HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001/08/08 - Agenda Packet.~
u
•
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY AUGUST 8, 2001 7:00 PM
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chamber
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call
Chairman McNiel _ Vice Chairman Macias
Coin Mannenno _ Com. Stewart _ Com. Tolstoy _
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 25, 2001
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items are public hearings ~n which concerned mdiv~duals may voce
their opm~on of the related pro/ect Please wad to be recogn2ed by the Chauman
and address the Comm~ss~on by sfahng your name and address All such
opm~ons shall be l~mded to 5 minutes per md~wdual for each project Please sign
in after speaking.
A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15666 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS - A
request to create two parcels on 2 35 acres within the Office Park
Distract (OP) of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the
southwest comer of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road - APN.
1077-672-39
B ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 -VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORP
- A request for a time extension of a previously approved tentative
tract map for the development of 159 single family lots on 24.56
acres of land in the Medwm Residential District (8-14 dwelling units
per acre) of the Foothill Boulevard Distract of the Development Code,
located between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route, west of the
Cucamonga Creek Control Channel - APN 207-211-01, 16 through
21, 31, 32, and 34 Related Files Development Review 99-27,
Variance 99-06, and Tree Removal Permit 93-04 Staff has
prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for
consideration
C. STREET NAME CHANGE 01-01 - U C P , INC -The proposed
renaming of Summit Avenue to Banyan Street from the northerly
prolongation of Day Creek Boulevard to Wilson Avenue.
V. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
D DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT - CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA - A request to initiate an amendment to residential
development standards for horse keeping
VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS
This ~s the Gme and place for the general public to address the comm~ss~on Items
to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda
VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Comm~ss~on has adopted Admm~sfrat~ve Regulations that set an
11 00 p.m ad/oumment hme l/ dems go beyond that time, they shall be heard
only wdh the consent of the Comm~ss~on.
1, Lois Schrader Planning Secretary of the Cdy of Rancho Cucamonga, or my
designee, hereby certdy that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was
posted on August 2, 2001, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government
Code Section 54964 2 at 10500 C~wc Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga
•
U
Page 2
r
~ J
Hillside
1
Banyan
19th/210 Fwy~
t
~,
;~
w
Ate""
Vicinity Map
Planning Commission
August 8, 2001
`; ~ „
Sp~fiere `of Influence
. , ~ .- _,
~., ~ s
~, ~~
~~~ ~~~~ }
t ~
C)S~ MM1
ne
'~ 6th
T
C
v c c ~•
~ ~ Y ~
_ ~ ~n
r-
Q
--; Foothill
4
-~ Arrow
3
~+
~~
4th
D is City-wide
City of Rancho Cucamonga
•
* CITY HALL
AVENUE
~Wlson
Q
AUGUST 8, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA INDEX
ITEM NO ITEM TITLE PAGES
Agenda 2 - 4
A Tentative Parcel Map 15666 5 - 15
B Time Extension for Tentative Tract 15540 16 -58
C Street Name Change 01-01 59 - 63
D Development Code Amendment 64 - 67
•
T H E C I T Y O F
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Staff Report
DATE August 8, 2001
TO Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM Brad Buller, Clty Planner
BY Debra Meier, AICP, Contract Planner
SUBJECT TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15666-LEWISRETAIL CENTERS-A request to create
two parcels on 2 35 acres within the Office Park Dlstnct (OP) of the Terra Vista
Community Plan located at the southwest comer of Mllllken Avenue and Base Llne
Road - APN 1077-672-39
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION
A Surrounding Land Use and Zoning All within the Terra Vista Community Plan
North - Vacant land/proposed park site
South - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
East - Central Park Plaza/Neighborhood Commercial
West - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
B General Plan Designations
Protect Site -Neighborhood Commercial
North - Proposed park site
South - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre)
East - Neighborhood Commercial
West - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre)
C Slte Charactenstics The proposed subdivision is compnsed of 2 35 acres located at the
southwest comer of Base Line Road and Mllllken Avenue, surrounding the existing Texaco
service station The service station was approved by the Commission in June 1997
(Conditional Use Permit 96-27), and is complete and fully operational. The subfect acreage is
void of any structures, and the only trees present have been planted in association with the
service station or parkway landscaping. An existing residential development of attached
single-family town homes is adjacent to the west and south boundanes of the site
ITEM A
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TPM15666 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS
August 8, 2001
Page 2
ANALYSIS
A General The proposed Parcel Map would further subdivide the 2 35 acres surrounding the
service station into 2 additional parcels of 1 58 and 0 77 acres The applicant intends to
provide the 1 58-acre parcel to Kindercare for development of a day care faality, and the
remaining parcel would potentially be used for office or retail development
DevelopmenUDesign Review applications have not yet been submitted for either the day can:
faality or the future retail-bwlding pad
B Environmental Assessment Conditional Use Permit No 96-27 and Parcel Map 14001
included environmental review and adoption of a Negative Declaration on June 11,1997. The
proposed protect is consistent with Pad C of the Master Plan, which was approved as a
fast-food restaurant pad No additional environmental review was required for this Design
Review application including detailed Site Plan and Building Elevations.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public heanng in the Inland Valley Dailv
Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners Hnthin a
300-foot radius of the protect site
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Parcel
Map 15666 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions.
Respectfully submitted,
City Planner
BB.DM mlg
Attachments Exhibit "A" -Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "B" -Parcel Map 15666
Exhibit "C" -Master Plan
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
A.2
s •
~~~
u ~®ier SI8 UILIGTION YAP ~ ~ v ~ ~
IN TH~CITY OF RANCHO CUCAYONCA, CALIFORNIA
m
~f~
~
I 1
I
i
I p
I
I
~~
I
I
IAR I
1 I ~D
aV/^`\l
,
MWl® q~D 1
n.n.n mr m®u
I ~~
___
~N <
AMU M~.1
..~
~ tlB~ptO m0®ON. ~ ~
~~
NGm
M1®. i
I
mew mnu
e
I IVY
~
~"'!
~
O
nNY
w
~
is.r
I / "7/J.~~....i
I
iC.o
I
I I
I --------r- - ~~....~
___ ~.vearma ~ - -__
~u ~ ^ ~.~,
~w®Ir e
-"~~~ ~~u
~Ir a®nuu ...
i
i ~~ .~
~""
..,.,.~...r..r...ei...i.
~~
~~
~~~
z
r U ~~
O Q e~
" =~
Z
Z f y~~
~ ~ _~~
~ „+,~
Q ~ U 8~1gggt
4~8
F z $~~
W 4 ~~
U '- ~~
„~. h
= a~
~~~~
.~
~y~~~ ~~
el iii ~B
J ~
~4
~~
Y
f
.~
Y r'
+ e'
~ L9
c
e
M i
!
9 ^M^
Y.h
~
I f 3 c ~~ 9Y~ ppj
~V
y
e.~5 ~F ?
~~~5 ~
~~~a ~'~~ Y
5
Y
i~~ §§§~4
°~ ~8~ ~g~~ w Q~6 A~~6 i
ii?:!~ 9~~e~ e~RE~ Py:Sf C~e~r::~d~
S ~. Y wJw w
F F
6~
v_ r~ 6
~p ~a_
9$ fag p' of i~' g~
:t:~ ~g 'ty~~g~ ~~ ~ ~Ag~ :p~
~5'8~ §~ ~~e~i~i ~~ ~i~Ci §[
.3tl[~~
3'dc=~9
.iy.pp
k~[ wbd
pb:~B6A
C~t~[~
~:i°.i.@
~4 ~~~
e~
n ______ ___ ~~ ___ aw wi uio
3f1PHAV N~ITIW ~.vn. <~ my
41 S
law ~ um
~~~ ~~ ~ R
~ ~ do
o ;
~ d
~` F~
d ~ ;,
u ~'
1~
~~~tl
c 7
0
~.('h'/.8/~ ~ a~
•
•
P
77 Ey
~C1-
A
~- -- --
1
I
^\\v'
I
1 1
I
I ~
I
1
11 1 I
l\'\11 I
I
I
g
I
I
I
i
I
\1Y'n1`\1 I
'V
i
1
I
I
1
1
I
~ -- --
-~ -- --
~.
a
mw
~N
.y ~
~a
az
F
W
a
a
~ w
i ~ ~
F
si 6
s ~ 6
p
p
F¢
o
-Fr
v F1-
__-_- ) +a
Iv~vll
~
',~4~„~=~f'ir'~~'~~Igsra~~,~, I PMS
_
a,
'-."I~ar~„ ~.~
,~,,y
' S
=
" ~IluuEaceac I~t,'~~~~o:
c-ieo ~~~, 1~ o" h li
I
P
dd
Rn; i
a
tai
F i ~~ ~
,
Q
7 io.aaa sa rT ~1~~j ~5~F9f L
77
'
~V lip VR 6
?1d
I I
iyie~
'~~m~h rro'~~, a,yi ~~. i~ tlji'r'lln'idf~~p ~k~~'~~~P;~J1 ~~°P'~~1~J"~.~
i ~i
iv'
~~ I 9 ~% I~lif i4 ~~.'I ~I}
' ~1
'i
i Pili ~r4
l
'
.
~
win „i I
i iii
~
ii
o~F,~~'3~~f1 if '%s, 6io i~~~
~~'' ~'hrr~'yutl hYui Jtl
RESIDENTIAL
~/~i~~ G
SGLL ~'•b~'
rav n zaoo
r w~mwiam wu
~5
r
r
ii
IA
. RESOLUTION NO
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP 15666, A SUBDIVISION CREATING 2 PARCELS ON
2 35 ACRES, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MILLIKEN
AVENUE AND BASE LINE ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN 1077-672-39
A Recitals
1 Lewis Retail Centers filed an application for approval of Tentative Parcel Map 15666, as
described in the title of this Resolution Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subtect Tentative Parcel
Map request is referred to as "the application."
2 On August 8, 2001, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public heanng for
the above-descnbed map.
All legal preregwsites pnor 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 dunng the above-
referenced meeting on August 8, 2001, including wntten and oral staff reports, this Commission
hereby speafically finds and concludes as follows
a The proposed Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the objectives of the General
Plan and Development Code, and
b The improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent Huth Office Park Distnct
of the Terra Vista Community Plan, and
c The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed, and
d The proposed subdivision wdl not cause substantial environmental damage or
public health problems or have adverse effects on abutting properties, and
e The proposed project is in conformance with the Master Plan as approved by
Conditional Use Permit 96-27, and further, the proposed protect is a subdivision of Parcel 2, of
Parcel Map 14001
3 Based upon the facts and information contained m the proposed protect, together with all
written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the approval of Conditional
Use Permit 96-27 and Parcel Map 14001, the protect is in substantial conformance with the
approved Conditional Use Permit Master Plan and Parcel Map. The proposed protect is a further
subdivision of Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 14001 therefore, no additional environmental assessment was
conducted Conditional Use Permit 96-27 and Parcel Map 14001 were approved m June 1997,
~~
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TPM 15666 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS
August 8, 2001
Page 2
which included an Environmental Assessment, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitonng Plan. This application was substantially consistent with the approved Conditional Use
Permit and Parcel Map, therefore no further environmental rewew was deemed necessary.
4 Tentative Parcel Map 15666 is hereby approved subject to each and every condition set
forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference
Planning Droision
Lewis Retail Centers shall construct a bus shelter adtacent to the bus
bay on Milliken Avenue The shelter shall be architecturallycompatible
with the Texaco service station (approved by Conditional Use
Permit 96-27, June 11, 1997)
Engineenng Division
•
1 An in-lieu fee as contnbution to the future undergrounding of the
existing overhead utilities (electrical, except for the 66 KV electncal) on
the opposite side of Base Line Road shall be paid pnor to the approval
of the final parcel map The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit
amount times the length of the protect frontage on Base Line Road
2 Any missing street trees along Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue
shall be installed or replaced as needed
All existing easements shall be re-plotted on the new map
5 The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2001.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY
Larry T McNiel, Chauman
ATTEST•
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby .
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted bythe
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 8th day of August 2001, by the following vote-to-wit
Air
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO
TPM 15666 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS
August 8, 2001
Page 3
AYES' COMMISSIONERS.
NOES. COMMISSIONERS'
ABSENT COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: Tentative Parcel Map 15666 (SUBTPM15666)
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT: Lewis Retail Centers
LOCATION: Southeast corner Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
. A. General Requirements
The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its
agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to
relingwsh 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 regwred by a court to pay as a result of such action The Crty may, at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such partiapation
shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condibon
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 fonn on the grading plans, building and construction
plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted far plan check
B. Time Limits
1 This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning
Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the City Engineer within 3 years from the
date of the approval
C. Site Development
1 The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include
site plans, architectural elevabons, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and
grading on file in the Planning Drnsion, the conditions contained herein, Development Code
regulations, and the Terra Vista Community Plan
Comolebon Date
/ /
/ /
SC-06-01 1
Project No TPM 15666
Comolehon Date
2 Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and _/_/_
State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with Prior to occupancy, plans shall be
submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Bulding and Safety Division .
to show compliance The bwldings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy
3 Revised site plans and bwlding elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be _/_/_
submitted for Ctty Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of bwlding permits
4 Ail site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for _/_/_
consistency prior to tssuance 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
5 Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, _/_/_
all other applicable Ctty Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the
time of bwlding permit tssuance
D. Shopping Centers
1 Future development for (each building pad/parcel) shall be subject to separate _/_/_
DevelopmenUDesign Review process for Planning Commission approval
2 Ail future development within the shopping center shall be designed to be compatible and _/_/_
consistent with the architectural program established by Texaco (Conditional Use Permit 96-27)
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
E. Dedication and Vehicular Access •
1 Reaprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs or by /_/_
deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the tssuance of building
permits, where no map is involved
2 Reaprocel parking agreements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint _/_/_
maintenance of all common roads, drives, or parking areas shall be provided by CC & R's or
deeds and shall be recorded prior to, or concurrent with, the final parcel map
3 Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or _/_/_
noted on the final map
F. Public Maintenance Areas
1 Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective _/_/_
Beautification Master Plan Base Ltne Road and Milliken Avenue
G. Utilities
1 Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, _/_/_
electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards Easements shall be provided as required
2 The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary _/_/_
3 Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the regwrements of the _/_/~
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino A letter of compliance from
SC-O6-01 2 f ~ ~,0
Protect No TPM 15666
Comolehon Date
the CCWD is required pnor to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first
. Such letter must have been issued by the water distract 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
protects
4 Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved
Approval of the final parcel map wdl be subtect to any regwrements that may be received from
them
CJ
/ /
SC-06-01 3 ~~~
T H E C I T Y O F
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
StaffReport
DATE August 8, 2001
TO Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM Brad Buller, Clty Planner
BY Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE
TRACT 15540 -VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORP - A request for a time
extension of a previously approved tentative tract map for the development of
159 single family lots on 24 56 acres of land in the Medium Residential District
(8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Foothill Boulevard District of the
Development Code, located between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route, west
of the Cucamonga Creek Control Channel - APN 207-211-01, 18 through 21,
31, 32, and 34 Related Files Development Review 99-27 and Variance 99-06
BACKGROUND The Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract 15540 on June 23, 1993,
for atwo-year period Since that time, State Senate BIII 428 and Assembly BIII 771 granted
automatic time extensions to June 23, 1998 On May 14, 1997, a time extension for the
tentative tract alone was requested by the applicant and approved by the City Planner This
extended the tentative tract expiration date for one-year to June 23, 1999
On August 11, 1999, the Planning Commission approved a time extension request, which
extended the tentative tract map to June 23, 2000 (Exhibit "D") The approval included the
issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration Subsequently, the City adopted guidelines for the
implementation of the California Quality Act (CEQA), which require adoption of the Mitigation
Monitoring Program by the Planning Commission. Mitigation monitoring is needed to ensure
that adopted mitigated measures are implemented Included with the most recent extension,
June 28, 2000, a Mitigation Monitoring Program and Checklist was adopted by the Commission
ANALYSIS
A The City Council, on January 6, 1999, amended the City's Subdivision Ordinance to
establish athree-year Initial approval period for tracts (increased from two years) In
addition, the amendment allows the Planning Commission authority to grant time
extensions in 12-month increments for up to five years (a maximum of eight years from the
original time approval), which Is the maximum allowed under the State Subdivision Map
ITEM B
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT15540 -VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORP
August 8, 2001
Page 2
Act, Section 66452 69(e) There are three more time extensions available for this project
(final expiration on June 23, 2004)
Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension and compared the proposal with current
development criteria outlined in the Development Code Based on this review, the
tentative tract map does meet the development standards for the Medium Residential
District
B Design Reviews and Variance The related Design Review and Variance for the tentative
tract map expired on June 23, 1998 Anew Design Review and Variance application was
submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Commission on July 28, 1999
In December 1998, the City Counal adopted Ordinance No 596 establishing afive-year
approval period with no time extensions, for DevelopmenUDesign Review and Variance
applications Therefore, under the current local law the new approved Design Review and
Variance applications expire on July 28, 2004
On June 5, 2001 the Design Review Committee approved minor modifications to the
house models at the request of the new protect proponent, Van Daele Development
Corporation
C Environmental Assessment Part I of the Irntial Study was prepared by the applicant
Staff completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist with a previous time extension
request on August 11, 1999, and found that conditions in the area have not changed
appreaably since the tentative tract was originally approved June 23, 1993 Staff
recommends adherence to the mitigation measures for cultural resources and tree
removal, which were included in the original project approval and included in the adoption
of the Mitigation Monitoring Program in June 2000
In addition, at staffs direction, a third party review of two geology reports concerning the
special studies area in the northwest corner of the site was performed The report's
recommendation was that the "Restricted Use Zone" be incorporated into the development
plans (from the 1985 Rasmussen Report), or that additional fault investigation be
performed Based on this recommendation the following condition has been added to the
updated Initial Study and attached Resolution
The developer shall survey the site to establish the location of "Lath F1," as
recommended on page 4 of the Geology Investigation Report for Protect No 2186.1,
November 12, 1985, by Gary S Rasmussen & Associates, in order to establish the
boundary of the Restricted Use Zone in which human occupancy structures are not
to be located Once the boundary of the Restricted Use Zone is established, the
location of the houses on Lots 1 and 159 shall be adtusted, if necessary, so as not to
be within this zone
Also, staff has addressed the short-term construction air quality impacts that wdl be
associated with the development of the tract The standard measures that have been
implemented on previous protects have been included with the environmental mitigation
measures for this time extension
82
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT15540 -VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORP
August 8, 2001
Page 3
CORRESPONDENCE• This item was advertised as a public heanng in the Inland Vallev Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners
within a 300-foot radius of the project site
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission grant aone-year time
extension for Tentative Tract 15540 through the adoption of the attached Resolution
Respectfu submitted,
Brad er
City Planner
BB AIMma
Attachments: Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"
Exhibit "C"
Exhibit "D"
Exhibit "E"
• Resolution
•
-Letter From Applicant dated May 8, 2001
-Location Map
-Tentative Tract Map
- Tentative Tract Time Extension Chart
-Initial Study
of Approval for Tentative Tract 15540
83
VAT DAEL,E• ~
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGH
May 8, 2001 MAY 0 g 2001
RECENED -PLANNING
Nancy Fong
Planning Division
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Crvic Center Dnve
Rancho Cucamonga, Cahfonva 91729
RE: Tract 15540
Deaz Nancy.
Please accept this letter as our official request for a time extenston for Tentative Tract •
Map 15540 Enclosed herewith are the required appltcattons, radius maps/labels and
processing fees for the map extension
Should you have any questions or require add~ttonal information, please feel free to
contact me at (909) 354-2121 extension 129
Sincerely,
VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Momca Sierra
Assistant Project Manager
/ms
agencies
~XN/B/T af~ w
2900 Adams Street • Suite C-25 ~ Phone (909) 354-2121
Rrvettide. Californa 92504-4378 FAX (9091354-2996
•
G
O
V
O
J
~~ ~ ~
-~
0
w~
c ~n
•L ~
a~
0
m
~°
~ y
C v
'a Gf
•~ 'o
ma
«~
d
0
0
.~
0
u
w
z
3
EXHIQiT ~.~., 65
d n
i I Y ~~
d k
~~"
%+_~'
(i ~ i'~ y~
- ~~
n
~~ .t, ~~
. _ ,;~. __
l%
~ ! .._
ti
a~ t- ,y,
~ :'
G W ,
"S
~ 5 ~~
y~ .. _
Z Z 6: ~lF~
t- r 5Gti ffi
U 8
_..
w
~m~
r
-.~_
~
''i
as
. -'z
~F
!
i
y___'
ti
i I '
~ i l t i i ~~
,J
~ ~
O~~
~I,r,
! 1
s ~
!
t
a
1
!
o ! '".
al ~
1
I
>.
"~
~
~ ~
'
. ®i ~
i
Iti
•
®~ ~
I~ 1
~
~ t
; J 1
:,__ r t
9r
I
I
i
9
'-_ "`,
t ~ } ~ ~
..~
e
i ~
L 1
! !
1 ~
!
1 '
ti ~E
1 ;
f
li
_:
~ !i
1
a
~ ~ ~
.,~ E
~ ~ ~ ~
~. i ~
I `
'~ I
i ~ I',
i i ~ ~ r
;~~~;
i i d ~
I~~ i~
~I I,
I
.,
'i I'
~~ .
r
a
ti ~
., !
i
a ~ i
~ ~ = 'i
,....
1
t
t
f
i
t
_.-.
~ i
~ ~
-c ~
1
~-
y 1
~`-rvr~r
t t
m
~ _i
c~
-
i
s
i
S i
~j ~~I
~0
•8~~~q~Gy
' r S
.Y t~
1~
t li;~i i'~i
~z~~ ~~~
1~'
~~
10~
~ipi9~; i g.
~fEi ! t=' ~f
'~I~ ' ~ !!I ~ ~f6
..i !!s
I
iiii A afi ~i^' iIa! I .
!S!~ ~_~ ~~ ~'~~~ 3i~i i'e~
~~ -!'I! f '- 9
~'~ 11 ~ .
~i ~.i ~ f 1, i Si
1' ~ ~ i
~~
~; t
~~:
d, 8
~~ ~' tq
i t
t ~s
~~' , ,I ~. fi' ~' • plx .
I~
t~ i.
j~ I t
,I i ~
,I ~.
C,XH//3 / r ~~~._ ~ .,
TENTATIVE TRACT 15540
TIME EXTENSION CHART
Action TT15540 Extension Expiration
(extensions) Time
Original Approval
June 23, 1993 --~ 2 years June 23, 1995
Senate Bdl 428
October 12, 1993 -~ 2 years June 23, 1997
Assembly Bdl 711
June 6, 1996 -~ 1 year June 23, 1998
City Planner*
May 14, 1997 -~ 1 year June 23, 1999
Planrnng Commission
August 11, 1999 -~ 1 year June 23, 2000
Planning Commission
June 28, 2000 -~ 1 year June 23, 2001
' May 5, 1997, staff received letter from applicant requesting cone-year extension
r~
U
r-1
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Omsron
(909) 477.2750
• CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA •
ENVIRONMENTAL
MAY 08 2001 INFORMATION FORM
RECENED-PLANNING (Part I -Initial Study)
T,he:pi
~.,.
INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that
the appl~cabon is complete at the hme o/ submittal, City staff wtll not be available to peAorm wodc required to provide missing
m/omiabon
Application Number Ior the pro/ect to which this form
pedams
Pro/ect Cucamonga Ridge -Tract 15540
Title
Name&Addressofpro/ect Cucamonga Ridge 159/AF XXV, LLC
owner(s) 2900 Adams Street, Suite C-25
Riverside, California 92504
Name&Addn;ssofdeveloperorpro/ect Van Daele Development Corporation
sponsor 2900 Adams Street, Suite C-25
Riverside, California 92504
Contact Person &
Address
Monica Sierra, Assistant Project Manager
Van Daele Development Corporation
2900 Adams Street, Suite C-25
Riverside, California 92504
~~ ~~~
I \PLANNING\FINAL\FORMS\COUNTER\INITSTDI VVPD 3/00 Page 1
Name & Address of person prepanng this form (~(d~fferent from above)
Monica Sierra
Van Daele Development Corporation
2900 Adams St., Riverside, CA 92504
Telephone
Number (909) 354-2121 extension 129
Information indicated by astensk () rs not required of nonconsbucbon CUP=s unless othenv~se n:quested by staff
'1) Provide a full scale (8-f/2 x 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the pro/ect site, and indicate the site
boundanes
2) Provide a set o/color photographs which show repn:sentabve views into the site from the north, south, east and west,
wews into and from the site from the pnmary access points which serve the site, and n;p2sentabve views of significant
features from the site Include a map showing location o/each photograph
3) Pro/ect Location (descnbe) South of Foothill, North of Arrow Highway and
immediately adjacent to Cucamonga Creek.
LJ
4) Assessor=s Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet rf
necessary)
APN II207-211-01, 18, 19, 20, 21, 31, 32 and 34
'S) Gross Site Area (adsq ft) 24.56 Acres
~6) Net Srte An=a (total site size minus area o/ public streets & proposed ded~cat~ons) 24.53 Acre s
7)Descnbe any proposed general plan amendment orzone change which would affect the pro/ed site (attach addihonal sheet
rf necessary
N/A
~~~
L~
I \PLANNING\FINAL\FORMS\COUNTER\INITSTDI WPD 3/00 Page 2
8) Include a descnphon of all permits which will 6e necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental
agenaes m order to fully implement the protect
. Grading Permit, Dust Control Permit, Cal Trans Encroachment Permit, S.B.C. Flood
Control District, Encroachment Permit, Tree Removal Permit and N.P.D.E.S.
(storm water) State Permit.
9)Descnbe the physical setting ofthe sde as rt exists before the pro/ectincluding information on topography, sod stability, plants
and aroma/s, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects Descnbe any ex~sbng structures on site
Qnclud~ng age and condition) and the use o(the structures Attach photographs of signficant features descnbed In addrbon,
site all sources of mformabon (~ e , geo/og~cal and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies)
The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Foothill Blvd. and
Cucamonga Creek situated between Foothill Blvd. and Arrow Rt. The site is
bounded on the east by a flood control channel, a mobile home park and residences
on the west by Foothill Blvd. to the north and Arrow Rt. to the south. The
subject property in a near rectangular parcel of vacant land covering approximately
25 acres. The southerly 15 acres exhibits remnants of the former migrant labor
camp constructed during the depression years by the Civilian Conservation Corps.
The northerly 10 acres is vacant with a few scattered trees throughout. The total
property has over 200 trees of various species. Disposition of these trees is
addressed in the Arborist Reports prepared by Barrs Tree Care.
In general the property gently slopes south to southeast with an overall relief of
approximatelly 65 feet from northwest to southeast. Zt appears fills have been
placed adjacent to the easterly property line along two/thirds the length of the
property. This fill is approximately 10 to 15 feet in height in the middle portion
of the site and consists of sand and gravel mixture with cobbles and boulders.
Surface vegetation consists of a moderate growth of grasses, weeds and scattered trees.
10)Descnbe the known cultural and/or hrstoncalaspacts of the Srte Srte all sources ofin/ormat~on (books, published reports and
oral history)
Former migrant labor camp constructed by the civilian construction corps during the
depression years. In January 1944 Italian prisoners of war were incarcerated at
the camp having been shipped from Europe and Africa battlefields.
6 ~~
I \PLANNING\FINAL\FORMSICOUNTER\INITSTDI WPD 3/00 Page 3
11)Descnbe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site (airoraR, roadway noise, etc) and how they will affect
proposed uses
At this time the site is subject to roadway noises generated by vehicular i
traffic on Foothill Blvd. and Arrow Rt.
12) Descnbe the proposed pro/act in detail This should provide an adequate descnphon o/the site in terms of ultimate use which
will result /rom the proposed pro/act Indicate i/ the2 are proposed phases /or development, the extent o/ development to
occur with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each incmment Attach additional sheet(s) i/necessary
Tentative Tract No. 15540 - Foothill/Arrow patio homes is a proposed "gated"
single family-detached project consisting of 159 residential lots and 27
lettered lots. The project will be developed in 11 phases with an average 15
residential lots per phase, on sitestreets are to be private but will be constructed
in accordance with and per city standard plans and specifications. The project
incorporates 3 separate areas uniformly placed within the project for recreational
use with the pool and spa area being centrally located in the project. It is
estimated total build out will take approximately 3 years.
13)Descnbe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, histoncal, or scenic
aspects Indicate the type olland use (residential, commeroial, etc J, intensity o/land use (one-family, apaRment houses,
shops, department stores, etc) and scale o/development (height, /rontage, setback, rear yani, etc )
The east property line is bounded by an existing flood control channel approximately
132 fee[ in R/N width. The south property line is bounded by existing Arrow Rt.,
a secondary highway with single family residential and multi family residential
adjacent to the south R/N line of Arrow Rt., the west property line is bounded by
an existing mobile home park, vacant land and existing single story apartments at
southerly end of property (SEE ATTACHED FOR CONTINUATION)
14)Wll the pmposed protect change the pattern, scale or character o/the surrounding general area of the pro/act?
D~Z
I \PLANNING\FINAL\FORMS\COUNTER\INITSTDI WPD 3/00 Page 4
~'1
U
~J
Contmuat~on of question #13 The northerlypropertytine is bordered by Foothill Blvd
A state h~ghwa~wrth several small business/commercial buildings and are situated alon¢
the north side of Foothill Blvd
~~~
15)Indicate the type of short-term and long-term noise to be generated, mcludmg soume and amount How will these noise levels
affect adjacent properties and on-site uses What methods of sound proofing are proposed
Short term noise will be generated during the construction phase of the project. .
The ultimate build out will generate onsite long term noise levels which will
essentially be contained within the total fenced project. Excessive noise levels will
be mitigated in accordance with the noise study prepared by J.J. Van Houten & Assoc.
'16) Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic frees
See arborist's report prepared by Barry Tree Care
17) Indicate any bodies of water (mcludmg domestic water supplies) into which the site drams
Arrow Rt, storm drain into the existing Cucamonga Creek Channel. A San Bernardino
County Flood Control District Facility.
18)lnd~cate expected amount o/water usage (See Attachment A /or usage estimates) For further danficabon, please contact
the Cucamonga County Water D~stnct at 987-2591
a Resdent~al (gaUday) 600 Peak use (gaUDay) 1320
b CommemiaUlnd (gal/day/ac) N/A
Peak use (gaUmm/ac) N/A
Public Sewer
19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal T Septic Tank Sewer if septic tanks are proposed, attach
percolation tests I/ discharge to a sanitary sewage system ~s proposed md~cate expected daily sewage generation (See
Attachment A for usage estimates) For further clanficahon, please contact the Cucamonga County Water Distnct at 987-
2591
a Residential (gal/day)
270
b Commem~aUlnd (ga!/day/ac)
N/A
RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS.
20)Numberofresident~alunds 159 Units
Detached (indicate range of paroel srzes, minimum lot srze and maximum lot
srze
Minimum Lot Size: 3,104 S.F.
Maximum Lot Size: 7,488 S.F.
Average Lot Size: 4,545 S.F.
Bey
I \PLANNING\FINAL\FORMS\COUNTER\INITSTDI WPD 3/00 Page 5
•
•
•
Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units)
N/A
21)Anbcipated range o/sale pnces and/or rents
Sale Pnce(s) $ 180, 000 to $ 200, 000
Rent(permonth) $ to $
22) Specify number of bedrooms by and type
Plan 1: 3 Bedrooms
Plan 2: 3 Bedrooms
Plan 3: 4 Bedrooms
Plan 4: 4 Bedrooms
23) Indicate anticipated household sae by unit
type
Single family household -estimated at 3.3 persons
household
24)Ind~cate the expected number o/school childn:n who will be residing wdhin the protect Contact the appropnate School
Oistncts as shown in Attachment 8
a Elementary 47
b JuniorH~gh 20
c SemorH~gh 32
COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS
25) Descnbe type of use(s) and ma/or function(s) of commeroial, mdustnal or institutional
uses
A
26) Total floor area of commercial, mdustnal, or institutional uses by
type
N/A
~\ J
I \PLANNING\FINAL\FORMS\COUNTER\INITSTDI WPD 3/00 Page 6
•
27) Indicate hours o/operation
N
28) Number o/ Total
employees N/A
Maximum Shrff
Time of Maximum Shin
29)Prowde breakdown of anticipated/o6 classrficat~ons, including wage and salary ranges, as well as an rnd~cat~on o/the rate
o/hire (or each classification (attach additional sheet it necessary)
N/A
•
30) Estimation o/the number o/workers to be head that currently reside rn the
City
N/A
'31)For commeroial and industnal uses only, indicate the source, type and amount of air pollution emissions (Data should be •
venfied through the South Coast Air Quality Management Distnct, al (818) 572-6283)
N/A
ALL PROJECTS
32)Have the water, sewer, fire, and flood control agencies serving the pro/ect been contacted to determine their ability to provide
adequate service to the proposed pro~ect~ if so, please indicate then response
Yes said agencies have been notified and will serve the project.
6~~
I \PLANNING\FINAL\FORMS\COUNTER\INITSTDI WPD 3/00 Page 7
In the known history o/this property, has there been any use, storage, or discharge o/hazardous and/or toxic matenals
33) Examples of hazardous and/or toxic matenals include, but are not limited to PCB=s, radioactive substances, pesticides and
herbicides, fuels, oils, solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases Also note underground storage of any o/the above
Please list the matenals and descnbe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates o/use, d
known
CERCLS database reflects Underground Storage Tank (UST) at site. UST is abandoned
and is in process of removal.
34)Wll the proposed pro/ect involve the temporary orlong-term use, storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic
matenals, including but not I~mited to those examples listed abovev If yes, provide an inventory of all such matenals to be
used and proposed method of disposal The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be
shown and labeled on the application plans
No.
I hereby cerhly that the statements famished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and informahon 2quin:d Ior adequate
evaluahon o/this pro/ect to the best of my abd~ty, that the /acts, statements, and ~nformat~on presented are true and correct tot he best
of my knowledge and belief I further understand that additional information maybe required to be submitted before an adequate
evaluahon can 6e made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Date / ~ ~~ ~ Signature " " u ~~ e~ [ ~1~~~ ~ ,,
Title ~~~ y~~ ~°`" ~'L~ /I '
\~
I \PLANNING\FINAL\FORMS\COUNTER\INITSTDI WPD 3/00 Page 8
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 -VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORP.
2. Related Files: Development Review 99-27, Variance 99-06, and Tree Removal Permit 93-04
3. Description of Project:
A request for a time extension of a previously approved tentative tract map including design
review for the development of 159 single family lots on 24.56 acres of land in the Medwm
Residential Distract (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and
Development Code areas, located between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route, west of the
Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel - APN: 207-211-01, 18 through 21, 31, 32 and
34.
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Van Daele Development Corporation
2900 Adams Street, Suite C-25
Riverside, CA 92504
5. General Plan Designation: Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) (~
6. Zoning: Medwm Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
North• Existing Art Studio and Traffic School, Office
South: Existing apartments and single family homes; Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling
units per acre)
East. Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel
West. Existing mobile home park, apartment, market and vacant land
8. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Dnve
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
9. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Alan Warren
Associate Planner
(909) 477-2750
10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Cucamonga County Water Distract
i
a~~
Initial Study for • ~ty of Rancho Cucamonga
TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 2
. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this pro)ect, involving at
least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact,° "Potentially Slgnlflcant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
()Land Use and Planning (x) TranspodatloNClrculation (x) Public Services
()Population and Housing (x) Biological Resources (x) Utilities and Service Systems
(x) Geological Problems ()Energy and Mineral Resources (x) Aesthetics
(x) Water ()Hazards (x) Cultural Resources
OAir Quality (x) Noise O Recreation
()Mandatory Findings of Significance
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 a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the pro)ect, or agreed to, by the applicant. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Signed'
Alan arren, Associate Planner
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.
Po,eMle~y
SiPaBeeM
NgnCt Lava
PoteMiallY Unlem 7Mn
hsues and Supportln0 IMOrmetlon Soorcw Sipnl(eeM aetl9etlon Sipnllkenl rJo
I ed Incro rated I I eel
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 pro)ect? O O O (x)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
. vicirnty? O O O (x)
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community? p () () () (x)
~\~ `
Initial Study for • ~ty of Rancho Cucamonga
TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 3
Comments:
a-d) The proposed use is in conformance with the existing General Plan and Zoning land
use designations Neighboring residential project abut the site along the east and
west boundaries.
PPlentlelly
Sipmflcent
Impel Leas
Issues and SuPPanin011darmatlan Swmee Poteroally
9pndieeM Unlsv
MNpetlan Than
Slpnlllcanf
No
I ep IrKO rated I I
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)? O O O (x)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? () () () (x)
Comments:
a-c) The proposed use is in conformance with the existing General Plan and Zoning land
use designations. The site is presently vacant of any residential structures
PotemlMly
sloninwn
Ina)at1 Less
Poterroelly Unlev man
SpmhcaM Mmpefion SIpnIPCent No
Issues ark SuPPeron0lnlommtlm Swn~a Impell Ineoryorafed Irryetl IrrpaPl
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result m
or expose people to potential impacts mvolwng:
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 sod
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? () () (x) ( )
g) Subsidence of the land? () () () (x)
h) Expansroe sods? () () () (x)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? () () () (x)
620
Initial Study for • ~ty of Rancho Cucamonga
TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 4
Comments:
a-d) The northwest portion of the protect site falls within the Red Hdl Fault Zone per
Figure V-4 of the General Plan and is subject to potential fault rupture, ground
shaking, and ground failure. The General Plan also indicates that "differential
subsidence could occur across the Red Hdl fault causing ground shaking." Several
geologic fault studies were prepared since 1985 to identify any fault traces on-site
and establish mitigation measures if any fault traces were found. A report in 1985
determined that there were fault traces on site and another in 1993 indicated that
fault traces were not found. A recent third party review of all the studies, seismic and
. sods, recommended that a Restricted Use Zone (Rasmussen, 1985) be applied to
the northwest corner of the site to ensure that no habitable structures be bwlt within
the trace fault area The following mitigation measure shall be applied to the
project:
The developer shall survey the site to establish the location of "Lath Fi" as
recommended on page 4 of the geology investigation report for Project No.
2186.1, November 12,1985 by Gary S. Rasmussen & Associates in orderto
establish the boundary of the Restricted Use Zone in which human
occupancy structures are not to be located. Once the boundary of the
Restricted Use Zone is established, the location of the houses on Lots 1
and 159 shall be adjusted, if necessary, so as not to be within this zone.
e-Q The site is not near any body of water and the adjacent storm dram channel is
completely improved. The site will be graded to accommodate the proposed
structures Grading wdl be conducted under supervision of a licensed surveyor or
avd engineer to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. The impact is not
considered significant.
Pae,roelry
slo"mnem
~ La+e
PoleM,elly Unless Then
9gnifmant MNpatlm Slpnlikenl NO
L45uea eM Supp"rtl,W IMOmetlan Sounxs Impact IneorporeteE Inpecl Inpetl
4. WATER. Wdl the proposal result rn:
a) Changes In absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? () () (x) ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? () () () (x)
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? () () () (x)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? () () () (x)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? () () () (x)
f) Change m the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
P~2\
Initial Study for • • of Rancho Cucamonga
TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 5
PoltaNelly
Sipnilrcenl
Irryect Lass
Poleribally UNesa roan
Sipnificent Mitlpe9an SlpnHrcara No
lswres and SuppoNrp n,tometlan Saurcm Inpecl Incorporated Irtpxt Irryacl
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? O O O (x)
Comments•
a) Paving and hardscape necessaryto accommodate the project will result in increased
runoff from the site Drainage will be conveyed to existing facilities, which have been
designed to handle the flows.
b) The site is not near any body of water. The adjacent flood control channel is
completely improved
c-Q The site is in an area of existing residential development. The impacts to water
resources are not expected to be significant within the developed area.
paennalry
Si9nifiraa
Inpect less
Potenhelly Unless Than
Sipnd¢em Mrogebon Sipnificam No
Issues end SelWONn9lnlorrtetlan Sources I,ryect Irlcorporeted Irrpact Impact
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or protected air quality violation? () (x) () (x)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? () (x) () (x)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? () () () (x)
d) Create objectionable odors? O O O (x)
Comments:
a-b) Potential impacts to air quality are consistent with the Public Health and Safety Super-
Elementwithin the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. During construction, there is
the possibility of fugitive dust to be generated from grading the site.
Sources of emissions during this phase include exhaust emissions from construction
vehicles and egwpment and fugitive dust generated as a result of construction vehicles
and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces. NOa and PM~o levels may be
exceeded during this phase; however with implementation of the following mitigation
measures, impacts will be reduced to less-than-significant levels.
~22
Initial Study for • • of Rancho Cucamonga
TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 6
1) The site shall be treated with water or other soil stabilizing agent
(approved by SCAOMD and RWOCB) daily to reduce PM~o emissions, in
accordance with SCAOMD Rule 403.
2) Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route shall be swept according to a
schedule established by the City to reduce PM~o emissions associated
with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon
time of year of construction.
3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph
to minimize PM~o emissions from the site during such episodes.
4) Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAOMD and RWOCB) shall be
applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours
or more to reduce PM~o emissions.
5) The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used
on-site based on low emission factors and high-energy efficiency. The
construction contractor shall ensure the construction grading plans
include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and
maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
6) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel
powered equipment where feasible.
7) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans
include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in
use.
8) The construction contractor shall ensure that all bare ground surfaces will
be sprayed with water or other acceptable dust palliatives to minimize
wind erosion and fugitive dust emissions.
c-d) The proposed protect is the subdivision of 24 56 acres of vacant land mto 159 lots in
accordance with the City code. The end use of the proposed protect, Medwm
Residential, wdl not generate emissions that could cause climatic changes or
obtectionable odors.
Pa¢ntlally
slQnnkant
Fact Lean
Pdermally Unlem Than
.SIQIII(IC81a MLUpatlm Sipnlacaa No
Issues erM Suppwtlnp Inlomretlon Saun»s Inpe,n Inurorporetatl Irrpecl InPaot
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result m:
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)
~23
Initial Studv for
C~
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Potentlelly
SipnlfioeM
InpaCl LBSs
Potentlaly Unless Then
Sipnemanl Mitipetlan SlpnlpcaM No
Usues end SuppaNnp Inlormetlon Sources Irryn.Y Incorponaed Ilryecl Irtgeol
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? () ( ) () (x)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? () ( ) () (x)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? () ( ) () (x)
g) Rail or air traffic Impacts? O O O (x)
Comments•
a) The protect will increase the number of vehicle trips with the future development of
single family homes since the site is currently vacant However, the protect does not
propose development of the site with a density in excess of that provided for by the
Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. The protect design Includes certain street
improvements to ensure safe and efficient traffic circulation.
b-d) Access to the site is provided off of Arrow Route and Foothill Boulevard. Both
streets will allow full access without impeding the through traffic. Access for
emergency vehicles is adequate with two standard 35-foot street entrances.
e-f) The proposed development well not cause a hazard or barrier to pedestrians or
cyclists because adequate points of ingress/egress have been provided and there is
adequate parking along streets No bus turnout has been provided.
g) Located approximately 7 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport, the site Is offset north
of the flight path and will not be dangerous to users or aircraft.
Polentlelly
SlpnNlcanl
Irtpx~ Lw
PolerNally Unless Than
Srpnd¢aM Mitlpetlan SlpnHlcard No
Issues end SuppoNn0lnbnretlm Soureae Impetl Incorporeled Irtpacl ImpecY
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result ~n impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats (including, but not limited to• plants, fish,
Insects, animals, and birds)? O O O (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)
a2a
Initial Study for • ~ty of Rancho Cucamonga
TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 8
r~
L..J
Comments:
a, d-e) The protect proposes development within the Medium Residential Distract of the
Foothill Blvd. Specific Plan. The surrounding area is developed with residential
development to the east, south and west. There is no wetland habitat on or m the
wcmity of the site and because of the development m the area, no wildlife corridors
exist. The site was developed and under use as a labor camp and has not been
identified as retaining any previous natural communities. As a result, no mitigation
is required for impacts to the biological resources of this project.
b-c) The site contains many mature trees that are in conflict with the proposed
development and improvements. An arborist report was prepared forthe project site
to determine the significance of the trees and the feasibility of relocating them to
areas, which are not in conflict with the proposed protect. The Planning
Commission approved a Tree Removal Permit subject to the following
mitigations (see Approved Resolution 93-46):
1) Trees No. 1-16, 22-23, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43-45, 47-57, 59, 61-63, 66-69, 72, 74,
75, 78-84, 89, 91, 93-95, 97, 99, 102-139, 141-147, 149,150, 152-155, 157,
158,160,161,163-167,170,172-187,191-193,195-201, and 203-220 maybe
removed as required to improve the property per the final site, grading,
and landscaping plans and the final map. Replacement of all trees are
required, excepted for trees No. 22-33, 35, 37, 39, 41, and 43-45.
2) Trees No. 17-21, 34,36, 38, 40, 42, 46, 58, 60, 151, 162, 188-190, 194, 202,
and 221 shall be preserved in-place per the consulting arborist report.
3) Trees No. 64, 65, 70, 71, 73, 76, 77, 85-88, 90, 92, 96, 98,100,101,140,148,
156, 159, 168, 169, 171, and 222 shall be preserved in-place or relocated
per recommendations of the consulting arborist report.
Pmemlelly
sionm~em
Irrgael Leas
Poteneelly Unless TMn
Sipmlicant Aaapellan SipnRMam No
Issues antl Suppomnp Inlonreaon Soun~s Impact Inwrporatatl Impact Inpecl
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 m the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? () () () (x)
Comments:
a-b) The protect will be required to conform to applicable City standards for energy
conservation.
~Z~j
~ J
Initial S
TENTA
for
TRACT 15540
~ty of Rancho Cucamonga
c) The site is not designated by State Aggregate Resources Area according to the City
General Plan, Figure IV-2 AND Table IV-1; therefore, there is no impact.
PotenUelly
SlpNfceN
Irtpect Legs
PWenUelly Unless Then
SIpnlUCam nuooanm $ipnNeeN No
Issues and SuPPONnp IMpm0adl Soun~s Impact Incoryoretetl Impact Irrynq
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? () ( ) () (x)
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? () ( ) () (x)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? () ( ) () (x)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? () ( ) () (x)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees () ( ) () (x)
Comments:
a-e) There is no evidence of commercial or industnal uses. Although there is no evidence
of past vineyard cultivation, there is a potential that the site was used for agriculture
given the presence of the eucalyptus windrows. No evidence of discarded drums,
containers, or hazardous wastes were observed. There was no indication of
underground storage tanks or illegal dumping of refuse on-site. The site is not in an
identified high fire hazard area
Pmeneelly
SIpnlUCenl
I,ryacl Lase
Potentlelly Unless Then
SipnlllcaN MlUpetlan SlpniUCanl No
Issues arW Supportlne tNarmeUm Soulcas bract Incrotporated 4,pec1 Ir,pact
10. NOISE. Wdl the proposal result rn:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? () () (x) ( )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? () () (x) ( )
Comments•
a) The prolect involves the construction of 159 single family homes. Construction
activity is likely to result in an increase in noise levels from assoaated grading and
development activity. Construction hours will be limited as regwred by the
Development Code, to lesson any construction related disturbance in noise levels to
the surrounding properties. The resulting residential prolect is not likelyto produce a
significant increase in existing noise levels.
210
Initial Study for ~ ~ty of Rancho Cuc
TENTATIVE TRACT 15540
b) The General Plan indicates future noise levels exceeding 70 Ldn along Foothill
Boulevard and exceeding 65 Ldn along Arrow Route, which requires detailed
analysis of noise attenuation measures. Significant noise impact on the residents
will likely result, if sound attenuation devices (interior and exterior) are not
incorporated into the prolect design to screen noise impacts created by traffic on
Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route. An acoustical analysis was prepared by J. J.
Van Houton and Associates, Inc, on December 21, 1992, to determine what
mitigated measures would be necessary to reduce noise levels to a permissible
level To mitigate significant adverse traffic impacts from Foothill Boulevard and
Arrow Route, the noise study recommended that, in order to mitigate noise to °safe°
levels, a minimum 6-foot high wall be constructed along both Foothill Boulevard and
Arrow Route, along the top of the proposed streetscape berms and/or slopes. These
walls are already incorporated into the conceptual design of the subdivision. The
noise impact is not considered significant.
Prnemielly
slwm°em
Inpe~Y Lees
Polentielly Unlaee Then
99nHiwe WeOetlan SIpn111ceM No
Lawn entl Suppo,tlnp Inlometlon Sounxs. Inpely 4coNOreleE Inpecl InpecY
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
government services ~n any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? () () () (x)
b) Police protection? O O U (x)
c) Schools? () () (x) ( )
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? () () () (x)
e) Other governmental services? () () () (x)
Comments:
a-e) Fire Protection -The prolect would be served by a fire station (#172) located near
the corner of San Bernardino Road and Klusman Avenue, located approximately 1-
1/2 miles from the prolect site. Standard conditions of approval from the Uniform
Building and Fire Codes will be placed on the prolect so no impacts to fire services
will occur.
Police orotection -Police protection for the area is provided under a contract with
the County Sheriff's Department. Additional police protection is not required, as no
residential homes are proposed for development at this time.
Schools -When Resolution 93-46, approving Tentatwe Tract 15540, was approved,
a Standard Condition was placed on the project, which required the applicant to
consent to or participate in the establishment of aMello-Ross Community Facilities
District to finance construction and/or maintenance of necessary school faalities.
Parks -The proposed prolect will result in the subdivsion of 159 single family lots,
and will generate approximately 503 new people to the area. Therefore, the project
will incrementally impact local parks or recreational opportunities.
~Z~
Initial Study for • ~ty of Rancho Cucamonga
TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 11
Public Facilities -The proposed project will not significantly increase traffic on
adjacent streets and it is consistent with the City's Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
which designates the area as Medium Residential with expected future traffic after
development The project proponent will be required to construct necessary street
improvements and pay traffic impact fees as established by the City Council to offset
the incremental increase in traffic as a result of the project.
prnerNaly
Sipniflcard
~ Lees
PolermelH UNwa Then
SiPa(mad IMbOatlan Sipnifirard No
blues end Suppororq IMOm¢am Sauiw Irryetl Incorporated IrrpecY arpa<t
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or
su6stant~al alterations to the following utdit~es:
a) Power or natural gas? () () () (x)
b) Communication systems? () () () (x)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? O O O (x)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? () () () (x)
e) Storm water drainage? () () (x) ( )
f) Solid waste disposals () () () (x)
g) Local or regional water supplies? () () () (x)
Comments•
a~, fy) The project will use existing gas, electrical, water and communication systems. Solid
waste disposal will be provided by the current City contracted hauler who disposes
the refuse at a permitted landfill. The project will increase demand upon storm drain
systems due to the increased runoff from new hardscape proposed on the currently
vacant site.
e) The project will increase demand upon storm drain systems due to the increased
runoff from new hardscape proposed on the currently vacant site. As a condition of
tract approval, desalting facilities will be required for off-site drainage entering the
Arrow Route storm drain and revision of City plans for the connection of a pnvate
storm drain to the Arrow Route storm drain. The resulting impact on services as not
likely to be significant.
Potentlelty
avnHkem
4rOect Lees
Poterdielty Unless rnan
SIpnlBCem FaOpetlm Sipnificurt No
blues grid Supportlnp Inlormatlon Sourcm Irryecl Incorporated Irtpacl IrryBU1
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposah.
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare?
C32~
U
U
(x)
(x)
(x)
()
I~
r~
LJ
•
Initial Study for •
TENTATIVE TRACT 15540
~ty of Rancho
Comments•
a-b) The protect site is not within a scenic vista or scenic highway. The area is, however,
within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and is designated as a Special Boulevard
in the General Plan. The proposed protect will blend with current and proposed
surrounding development, and will be designed in accordance with the design
guidelines of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
c) The protect will create new light and glare with future development of single family
homes. However, the site has been identified as a residential site, so future light will
not significantly affect sensitive receptors such as other residential development in
the area.
Poteneelly
SIOnOiCMt
ImpIDCt Less
Pote~aly Unless Then
Sipmfcam Mnipetlon S~Ondsent No
Issues end SuppoNnp IMOrtreeon Sounstis Irryecl IncorporeteC IiryecY Inpxt
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources () () () (x)
b) Disturb archaeological resources () () () (x)
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? () (x) ( ) ( )
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? () () ( ) (x)
e) Reshict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact areas () () ( ) (x)
Comments:
a-e) The site is approximately 47.9 acres. The site is currently vacant and
underdeveloped with large eucalyptus trees on-site. The site is not known as an
area with the potential to have archaeological artifacts. The protect site does have
historical significance because it was used as a Labor Camp to house Italian
Prisoners of War during the later part of World War II (1944-1946). On May 11,
1993, the City Council approved Resolution 93-122, which designated the
Cucamonga Labor Camp site a local Historic Point of Interest. As part of the
condition of approval for the tract, the historical significance of the site will be
documented through the incorporation of plaques or similar historic monuments to
be located on the site. In addition, if any significant artifacts are found during grading
procedures, all grading activity on the site shall cease and a cultural resources
survey prepared by a certified archaeologist under the satisfaction of the City shall
be provided. The installation of the historical plaques will serve to mitigate the
loss of the remaining elements of the prisoners of War Camp.
~2- 1
Initial Study for • ~ty of Rancho Cucamonga
TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 13
Pmemlmly
Signiflcenl
Irryecl Lase
Prnendally Unless Then
Sipnihcant NMUpaaon Si9mflCent NO
Lssum and Supponinp IMOmaoon Sources Impacl Incoryoreted IrtPact Inpecl
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? () () () (x)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? () () () (x)
Comments:
a) The developer of the prolect will be required to pay park development fees as a
condition of approval The impact is not considered significant.
b) The proposed prolect will be constructed on vacant land, which is designated
Medium Residential Surrounding and adjacent land are also designated residential
and are either currently developed, being developed, or proposed for development.
Potremelly
Sipmflcam
Irrpect Leas
PWenpmly Unles9 Then
Sipnliltam MiLpepon Spnlflcant No
Issues end Supportlnp Inlonnetlon Sources Inipad Inurorporeted Inpect Impress
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Potential to degrade: Does the prolect have the
potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife speaes, 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 beef, definitive period of time. Long-
term impacts will endure well into the future )
O O O (x)
c) Cumulative: Does the prolect have impacts that
are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (°Cumulatively considerable°
means that the incremental effects of a prolect
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.) 2 O O O (x)
L~
n
Initial Study for • ~ty of Rancho Cucamonga
TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 14
Polenbelly
Siprnpcent
Inped Lean
Patenbally Unleaa Then
Sipmbcenl Mippepan SlpnKeeM Na
lawea end Supponinp IMOmebon Sou,ces Irtpacl Incorporetetl Ir,peq Ingecl
d) Substantial adverse: Does the protect have
environmental effects which well cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? O O O (x)
Comments
a) The site is not within an identified habitat area for any endangered species. Native
vegetation is not evident on the site. There are no existing trees or structures
remaining on the site.
b) The protect site is approximately 24 56 acres in size, and grading well entail
establishing proper drainage and residential building pads suitable forfuture single-
family development. Although the short-term construction activities may result in
dust and noise that may be noticeable to existing residents in the immediate area,
significant impacts are avoided through implementation of erosion control and dust
suppression measures identified in Section 5.
c) The proposed protect does not have impacts that are individually limited or
cumulatively considerable. The site is within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan,
which permits residential density in the range proposed by Tentative Tract 15540.
Cumulative effects of residential development in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
Area were identified in previous environmental documents. Appropnate analysis and
mitigation measures were developed prior to the implementation of the General and
Specific Plans No additional mitigation measures beyond those presented in the
specific plan and this Initial Study are required The Initial Study did not identify any
impacts that could not be mitigated through the City's Standard Conditions of
Approval.
d) The proposed development on 33 acres would not cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The site is located on a Medium
Density Residential site along the west side of the Cucamonga Creek Storm Drain
Channel, between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route.
Development of 159 single-family residences would not cause substantial adverse
effects on humans, either directly or indirectly. The Initial Study identified
construction-related emissions of criteria pollutants and seismic issues as having
potentially significant impacts. However, proposed mitigation measures will reduce
impacts to less than significant. Additionally, impacts resulting from air quality are
short-term and will cease once construction activities are completed.
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tienng, 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 protect were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
j~3\
Initial Study for • ~ty of Rancho Cucamonga
TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 Page 15
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
(Certrfied April 6, 1981)
(x) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989
(x) Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR
(SCH #87021615, certified September 16, 1987)
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I certify that I am the applicant for the protect 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: ?-ZS-~/
Print Name an itle: ~ ~l~.av~ ~/cL ~,eLJ ~OL,.~i
r1
~. J
'632
City of Rancho Cucamonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the
California Environmental QualrtyAct Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: Time Extension for Tentative Tract 15540
Public Review Penod Closes: August 8, 2001
Project Name:
Project Applicant: Van Daele Development Corp
Project Location (also see attached map): Located between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route, west of
the Cucamonga Creek Control Channel - APN 207-211-01, 18 through 21, 31, 32, and 34
Project Description: A request for a time extension of a previously approved tentaWe tract map for the
development of 159 single family lots on 24 56 acres of land in the Medium Residential Distnct (8-14 dwelling
unils per acre) of the Foothill Boulevard Distnct of the Development Code Related Files Development Review
99-27, Variance 99-06, and Tree Removal Permd 93-04
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an
Initial Study to determine H the project may have a sign'dicant effect on the environment and is
proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
^ The In~hal Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the protect may have a sigmficant
effect on the environment
® The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but
(1) Revisions m the protect plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this
proposed Negative Declaration was released for public reviewwould avoid the effects or m~Ggate
the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the protect as revised may have a
significant effect on the environment
H adopted, the Negatwe Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required.
Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The projectfile and all related
documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic
Center Dnve (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847.
NOTICE
The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period.
Auoust8 2001
Date of Determination
Adopted By
(~ 33
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR
THE TIME EXTENSION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 15540, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 159 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ON
24 56 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
(8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
DISTRICT OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, LOCATED BETWEEN
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ARROW ROUTE, WEST OF THE
CUCAMONGA CREEK CONTROL CHANNEL - APN: 207-211-01, 18
THROUGH 21, 31, 32 AND 34.
A Rentals.
1 Van Daele Development Corporation filed an application on May 8, 2001, for the
extension of the approval of Tentative Tract Map 15540, as described in the title of this Resolution
Hereinafter m this Resolution, the subject tentative tract map time extension request is referred to as
"the application °
2 On June 23, 1993, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 93-46, thereby
approving Tentatve Tract Map 15540, subtect to specific conditions and time limits.
3 On August 11, 1999, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 99-81, thereby
approving aone-year time extension for Tentative Tract Map 15540 and adopting a Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
4 On June 28, 2000, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 00-67, thereby
approving aone-year time extension for Tentative Tract Map 15540 and adopting a Mitigation
Monitoring Program
5 On August 8, 2001, 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.
6. All legal prerequisites pnor 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 m the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission dunng the above-
referenced public hearing on August 8, 2001, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby speafically finds as follows:
a The previously approved tentative tract map is m substantial compliance with the
City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies, and
83y
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO
TT15540 -VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORP
August 8, 2001
Page 2
b. The extension of the tentative tract map approval will not cause significant
inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies;
and
c The extension of the tentative tract map approval is not likely to cause public health
and safety problems; and
d The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local ordinance;
and
e. The extension of the tentative tract map is m compliance with the Mitigated
Negative Declaration adopted by the Planning Commission on August 11, 1999, and
f. The Mitigation Monitoring Program and Checklist, adopted by the Planning
Commission on June 28, 2000, brought the protect entitlement into conformance with adopted
CEQA Gwdelmes
g. Based upon a third parry review of the two geology reports, an additional mitigation
measure is being added, therefore, a new Mitigated Negative Declaration is being adopted.
U
3 Based upon the facts and information contained m the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration, together with all wntten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for
the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the protect
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 m 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 tudgment of the Planning Commission, and, further, this
Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained m 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 protect is approved, all significant effects have been
reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the protect, 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 protect, there is no evidence that the
proposed protect 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 dunng the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the
presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753 5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations.
b35
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO
TT15540 -VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORP
August 8, 2001
Page 3
4 Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby modifies the Conditions of Approval contained in Resolution 93-46, and
incorporated herein by this reference, to add the following conditions.
Tentative Tract Applicant Expiration
Tentative Tract 15540 Van Daele Development Corp June 23, 2002
Planning Division
1) The applicant shall agree to defend, at his sole expense, any action
brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of
the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relingwsh 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, maybe required by a court to pay as a
result of such action The City may, at its sole discretion, participate, at
its own expense, in the defense of any such action but such
participation shall not relieve the applicant of his obligations under this
condition.
• Engmeenng Diwsion
1) All conditions from Planning Commission Resolution 93-46, approving
Tentative Tract 15540 shall apply
Environmental Mitigation
Biological Resources
1) Tree Nos. 1-16, 22-23, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43-45, 47-57, 59, 61-63, 66-69,
72, 74, 75, 78-84, 89, 91, 93-95, 97, 99, 102-139, 141-147, 149, 150,
152-155,157, 158, 160, 161, 163-167, 170, 172-187, 191-193, 195-
201,and 203-220 may be removed as regwred to improve the properly
per the final Site, Grading, and Landscaping Plans and the final map
Replacement of all trees are regwred, except for Tree Nos 22-33, 35,
37, 39, 41, and 43-45.
2) Tree Nos. 17-21, 34,36, 38, 40, 42, 46, 58, 60, 151, 162, 188-190, 194,
202, and 221 shall be preserved in-place per the consulting arbonst
report.
3) Tree Nos 64, 65, 70, 71, 73, 76, 77, 85-88, 90, 92, 96, 98, 100, 101,
140,148, 156, 159, 168, 169, 171, and 222 shall bepreserved in-place
or relocated per recommendations of the consulting arbonst report.
Cultural Resources
1) The installation of historical plaques will serve to mitigate the loss of
the remaining elements of the prisoners of War Camp.
~.J..JIu
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO
TT15540 -VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORP.
August 8, 2001 •
Page 4
Geologic Problems
1) The developer shall survey the site to establish the location of "Lath
Fi" as recommended on page 4 of the Geology Investigation Report
for Project No 2186 1, November 12, 1985, by Gary S Rasmussen &
Associates in order to establish the boundary of the Restricted Use
Zone in which human occupancy structures are not to be located.
Once the boundary of the Restricted Use Zone is established, the
location of the houses on Lots 1 and 159 shall be adtusted, if
necessary, so as not be within this zone.
Air Quality
1) The site shall be treated with water or other sod-stabilizing agent
(approved by SCAOMD and RWOCB) daily to reduce PM,o emissions,
in accordance with SCAOMD Rule 403.
2) Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route shall be swept according to a
schedule established by the City to reduce PM,o emissions associated
with vehicle tracking of sod off-site Timing may vary depending upon
time of year of construction
3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed
25 mph to mirnmize PM10 emissions from the site during such
episodes
4) Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAOMD and RWOCB) shall be
applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96
hours or more to reduce PM10 emissions
5) The construction contractor shall select the construction egwpment
used on-site based onlow-emission factors and high-energy efficiency.
The construction contractor shall ensure the construction-grading plans
include a statement that all construction egwpment will be tuned and
maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
6) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternatroe
fuel-powered egwpment where feasible
7) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading
plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when
not in use.
8) The construction contractor shall ensure that all bare ground surfaces
will be sprayed with water or other acceptable dust palliatives to
minimize wind erosion and fugitroe dust emissions •
5 The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
6'J~
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO
TT15540 -VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORP
. August 8, 2001
Page 5
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2001.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY.
ATTEST;
Larry T McNiel, Chairman
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 8th day of August, 2001, by the following vote-to-wit•
AYES• COMMISSIONERS:
NOES' COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT COMMISSIONERS'
S3 3~b
L _J
City of Rancho Cucamonga
MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM
Project File No.: time Extension for Tentative Tract 15540
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 protect 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 protect.
2 A procedure of compliance and venfication has been outlined for each action necessary. This
procedure designates who wtll take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom
and when compliance wdl be reported
3. The MMP has been designed to prowde 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 protect The protect
planner, assigned by the City Planner, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP The protect
planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly
and proper action is taken on each mitigation Each City department shall ensure compliance of the
conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department
Procedures -The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
1 A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in
performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant
A MMP Reporting Form wdl 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 protect file with the department having the original authority for processing the
protect Reports will be avatlable from the City upon request at the following address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga -Lead Agency
PlanningDivision
10500 Civic Center Dnve
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
a./~ 1
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Page 2
3 Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staff's is needed, as
determined by the protect planner or responsible City department, to monitor specific mitigation
activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the protect planner.
4. The protect 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 protect 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 protect planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions
An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the protect planner or responsible City department
and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel.
7 The protect 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 protect 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 protect planner or responsible City department has the authority to
hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented
3 Any conditions (mitigation) that require morntonng after protect completion shall be the
responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department The
Department shall require the applicant to post any necessaryfunds (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
In those instances requiring long-term protect monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City
with a plan for momtonng the mitigation activities at the protect site and reporting the monitoring
results to the City Said plan shall identify the reporter as an indiwdual qualified to know whether
the particular mitigation measure has been implemented The momtoring/reporting plan shall
conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior
to the issuance of building permits
S~yo
s
u
MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III)
Project File No.: Time Extension for Tentative Tract 15540 Applicant: Van Daele Develoament Corporation
Initial Study Prepared by: Alan Warren Date: Julv 16. 2001
P
.. -.
Biological Resources; ~`,`~''~ ~ ~'~* ~.
- ,~~ „ ~., ti.~r.. ~ ,`~ F'„'. ~,yz.~n n~
»,~:.i` ~;'`
,~ ', ', ' ~;. -
r+~a
'
"
~
'
~
~ i3•
'
.~ +
~.
a,
t` •~,„„ ..
m~l
~
,,_, ,
•
;,:..;-.z
+;.
~ ax. - #
7^1°, 's .. .,,~.,
a x..... aw a
~"~~, _
~~w}
?
r a - ~ m ,,.,
"zit`~-'Ak #;T.
Trees No. 1-16, 22-23, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43-45, 47- CP D As Necessary A 3
57, 59, 61-63, 66-69, 72, 74, 75, 78-84, 89, 91,
93-95, 97, 99, 102-139, 141-147, 149,150, 152-
155,157, 158, 160, 161, 163-167, 170, 172-187,
191-193, 195-201, and 203-220 may be removed
as requred to improve the property per the final
site, grading, and landscaping plans and the final
map. Replacement of all trees are required,
except for trees No. 22-33, 35, 37, 39, 41, and
43-45
Trees No 17-21, 34,36, 38, 40, 42, 46, 58, 60, CP D As Necessary 3
151, 162, 188-190, 194, 202, and 221 shall be q
preserved m-place per the consulting arbonst
report
Trees No 64, 65, 70, 71, 73, 76, 77, 85-88, 90, CP D As Necessary 3
92, 96, 98, 100, 101, 140,148, 156, 159, 168, q
169, 171, and 222 shall be preserved in-place or
relocated per recommendations of the consulting
arbonst report
CalturalResources, _ ~:;~~- -~~ _
rc ,4., .,~^^ ~' ti' ~, ~£=,f
' n t `x&~ -~~~,r
,~~,_ ,~ .~ ~,,~.~.~ ,~~.
,psi r ~~;r; . v,
t V,~'a.' ,~, ~a~~
'~hzi•,."z, ,
- ~
The installation of histoncal plaques will CP D As Necessary D 3
serve to mitigate the loss of the remaining
elements of the risoners of War Cam .
~G~ eo oglc Pro lems ~ ,~zs ~~ 9• ~hF., - v '~ ~~. _
~
v
The developer shall survey the site to establish BO/CP B/C As Necessary A/C/D 2/3/4
the location of "Lath Fi" as recommended on
page 4 of the geology investigation report for
Protect No 2186 1, November 12,1985 by Gary
Iv
.. ,
S Rasmussen & Associates m order to establish
the boundary of the Restricted Use Zone in which
human occupancy structures are not to be
located. Once the boundary of the Restricted
Use Zone is established, the location of the
houses on Lots 1 and 159 shall be adiusted, if
necessary, so as not be within this zone
4Air~C2iiality<~~tkk,~~~x~~~`~='~ ;=~-~~°;~#a~ k.,~*r,^
- ~ .. -rc= a,-~x:. >A' ~ r,:~;. ~ . °,i~°'A. ar~~ n `s ~r",uc~T.')`
~i~, ~
. .
-•
vs
~
z
,.
~.
~~.,
~~i~5+x
..
.
~~~,^t~
_
~*`'~*'"'p.'~4: ~'~ . I~.
The site shall be treated wdh water or other sod BO/CE C As necessary A/C 2/4
stabilizing agent (approved by SCAOMD and
RWOCB) daily to reduce PMio emissions, m
accordance with SCAOMD Rule 403
Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route shall be BO/CE C As necessary A/C 2/4
swept according to a schedule established by the
City to reduce PM,o emissions associated with
vehicle tracking of sod off-site Timing may vary
depending upon time of year of construction
Grading operations shall be suspended when BO/CE C As necessary A/C 2/4
wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM,o
emissions from the site during such episodes
Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAOMD BO/CE C As necessary A/C 2/4
and RWOCB) shall be applied to all inactive
construction areas that remain inactive for 96
hours or more to reduce PM,o emissions
The construction contractor shall select the BO/CE C As necessary A/C 2/4
construction equipment used on-site based on
low emission factors and high-energy efficiency
The construction contractor shall ensure the
construction grading plans include a statement
that all construction egwpment will be tuned and
maintained in accordance with the
manufacturer's specifications.
The construction contractor shall utilize electric or BO/CE C As necessary A/C 2/4
clean alternative fuel powered egwpment where
feasible
LJ
L J
s s ~r
..
.. ,.
The construction contractor shall ensure that BO/CE C As necessary A/C 2/4
construction-grading plans Include a statement
that work crews will shut off equipment when not
In use
The Construction contractor shall ensure BO/CE C As necessary A/C 2/a
that all bare ground surtaces will be sprayed
with water or other acceptable dust
palliatives to minimize wend erosion and
fugitive dust emissions.
Key to Checklist Abbreviations
>,~~~
Resgonslble~Bereon` ``~~ _ r~~s~
w >,_ <`i,"%~ _ ~
aM nitoriri re uen ~
~„~.~ -~, 9~ q cY1~r _
~ + °~ ~-~
Mgthod3tVerNin,'atlo(~„h,,,~"r,~a;.~~;~";a~%~
•Sanotions
CDD -Community Development Dueclor A -With Each New Development A - On•site Inspection 1 -Withhold Recordation of Final Map
CP -City Planner or designee B - Prior To Construction B -Other Agency Permit /Approval 2 -Withhold Grading or Bwlding Permit
CE -City Engineer or designee C -Throughout Construction C -Plan Check 3 -Withhold Certificate of Occupancy
BO • Bwlding Official or designee D - On Completion D -Separate Submittal (Reports /Studies /Plans) 4 -Stop Work Order
PO -Police Captain or designee E -Operating 5 -Retain Deposit or Bonds
FC - Fre Chlet or designee 6 -Revoke CUP
T H E C I T Y O F
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Staff Report
DATE. August 8, 2001
TO Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM Brad Buller, City Planner
BY Salvador M Salazar, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT STREET NAME CHANGE 01-01 - U C P , INC -The proposed renaming of Summit
Avenue to Banyan Street from the northerly prolongation of Day Creek Boulevard to
Wilson Avenue
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The development of the Rancho Etiwanda protect and related
Improvements well result in the extension of Banyan Street from its current terminus at Rochester
Avenue to Day Creek Boulevard to the east Banyan Street well then connect with Summit Avenue
at Blue Grass to Day Creek Boulevard to the west (Exhibit "A"). The extension of Banyan Street to
the east and Summit Avenue to the west will create a single continuous street To leave a different
name on the east and west side of Day Creek Boulevard would be a street name policy violation
Therefore, based on the existing configuration, the length of the street, and the number of improved
residential lots along Summit Avenue and Banyan Street, it was determined that changing the name
of Summit Avenue to Banyan Street would create the least amount of impact to Rancho Cucamonga
residents Consistent with the goals of the City's Street Naming Ordinance, the proposed name
change is necessary to eliminate the potential for confusion caused by the associated extension of
both streets The Police and Fire Departments support the proposed name change, as it would
eliminate confusion for emergency vehicles when responding to an emergency call
The naming of the proposed street follows the guidelines established by the Street Naming
Ordinance The following requirements were observed in establishing potential names:
Streets which are continuous shall be extended in accordance with the present street name
whenever possible and feasible.
Because there are a fewer residences located along Summit Avenue than Banyon Street, there well
be fewer residents affected by the name change Consistent with the notification requirements of
the Street Naming Ordinance, these property owners were notified of the impending name change
and given the opportunity to comment on the proposal
• ITEM C
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SNC 01-01 - U C P , INC
August 8, 2001
Page 2
EFFECTIVE DATE The Planning Commission rs required to establish the date upon which the
street name change wdl become effective The date must be at least 60 days after their action
approving a street name change The attached Resolution of Approval suggests that the name
change become effective on November 1, 2001
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Section 12 12 060 of the Muniapal Code determines thatthe
changing of street names has no possibility of having a significant effect on the environment and
therefore, such an action is not subject to the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA), pursuant
to Section 15061(b)(3)
CORRESPONDENCE This item was advertised as a public heanng in the Inland Vallev Daily
Bulletin newspaper Notices were mailed to all property owners along Summit Avenue affected by
the name change One resident contacted the Planning Department to express concern and
opposition to the proposed street name change
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Street Name
Change 01-01 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB•SS mlg
Attachments Exhibit "A" -Location Map
Resolution of Approval
•
•
ca
~ •
_ ~-•~
~.._ I
j I
,
i --
-- - - _~ , i
i.
--- - _
-- - - - i i '
i
_
- ~ ~,
_ _
_
~
f-
~ i
- ~ -r
~
- -
' - - - - '
~; ~- ;
_
-
°~ -- _" `~ ~ - _ ~ - IG LAN
' -
~ ~
~ ~~ ~ '~ lr ~
-_
~
l - -~~ _ _ -
~~ ~
i •~ ~I.
~~ ~
~ ' ~ ~ ~~F_i ~ -'-~_
<< i,-
0- _
~.
~
-Lti-
_i' i
--
' ~;--- i - _ iii _ i - '_ i
.. - ;_ _
Ur ~ _ - CI i
~I'_ ~ i
~- _ ' ~-
Q
~~~ SUMMIT (Proposed Banyan)New banyan shp
NBANYANBanyan shp
8000 0 8000 16000 24000 Feet
RESOLUTION NO
• A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING STREET NAME
CHANGE 01-01 TO RENAME SUMMIT AVENUE FROM THE EAST SIDE
OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF DAY
CREEK BOULEVARD TO W ILSON AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF
A Recitals
1 U C P , INC filed an application for Street Name Change 01-01 The development of the
Rancho Etiwanda protect and related improvements will result in the extension of Banyan Street to
Day Creek Boulevard and Summit Avenue to Day Creek Boulevard The extension of Banyan
Street to the east and Summit Avenue to the west will create a single continuous street with a
different name on the east and west side of Day Creek Boulevard, making it necessary to effect a
Street Name Change for Summit Avenue east of Day Creek Boulevard to Banyan Street
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subtect Street Name Change is referred to as "the application "
2 On the 8th day of August 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public heanng for the above-mentioned street rename
proposal, Street Name Change 01-01, pursuant to the City Muninpal Code, Chapter 12 12.
3 The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division prepared a report, which addressed the
• tustification for the change, recommended a street naming plan and provided a replacement name
4. All legal preregwsites pnor 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 spenfically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Rentals,
Part "A," of this Resolution are true and correct
2 Based upon the substantial evidenn: presented to this Commission dunng the above-
referenced meeting on August 8, 2001, including written and oral staff reports, together with public
testimony, this Commission hereby spenfically finds as follows
a The City's Street Naming Ordinann: establishes that streets which are continuous
are to be extended in accordance with the present street name whenever possible and feasible
Banyan Street and Summit Avenue are continuous streets and would connect at Day Creek
Boulevard Therefore, to eliminate potential confusion when responding to emergency calls by the
Polin=. and Fire Departments renaming Summit Avenue to Banyan Street is necessary
3 Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dunng the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the spenfic findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows.
• a That the proposed change is not in conflict with the goals, polines, and standards
of the General Plan
Cy
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO
SNC-01-01-UCP,INC,
August 8, 2001 •
Page 2
b That the proposed change is consistentwith the adopted master plan of streets and
highways or adopted arculation element
c That the proposed change will not cause significant adverse impacts on the
environment
d. That the proposed change is deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety,
comfort, convenience, and general welfare
4 This Commission hereby finds and determines that the protect identified above in this
Resolution is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as
amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State
CEQA Gwdelines
5 Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves Street Name Change 01-01
6 The street name change shall become official on November 1, 2001. The City Planner
shall send wntten notices of the change to the Post Office, County Clerk, Fire Distnct, Shenffs
Department, and applicable utility companies at least 60 days pnor to the effective date of the
change •
7 The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY
Larry T McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify thatthe 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 August 2001, by the following vote-to-wit
AYES: COMMISSIONERS
NOES COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS• •
CS
Staff Report
DATE August 8, 2001
TO Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM Brad Buller, City Planner
BY Dan Coleman, Pnncipal Planner
SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A
request to initiate an amendment to residential development standards for horse
keeping
. BACKGROUND
The Alta Loma Riding Club {ALRC) has testified on recent subdiwsions to express then concern that
the proposed lots and house plotting may not be conducive to horse keeping As requested by the
Plamm~g Commission, staff has met with the ALRC to discuss their contains The ALRC conducted
a survey of lots throughout the EquestnaNRural Area that they believe works well for keeping
horses It was concluded that the two most important factors affecting the ability of a property owner
to keep horses are the rear yard setback and the lot depth This is particularly evident in hillside
areas where the rear yard typically includes a slope to take up grade between lots
ANALYSIS
The City's General Plan designates the area generally north of Banyan Avenue as an
EquestnaNRural area for the expressed purpose of "keeping and protection of animals on pnvate
property, including egwne, bovine, cleft-hoofed animals, and poultry " To implement this policy, the
Development Code established an Equestnan/Rural Overlay Distnct and created regulations for
keeping animals There are two important regwrements for horse keeping 1) A minimum 20,000
square foot lot area, and 2) Horses shall "be kept a minimum distance of 70 feet from any adtacent
dwelling, school, hospital, or church located on an adorning site The location of corrals, fenced
enclosures, barns, stables, or other enclosures used to confine horses shall conform to this
regwrement
Most of the EquestnaNRural Area is zoned Very Low Residential, which has a 150-foot minimum lot
depth and a 30-foot minimum setback from rear property line In recent years, the trend has been
. bigger homes, oftentimes v~nthout increasing lot size, hence, forcing horses to be kept in a 30-foot
rear yard From a practical standpoint, the 70-foot separation requirement can result in the only
ITEM D
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT -HORSE KEEPING
August 8, 2001
Page 2
allowable corral/stable location adtoming the house. The ALRC proposes to increase the minimum
lot depth to 200 feet and increase the rear yard setback to 60 feet. The increase in lot depth is
necessary to increase the rear yard setback
RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission initiate an amendment
through minute action.
Respectfully submitted,
Bra Buller
City Planner
BB:DC/tc
Attachment. Exhibit °A° - Letter from Alta Loma Riding Club dated July 17, 2001
r1
U
pa
CITY OF RANCHO CUCHMuivGA
~~
JUL 17 2001'
ALTA LOMA RIDING CLUB
RECEIVED -PLANNING
P.O. Box 116
Alta Loma, CA 91701
CJ
July 17, 2001
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ATTN: Brad Buller, Planning Department
10500 Crvic Center Dr
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Dear Mr. Buller,
I am venting you on behalf of the members of the Alta Loma Riding Club. We want to
make known our recommendations to change some of the existing rules regarding the
development of property within the City of Rancho Cucamonga As you aze probably
aware, our concerns were raised as a result of several recent developments in the
equestrian zoned area of our city. It became apparent to us that the plans proposed by
builders today have changed The trend is to bwld larger homes than were traditionally
built on half-acre lots, m the past. The bmlders have found ways to meet the current
rules and requurements, vnthout leaving enough space m the rear yards wtth slopes to
comfortably and reasonably house horses
As suggested by the Planning Commission, members of our Club met with
representatives of your office to review the current rules and requirements We visited
existing developed horse properties, with varying degrees of slope, that we felt were well
planned and functional We then compazed the dimensions of the lots, the homes,
equestrian facilities and other features of those properties with recently planned and/or
developed properties.
We have identified and request changes on two existing rules/regmrements The first, is
the current mininrum lot depth of 150 ft We found that minimum depth to be too small,
particulazly when the property has slopes Our recommendation is to increase the
minimum depth required to 200 ft This will give homeowners more options when
developing properties with slopes, and allow for better functional equestnan use. The
second change we request is to increase the existing rear yard setback, of 30 ft. We
believe that a setback of 60 feet will better meet the needs of homeowners in the
inraVequestrian overlay area
Ex1.;b~~ ~~A~~ ~3
We wish to thank Dan Coleman and Larry Henderson, of the planning department, for •
their rime and work m reviewing these matters. Theo knowledge and assistance was
instrumental m idenrifymg the above recommendarions Most importantly, we want to
thank the City for it's responsiveness to the concerns of its c~rizens and its commitment
to the vision of development as stated in out general plan
Sincerely,
~anaf D
Carol Douglass,
Alta Loma Riding Club, City Liaison
P. O. Box 116
Alta Loma, CA 91701
ce Dan Coleman
Larry Henderson
Vicky Vaughan
•
~~