~ ' ,' ~".; , "~ ......... ,
...... ,, · -~ ,r,, .~-V,,,,~,?,,~ Fmquency~t~.lt,t~':,,~,.~,!(,; i Method of Verification
CDD - Community Development Director A - With Each New Development A - On-site Inspection I - Withhold Recordation of Final Map
CP - City Planner or designee B - Prior To Construction B - Other Agency Permit / Approval 2 - Withhoh:l Grading or Building Permit
CE - City Engineer or designee C - Throughout Construction C - Plan Check 3 - Withhold Certificate of Occupancy
BO - Building Official or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submittal (Reports I Studies I Plans) '4 - Stop Work Order
PO - Police Captain or designee E - Operating 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds
FC - Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-62
SUBJECT: THREE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TOTALING 82,376 SQUARE FEET
APPLICANT: CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES
LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF ARROW BOULEVARD, 300 FEET EAST OF WHITE
OAK AVENUE
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHAI"L CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: ~:gmpletion Date
A. General Requiremehts
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 /__j
Standard Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and
construction plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check.
B. Time Limits
1. Conditional Use Permit, Variance, or Development/Design Review approval shall expire if / /
building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the
date of approval. No extensions are allowed.
C. Site Development
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which//
include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign
program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein,
Development Code regulations, and the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
Project No. DR 99-62
Comolel~on Date
2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all
Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. -- --
3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code / /.__
and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall
be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety
Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to
.... ., ,,
4, Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating ali Cor~ditions of Approval shall be /__j
submitted fcr 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 (m-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 shall meet City standards. The final design, locations,
and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior
to the issuance of building permits.
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. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property
owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this
landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and
approved prior to the issuance of building permits.
12. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of .~/ !
all lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice
requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of
construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing.
D. Building Design
1. All rocl appudenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or / /
projections, silall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be amhitecturally
integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
Details shall be included in building plans.
2. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main
building color.,;.
sc -12/~9
Project No. DR 99-62
Comoletion Date
E, Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans)
1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. When a side of any parking space ..__/ .I
abuts a building, wall, support column, or other obstruction, the space shall be a minimum of
11 feet wide.
2. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall /___/
contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb),
3. All p~r,k ng Spaces sha be double str ped per City standards and all driveway aisles. /.__/
~n-t'~:~'~e~' ahd ex~ts: s~ail be striped per City stan;dar~s. ; ..............
4. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or /.~/
more parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall, whichever is greater, of the total
number of stalls for use by the handicapped.
5. Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more / /.~
parking stalls. Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at
the rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square
feet.
F. Landscaping
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home ___j /
landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape
architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building
permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2. A minimum of 20% of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30% within /_._/
commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger.
3. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three /.~/
parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21.
4. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one /.__/
tree per 30 linear feet of building.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas .__/ !
the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
8. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and .__j /
approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural
growth characteristics of the selected tree species.
9. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of /_~/
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
G, Signs
1. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner review and /
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
SC -12J99
Comoletion Date
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
H. General Rc~quirements
1. Subrniti~our complete sets of plans including the following: .~/ I_
a. ~'Site/P:ot Plan;
b. Foundation Plan;
c. Floor Plan;
d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan;
e. Electri.,-.al Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and
size ol service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams;
f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and
waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating
and air' conditioning; and
g. Planning Division Project Number (i.e., TT #, CUP #, DR #, etc.) clearly identified on the
outside of all plans.
2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils /.~/
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.
5. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certilicate of Occupancy issued by / I.
the Building end Safety Division.
I. Site Development
1. Plans shall b~; submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be /...~/
marked with lhe project file number (i.e., CUP 98-01). The applicant shall comply with the
latest adopte,:l Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code,
National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes,
ordinances, ~nd 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 issu;mce of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or __/ /
addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the
established r~Lte. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development
Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. Applicant shall provide a
copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance.
3. Street addres.~es shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation / /
and prior to issuance of building permits.
4. Constr ' on activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday /.~
throu~ .,.~turday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays.
5. Construct tra.':h enclosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Division's public / /
counter).
SC -12/99
Project No. OR 99-62
C0rnoletion Oate
--NEW Structures
1. Provide ~ompliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances I.~/
considerir~g use, area, and fire-resistiveness.
2. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for required occupancy separation(s). /.~/
3. Provide draft stops in attic areas, not to ~ceed 3,000 square feet, in accordance with UBC /_.._/
Table 5-A.
4. Exterior walls shall be constructed of the required fire rating in accordance with UBC Table !
5-A
5. Openings in exterior wails shall be protected in accordance with UBC Table 5-A. / /
6. Provide smoke and heat venting in accordance with UBC Section 906. / /
7. Upon tenant improvement plan check submittal, additional requirements may be needed. ! /
K. Grading
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City ~ /
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved grading plan.
2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to ~ /
perform such work.
3. A geologica~ report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the
time of application for grading plan check.
4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. /.~/
5. 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 dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the
Building and Safety Division prior to final map approval and prior 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 prior to issuance of grading and building permits.
c. On-site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatering and protecting the .__./ /
subdivided properties, 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 j I
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 of the Building Official. In additioq a permanent irrigation system shall be
provided. This requirement does not release the applicant/developer from
compliance with the slope planting requirements of Section 17.08.040 I of the
Development Code.
SC -12/99
Project No. DR 99-62
Comoletion Date
3. Street tree~,, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in / /.
accordance with the City's street tree program.
4. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with / L
adopted poicy. On collector er larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project
intersections;, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or
industrial dr, veways may have lines of sight plotted as required.
M. Public Maintenance Areas
11 Parkway lar~dsc~p[ng' on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective /__1
Beautificatic. n Master Plan: .Arrow Route.
N. Drainage and Flood Control
1. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final i.~j
map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage
facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
O. Utilities
1. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. /.~/
2. Water and ,,',ewer 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 Irom the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits,
whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days
prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the
case of all other residential projects.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT,
(909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
P. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Fire flow requirement shall be: 3,000 gallons per minute, Per '97 UFC Appendix Ill-A, 3, (b) ! !
(Increase).
a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department / /
personn~;I prior to water plan approval.
b. For the i)urpose 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 con struction and prior to occupancy.
2. Fire hydrant.'; are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, I /
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 I L
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 numb(~rs.
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, per,ding completion of the required fire protection system.
SC -12/99
5. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to
final inspection. / /
6. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below:
_~. Pe~ Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15, ___/ I
- "b. Other: 1997 UBC. ----/ /
Note: Special sprinkler dens t es are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking
.,- p!ast,c._s, manuf, acturing,~ spray painting flammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc
'~0~,~a~t:th~'l~ir~'Safety bivision to determine if the sprinkler system is adequate for propose(
op~r.~ti_~ s.
7. Sprinl~le-i: system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of i___/
sprinkler system.
8. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below:
a. Per Rancho Cucaroonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. I----/
9. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted:
a. All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 32. ! /
10. A buitding directory shall be required, as noted below:
a. Standard Directory in main lobby. -~ /
11. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall ___/
be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific
details and ordering information.
12. Gated/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system, Contact the i.~j
Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information.
13. Fire District fee(s), plus a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho /..__/__
Cucamonga Fire Protection District as follows:
a. $677 for New Commercial and Industrial Development (per new building).**
**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.
14. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1997 UBC, ~ /
UFC, UPC, UMC, and RCFD Standards 32 and 15 and 1996 NEC.
Q, Special Permits
1. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use, as noted below:
a. High piled combustible stock. /----/
NOTE: SEPARATE PLAN CHECK FEES FOR TENANT IMPROVEMENTS, FIRE PROTECTION
SYSTEMS (SPRINKLERS, HOOD SYSTEMS, ALARMS, ETC.), AND/OR ANY
CONSULTANT REVIEWS WILL BE ASSESSED UPON SUBMI'i-I'AL OF PLANS.
NOTE: A SEPARATE GRADING PLAN CHECK SUBMI'F]'AL 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.
SC -12/99
Project NO. DR 99*62
Completion Date
R. Security Lightin.q
1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. ~ I
These area,'; should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell.
2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, ~ /
with direct I',ghting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the
entire develt)pment.
3. Lighting in e~terior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. / /
S. Security Hardware
1. One-inch si.gle cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are ----/ I
within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall b~
used.
2. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. /---/
T. Building Numbering
1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttim~ .--/ !
visibility.
2. Developer shall paint roof top numbers on one or more roofs of this development. They shall .--/ /
be a minim~lm of three feet in length and two feet in width and of contrasting color to
background. The stencils for this purpose are on loan at the Rancho Cucamonga Police
Deparlment.
SC -12/99
Project NO. DR 99-62
ComDletion Date
6. 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:
L. Street Improvements
1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: /___/
Curb & A C S de- Dr ve Street Street Comm Median Bike
Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Other
x
Arrow Route
2. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety /
lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered
Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security
shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street
improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being pedormed 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 pul~ boxes shall be installed with any new construction or ~ i
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 ZOO feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3oinch (at intersections) or 2oinch (along streets) galvanized
steel with pull rope or as specified.
e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City I
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with i
adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A
cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be
refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall / /
be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots.
h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan
check.
SC -12/99
gqo
Cover Sheet 3/1/00
To: Brent LeCount
From: Charles & Jenny Badder
Subject: Roofing material on new construction at
10336 Hidden Farm Rd.
( Updated letter please replace the original.)
1 of 3
March 1, 2000
City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
C/O Br~t LeCom~t
Subject: Roofing material on new constmctiowat 10536 Hidden Farm Rd. in Alta Loma
Dear Members ofp!a~nlng Commission,
It has been brought to ou~ attention that there has been a STOP WORK
NOTICE put on our project located a t 0336 Hidden F~,'m:Rck The reason.for fl~is that
we- have installed composition roofing materiat instead oftiI¢. ~,lthough tile has been
approved on the original drawings we felt that this Celotex Presidential composition
style shake roof would he a better choice. The reasons for our decision are a~ foltows:
STYLE:
We feel that a composition roof is the most aesthetically pleasing to the traditional
eastern arckitecture of the hOme. We have chosen a material that has the most dimension
available. Because of this dimension it's presentation is closest to tilewhile still ache'ting
the styk we are looking for.
FICEENCY & SAFETY
Celotex Presidential Shake composition materiat gives a better construction.that
will wirhstmxt th~ ravages of inck,.~nt weather'which is often experienced in this area.
The tightness of this materiat and wanner of whit:h it is applied vfilt withstand h~her
winds, promote increased energy, efficiency, and deflectsrain and moisture better than tile.
We feel tile represents an increased liabil/ty because of its inability to seal as well as this
composition roof.
As an experier~ed Los Angeles County firefighter for the past 22 years, now
holding the position of Captain, t have personally, experienced-the dangers of tile.in a
wind-driven fire. In snob conditions the t.tqe wilt be lifted attowing ~ to get-
underneath the air pockets and start a roof fire. I have witnessed this in Oaldand,
Laguna, and in Malibu. With this composition roofI feel that this liabih'ty is diminished.
In talking to other firefigkters living ilkzMta Lompr. they have conveyed the same feeFmgs
and wouM prefer this composition roof over tile.
With the winds that are often presem in Alta Loma. it isa fact that tiles are lost.
This creates the unfortunate.task of replacing tiles which results in an unsightly roof
because they. do not match due to weather fading and availability. Wehave e,,~n heard of
people having to replace their entire roof due to this situation. The Celotex Presidential
Shake will withstand hmTicane force vckxts up to 150,qoh'and is guarmat~ed up to 85
MPtJ~ The Monier LiiEtite that is approved in our pIans witt only withstand winds up to
60 MPH. By using this composition shake we wilt diminish the possibility of tile coming
offin high ;;Sands and eliminate an unfortunate liability, that could create personal or
prope.~y damage.
FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT:
The subject of settlement has been brought to our attentioa by Building & Safety.
It has been stated that the tile roof is necessary to accomplish the proper settlement of the
house. As per Roger Sher,~ington ~tat¢ ~GE768, registered l. uufessionat soils enE~aeer,
'q2)ense, gravelly sand wilt not settle significantly. Boulders d0fft settle. Changes of roof
material will not significantly effect structural settlement on this soil."
As per Alan Smith of Southwest Design Group and our general contractor, Bob
Sherwood of Cornerstone Creations, License #726222, there is no ordinance in,the
bu~dlng code nor any binding written resolution that states tile roof is required or that [his
composition roof is not allowed. During the designing phase we hadfft picked out a roof
so our designer engineered not to exceed 10 lbs. per square foot allowing for a. roofof
lesser weight to be structurally safe. and compatible. There is no structural reason for ~tile
roof to be required (soil, foundatinn, fxaming, or any other reason).
/' When we decided to put the Celotex roof on we were truly un~.ware that we had
to re-suhtr~ to the plwnnlng Dept. for approval It wax an& still is our intent to create a
[house that is aesthetically pleasing and stmcturaliy sound and' complies with-city
~,xordinances. unaware that there was a directive in place for tile only.
We would like to conclude this letter by. stating our reasons for choosing Alta
Loma to raise our family and later retire. This home has been three years in design and 17
years in the planning. It is our dream home! We have chosen Alta Loma for its
distinguished school district, close proximity to church and.friends, future civic plarming,
and breathtat:ing view of surronndings~ We feet that this home is an example of good
architecture and will be a positive comribution to the neighborhood and to the city of Alta
Loma.
Most Sincerely,
Charles & Jenny Badder
(714)834-0060
Please see attached information from roofing company.
RESIDENTIAL ROOF.FNG
TECIINICAL BULLI{TI-N
CI~I.OTEX CORPOR&TION 'P O BOg M~;O'! · TAblPA, FLORIDA
........ -- DATE
: "q'~Y "69a
(Fremont and Los AnBelos Production Only)
ATrP.'-HTION
service of pr~..ider,tial ShakeTM Shingles requires strict adherence to the app.;<;at,;,".
The designed eppe~ fence 'and - ' '
, ' · '~ Celob~x C 3roots on disc a ms liability for appearance or pedormar;ee ?m .
mstmchonS pnnted on ti)is package. , .-'~- r,~lmclio~s voids ail wauan es. nC. luding implied
cthe¢ methods of aFplicatiom A~ devlalien ]rom me~. ~r ~
et merchantsblilN and fitness for a pa~lcular purpose., ~ .................
DIRECTIONS FOR APPLICATIOH
TO Ti4g : ) Ne
FO~ MANSARD ROOF APPLICA dON 9~E APPEICATION IN~TRUCTiO
These shingles are desi~ned for the loUowt~g:
,~ ..... ~ -'~--N'e lhat bonds them tooether after ~ ~i3 ',.
.. ~J.D t~Ia~$D~.~_ These shingles e ~ , . b Sofln~ to Fall - in a matter et da'is;
cat,an Whenexposedtowarmsuetemperatu~e:¢.tftuYW~Ilsealtothec°urs--et°w' -
Winter - variabie ~ependiag on weather and geographical location. NOTE: There I~ no n~d to remOVe ti~e treated
plastic or aluminized release tape on the back of eaoh shingle prlO~ to application of tl~e shingles. The ,els pup
pose (,f tills tape is to prevent a shingle~s he at-acflvaled sealant stri~ {tom adhering to an o~l'lying sh n(ll~
stored Eti~to application, . . . " AD~QU,~,'TE
ALI, PIIRPOBE - For uae on new or ~eroOhng wo~k ever any propady bt.it and suppo,ted r~f deck havm~
~j~iC~[~l~l~ CAPACI~ AND SMOOTH ~}II~IFACE (See pm~utiona~ Note),
}[~~~- Standard slope - 4" (102 mr,B o r more ~se in 12" (305 mm) mn, usa c, ne tayef of No. [ 5
p~alt Felt Plain, or Celo-GuardTM Shingle Ur:derlayment eppb&a as shown in application instructions on each
wrapper. See Cetotex Technl~l Btflfefin No, 785. Underlaymenl iS required on new construction and ~or retool n~;
old reel is removed to the deck. Slopes el 2' (51 f,~m) in 12' (365 mm~ to 4' (102 mm) in 12~ (30[; mm) ~se are
contact Gelolex for details .... 0
NAILS - Celotex requires the use el a minimu~ et t ye (5 galvamzed or non resting 3/~ (1 rare,) to 7/16" (~ [ tonY, d',;:
~d, 11 to I~ gauge roofing nails, long enough lot the shank to penetrate 3/4' (19 mm) 'nto the 0ack [umber cr
trae brough the APA approved plw*ood or Orlantsd Strand Board (OSB~ deck by ~/8" (3 mm) rnlnimom. Drive i:ai~
with sudaco. Do not overdrive nails. Proper nailing i~ essential (See Nailing I¢~bl~ctio~s). FoilowIocal BuiMln9
AUBARD APPL CAT OHS- For rcs s opes ~reater than ~2" (305mm) n 12' (305mm)(MAnsard), Celot~ ra~ul~(~)
~ ....... = ................ ~ d s ne lin Instr~c ons).AIso applyonadabo E~STGUMeRoolersCemell[,a.
~,h~e(9)natlsparshln~ebat.~e (~e~.a~..,~a~ r'n ) n ~ocosetot3ebotomthat~t ssqueezed~ron, tmd,,~
E~STj~.~I~. Must con{oma to ASTM Specification D-4586-93 Type Il. CeloleX ¢~oran~onds ELAS
Roofers Cornels , - ~ ' nv matelv 3" (76 mm) back I om the roof ed?:'~
rz~k¢~. Nail eve~ B" t203 turn),
Roofs It Right
S. Vail B,ren St,, unit E
T:lacen~ia, CA 92670
]anuaJy 6, 2000
I.inda Hall
Cornerstone C[eations
1570-A Howard Access Road
Upland, CA 91 '786
Roof Quote, Project #99-119
10136 [lidden Fam'~ Road
Rancho (klcamonga, CA 1730
Dea~ I.,inda:
Attacl~ed is the quote you requested tBr the roof at the above job. 1 will also attemp!
answer some of tim questions posed by Cornerstone and tile homeowners to help
t e of roof best snited lothe area.
making a clmice on the yp
* The wind rating of tile Celotex Presidential Class A is 85 mph Tile roofi~,g is
generally rated up to 60 mph. Recenl reports raled wind velocity at 75 mph in
area (See attached Celotex residential roofing tecimical bulletin cmltaining
informa6on on special thermal seali~g tall adhesive bonding roi' wind resistance.)
* Monier 1. fel lc, as with any other tile. wili be difficult to color-match due to weafl~er
conditions and oxidalion. Yes. you can keep a pallet o1' lJ|e in tile garage, but ii will
still age differenlly since it won't be exposed to sur~light as the roof will be.
, Presidemial weighs approximately ~!II pe[ square loot, ,.vhele the Lil~tile weighs
approximstely 96.4/ - 10.3//per tile. f'Please note that, if the l,il'etile should blow of¥
during wimty conditio,~s, you coukl be liable for damage lo passing cars, people, and
neighbors' windows Presidential ~s less likely In cause any but nlinor damage.)
I hope this helps If'you have am/other questions, please let me know. I look forward tc~
hearing fi'om you sOOll.
Sincerely,
Brian ltovl
Enclosures
LiceB$o ~606311
Office (714) 632-6636
Fax ~ {714) 632-6635
Fr~LD '~ F~..~
~Of Pit~~ Sold She'a~g ~olid $hea~$ P~et
~ ~a~e~ ~ou~ Ba~S THe on C~evered
~2 m ~s ~ 12:12 Eye~ ~, ~ o~het r~ ~, ~e Eve~ ~e ..........
*,~ U~,~ ~ mu~ ~ ~ncd ax ~1 pi:~, ~Pe~e~ ~ ~ hdude ~ ge co~
'!,, ,r,~as de$i.~.ated by local building dep:mmenls as being accord~ce wit~ building eodc~ or ~s s~l forth 1~
use o[ x~d speed contOUm in mo~od~ re~or~ ot ,~ska i$ advised.
5pe~ for Hawafi i$ 80 mdb ~d ~e~o ~co is 95 mph,
' sh~ be used
~oO1 reco*~ ur retain incBcate Mgher ~0-y~ ~d sp~:eds, the ~e[ spee~
Cornerstone Creations
March 2, 2000
Charlie & Jenny Badder
1015 W. Olange Road
Santa Aha, CA 92706
I)car Chadie & Jenny:
I spent a couple of hours today driving up and down lhe slreets of Rancho
C,camonga/Alta Loma looking for houses with wood and/or composilim~ toot'in
I Icre's whal I've tBund:
There's a very small section of Rancho Cncamonga/Alta Loma dmt is
AI.,L TI1A~. Ever~hing Nord~ of Orange Visla, and Easl of lqaven in the
Creek Developmenl is all tile.
Below Orange Vista, heginning al ttillside Avenue, there is a cmnbinalmn of x~ ood
shake and composition shingle, ~'1~ fl~e exception of a few 10-year oki
developments with tile rool~.
Above Hidden Farm Road there are only a few houses buill. There is a
percentage of Rancho Cucamonga/Alla Loma flora that point Nodh into th~
foolhills left ~o develop.
My thoughts are these:
4. llou'ghly 85% of Rancho Cncamonga and Rancho Cucamong~Alta I.oma have
mixed roofing (i.e Wood Shake, Composition Shingle, and Tile)
.~. Another I 0%, located il~ Rancho Cucamong~Alla Loma is all new constmcm:m
{probably no mm'e than 5-7 years old) and is ail tile.
*~* Thc final 5% has not beco developed yel.
If ~hc City of Rancho Cucamonga is worried abont tmiformity and appearance
they can only xvon3' about the northern 15% of the area; it's already mo late
first 85%. llomes in the I~othills will be too expensive tBr the average person and
traffic will be minor. Any noticeable d fferences beNveen the 85% and the
can only be seen flora lhe air.
I've generated a (very) rough map depicting the areas I've mentioned above.
Ilere is a list of houses I checked out today;
10244 Itillside Wood Shake Garage atlached to a Composition Honse
'10384 Hillside New Composition Roof (Recent Replacement')
10376 Hillside Wood Shake
10186 Wilson Composition Shingle
10359 Ridgeviexv Could be Shake-type Tile, bnt looks more like wood shoe than
the other shake-type tile roofs on the slreel,
05% of lhe houses Iocaled on Hermosa Average are Wood Shake or Composilion
Shingle roofs.
Ahnost cvcry lile roof on Banyan Avenue ~onlains mis-malched or discolored
~- ti looks like replacement liles have ~ been easv ~o malch and thc
tlit, S . '- ' .. ' '
discoloration a,pears due to oxtdatton and sun-bak,ng. 1.~ s~gn ,n the a, ea
lhese are Stev~n Walker hmnes and are adve~ised in the New ttome Gmcle
~ picked up several new hmne magazines- bul not lifts one.)
Please keep in miml, I'm no expert and the area map is just a rough
based on what I saw. As always, call me iCyou need ao~hing.
Smcerely,
l~inda L. Hall
THE CiTY OF
I~A~CHO C~]CAHONGA
DATE: March 8, 2000
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Brent Le Count AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: POLICY WAIVER - BADDER - A request to waive the Planning Commission
design policy requiring the use of tile roofing material, and proposing composition
shake instead, for a new home located at 10336 Hidden Farm Road -
APN: 1074-121-07.
BACKGROUND: The house was originally submitted for plan check in May 1999 through the
Building & Safety Division. The Planning Division issued corrections which indicated that the
house is located in a hillside area; hence, a Design Review application was required. The
application was filed on June 17, 1999, and approved by the City Planner on August 16, 1999.
The conditions of approval require the project to be built in accordance with the approved plans,
including exterior colors and materials. The approved plans specified a "Monier Lifetile" roof
material. The two-story house design features traditional architectural style with horizontal
Masonite siding wrapping the entire house, wood trim, decorative shutters and vents, and a
masonary veneer for accent on the front elevation. The one-story detached garage design
matches the main residence.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga issued a building permit to construct a new single-family home
at 10336 Hidden Farm Road on September 23, 1999. The construction plans specified "Monier
Lifetile" for the roofing, and the house is structurally engineered to handle the weight of a tile
roof (which is heavier than composition). On February 15, 2000, a Correction Notice was
issued by the Building and Safety Division inspector because composition roof shingles had
been installed instead of the Monier Lifetile. The roofing appears to be complete. On February
24, 2000, the contractor for the project met with staff to discuss the matter. The contractor
stated that the homeowners had decided to change the roof material from Monier Lifetile to the
composition shingle due to lower cost and better wind protection considerations. The contractor
and homeowners were unaware of the Planning 'Commission design policy precluding
composition shingle roofing and did not process a change order request through the City.
ITEM F
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
POLICY WAIVER - BADDER
Mamh 8, 2000
Page 2
ANALYSIS: Since 1987, the Planning Commission has consistently upheld a residential design
policy to require tile roof material of a high quality appearance for new construction. The policy
is reflected in ,.~very planning document adopted since 1987, such as the architectural auidelines
of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan, which requires tile
roofing. This.[~ljf:y has been documented in staff memorandums. Composition shingles have
traditionally n~t been permitted per this policy. All of the surrounding homes in the
neighborhood have either flat concrete tile or mission tile (predominantly flat concrete tile)
consistent witil the policy. Composition shake would be inconsistent with the surrounding
neighborhood. On very rare occasions, the Planning Com'nission has allowed a thi: 'i-butt
architectural composition shake roof material when deem~d ~ppropriate to the architectural
style of the home, such as a Victorian theme.
The attached 19tter from the homeowners indicates that their reasons for preferring composition
shake are due to appearance and wind resistance. Their roofing supplier states that the
composition shake has a wind rating of 85 mph versus 60 mph for tile roof'r~g; however, no
manufacturer data was submitted to substantiate these figures.
The house fr~ming was engineered for the hea~ weight of tile roofing. In construction
parlance, the roof must be "loaded" with the weight of the tiles in order to properly inspect the
framing. Typically, the tiles are stacked on the roof decking which allows the framing to adjust to
the weight. According to Carlos Silva, Senior Building Inspector, their Correction Notice
prevents any further construction, such as insulation or drywall, which would cover up framing
and prevent proper inspection. The homeowners' engineer has discussed this with Mr. Silva
and understands the need to resolve the tile roof issue before proceeding with further
construction; however, the homeowners do not want to be delayed. If the Planning Commission
allows the composition shake to remain, construction may proceed.
ACTION REQUESTED: The homeowners request that the Planning Commission waive their
policy requiring tile and allow the composition shake.
Resp. ec-ff.~lly submitted...-~
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:BLC\ma
Attachments: Exhibit"A" - Homeowners' Letter
Exhibit "B" - Correction Notice
Exhibit "C" - Composition Shake Roofing Manufacturers Specifications
Exhibit "D" - Location Map
Exhibit "E" - Roof Plan
Exhibit"F" - Elevations
FOUNDATION ~T'I~.IrMaNT:
It ~~ ~ ~f~to ~~ ~ of~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~- ~ ~.~.. ~ of~of
~o~ ~~, ~of~~~o~
~ ~ ~ a ~ ~n ~ ~ ~ ~.~ c~ of~
(714)8"54-0060
~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
~-~-~-.~ 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
~ BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION
CORRECTION NOTICE
PERa~T .O.
Office Hours ~ v 'lnspe~
8:00 to 9:00 a.m. Please Mak~[~.orrec~ons and Call Ior Reinspec§on
(714) 989-1863
83/011288B ~]2:15 7148340~68 ~b6~ P~ u~
HoytRoofs Xt R/ght
740 S. Van Buren S~., Unit
piacentia, CA 92670
~anual¥ 6,2000
Come;stone Creations
1570-A Howard Acc~s~
Upland, CA 917S~
1U-.: ~f~ote, Proj~ ~99-119
1033~ ~d~ F~m
R~c~ ~c~ CA 9l 7;0
Dmr Li~a:
Att~:~ is the qume ~u ~u~ed For ~e r~c ~t ~e ~o~ job. I ~ll
~swer some of t~ ~ions ~ by C~: 'm~ and ~ homer.s to help
m~in~ s choice ~ ~e ~e of~fb~t ~]t~ :~ t~= ~
goofily ml~ up to 60 mpk R~t ~s ~ted ~ad ~
~ta, (See attac~ Cel~ residmfial ~ng t~i~ ~1~ comaning
inibr~fion on ~nl ~fl ~aling ~b ~h~i~ bond,S for wi~ resin.)
conditions ~ o~d~ion. Yes, y~ cm k~ ~ pfll~ of file ~ t~ ~e, ~t it wil~
e Pe~dentid weighs appro~m~ely 4~ ~ ~uam foot, where ~ Lif~le
du~ng wi~y ¢oudition~ ~u ~ld ~ liable for ~ge to p~i~ ~s, ~ple, and
I hopethis helps. ~ ha~ ~y ot~ ~tiong pl~e 1~ ~ k~w. I ~k ~o~rd to
Enclos~.~es
Ltcer~$e #60611~
Office (714) 632-6636
Fax ~ (714) 632-6635
83/01/280~ 02;15 ?14~348~6~ F~,%DD~R ~A~- ~5
FAX O00 ?90 3~47 CELOTI~X CORPOR.AT~N
SmNC '
TECTTNICAL BULLETIN'
~,~X~~ · '.PO~O~31~2 · T~~A
.,
' ~ I ~l~lx~m~l~r~p~8 P
DIREC~ONG FOR APPUCATION
FO~ ROOF ~URFA~ WI~ INCUN~S ~RO~ 4' (102mm) TO 12'
TO FOOT ~m)
. FOR ~ANSARD ROOF ~p~ION ~ APPUCA~ION INSTRUC~ONS
TheSe shiest ~re ~n~ lor ~e ~:
pose of ~1~ ~a~ I~ to Dmv~nt · ~l~O~ ~at~d ~qa~t s~ ~om ~dh~ ~o ~ ove~ing
~- For uoe ~ n~ ar re~mg wo~ ~r ~ ~ffY bu~ ~ ~o~ r~f ~ok ~;
~p~t, ~ C~x T~ B~tn NO. 7D~. Un~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~on and ~or
c~l~d ~ex tot
~ ~. ~ n~ o~ n~ ~m~t n~ng ia eaee ntl~ (See ~inO InM~. Fo~owlocat 8u1~tn~
~ ~r ~ (1~ ~ng In~M~. AIIo. l~ o~ dab of E~IGU~ Re of ers
t~ s~e ~ a ~u~er) b~ealh ~h mb ~ near the b~. b~ ~ ~o ~se to the ~ I~1 it b s~zed from
p~ · M~ ~form ~ ~M ~po~i~t;~ ~4~93 T~ II. ~lox ~mm~
VICINITY MAP ,
. ':. ROOF NOTES
~lS ~Y~ IN~[~
~ To ~ ~1o~ .__
: ~ ~ 0~I~
. ..
:WESTi: